NVFBBLOG.ORG

An Ah-Ha Moment?

2011-09-15T18:56:33Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

I don’t recall the first time I heard a public speaker share a fundamental truth, that made a whole bunch of stuff make better sense…but I think the results of this news blurb did something very much like that…

"A new study indicates that a large segment of consumers do not believe U.S. farmers should be responsible for addressing global hunger. In its latest analysis of consumer trust in the food system, the Center for Food Integrity found that 40 percent of those surveyed strongly disagreed with the statement, “The United States has a responsibility to provide food for the rest of the world.”

The study also shows that more than half the survey participants strongly agreed with the statement, “It is more important for the U.S. to teach developing nations how to feed themselves than to export food to them.” "

This insight (if completely accurate and relevant) is a game changer that will require a much different evaluation of what American agriculture is and how farmers and ranchers plan/determine their future approaches for doing business.

As someone who grew up on a farm and has been connected to production agriculture all my life, I understand how deeply the cultural mindset of farmers and ranchers run. “Producing food and fiber for a hungry and needy World” are not just words, intended as fluff, to make farming and ranching seem like a higher calling…those are fundamental beliefs, held deeply by individuals who are as “real” as any group of people walking the planet.

Determining their role is a responsibility that farmers and ranchers need to figure out for themselves, but doing so with the knowledge that the Center for Food Integrity survey offers should play a big part in approaches made to build the agriculture of the future. It also should be a consideration that warrants double-checking and further research.

Interesting Concept Of Not Doing Assigned Responsibilities

2011-08-25T13:30:33Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

According to the position attributed to him in news accounts from the Elko Free Press, Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey has indicated that if his agency is sued in an attempt to require the agency to manage Wild Horses at levels that meet the land’s carrying capacity for sustained use – the agency will simply increase the numbers of horses that they say fit on the land and get rid of other users to accomplish their purpose. This threat is intended to stave off efforts to require the BLM from doing their job, as directed by their land management mission and even the law dealing with Wild Horse management.

Through the use of strategies from the playbook of Cloward-Piven those who do not want to see Wild Horses managed have successfully maneuvered the land management agency into a position where they simply can’t manage the excessive horses on the land. Currently more Wild Horses reside in holding facilities than on the federally-managed lands and the care and feeding of these horses suck up financial resources to the extent that appropriate controls of the horses on the federal lands can’t be accomplished. Whenever incremental gathers are proposed and started, geared to bringing at least one small area of responsibility to appropriate management levels, so-called “horse advocates” sue and challenge the agency’s intention, delaying further the work that needs to be done.

The “solution” the agency is hoping to get away with using is not to do anything and seek input from the National Academy of Science, who are exploring something about the “science” which the BLM says they use in not managing the Wild Horses they are supposed to be managing. Perhaps it will also include an evaluation of the mathematics used to count how many animals are on the rangelands not being managed. Reports indicate that the other part of the new management process will be increased fertility-control methods to hopefully reduce the nearly rabbit-like capability of Wild Horse populations to reproduce.

Meanwhile, other land users (who once were included in the mix for the “multiple use” concept that BLM is supposedly responsible for accomplishing under the agency’s mission and legislative mandate) are warned to not take legal actions to require the agency to do their jobs, because they’ll solve their inability to manage at appropriate levels by increasing the numbers of allowable Wild Horses they aren’t going to manage at appropriate levels. This administration has also decided to solve the illegal immigrant problem the same way – by not following the laws when it gets in the way of meeting the requirements of following the law.

In the case of use of the federally-managed lands, those who use the lands for livestock grazing are held accountable by BLM when they fail to meet the obligations of standards for rangeland health. These same standards obviously don’t apply to the agency when it comes to them doing their jobs and managing the use (Wild Horses) that they have direct responsibility for. It’s going to be challenging to listen to the land management agency’s sermons about how much they care for the land, when their actions demonstrate the reality of where they stand.

Will Rural Initiative Result In Additions To “The List”?

2011-08-16T17:13:08Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

We recently wrote a piece on the White House Rural Council, seeking to put in context thoughts that instead of being a “one-world order conspiracy” it was more than likely an election platform that President Obama would attempt to use to boost his standing with rural America. That perspective seems to be gaining traction, given the Council’s first public documentation, primarily geared to suggest that the Obama Administration, using federal funds has and will continue to provide the necessary dollars for the economic prosperity that will certainly sweep across the countryside in unbelievable waves.

We’re told in this news blurb that the President is putting in motion his administration’s latest game-plan of rural economic enhancement (and continuing his campaign to convince voters that he should be re-elected…since he’s doing things so well) at the White House Rural Economic Forum today in Peosta, Iowa. As part of his announcement of the new jobs initiatives recommended by the White House Rural Council for growing the economy and creating jobs in rural America the President’s news release attributes the President as saying…

“These are tough times for a lot of Americans—including those who live in our rural communities. That’s why my administration has put a special focus on helping rural families find jobs, grow their businesses and regain a sense of economic security.”

The council’s recommendations, which leverage existing programs and funding, include committing $350 million in Small Business Administration funding to rural small businesses over the next five years, launching a series of conferences to connect private equity and venture capital investors with rural startups; creating capital marketing teams to pitch federal funding opportunities to private investors interested in making rural investments; making job search information available at 2,800 local USDA offices nationwide; making Health and Human Services loans available to help more than 1,300 Critical Access Hospitals recruit additional staff; and helping rural hospitals purchase software and hardware to implement health information technology.

In the pursuit of redistributing resources from the private sector (acquired through taxes) and then spent on these projects and programs, it will be interesting to see if we will, at some day in the future, see examples of grandiose rural prosperity government projects find their way to this list of government spending boondoggles.

Although it’s not the stuff that politicians can take credit for, one has to wonder what could happen if government didn’t first have to over-tax the private sector that produces our economy in order to finance projects and activities that, while politically-correct, don’t have the ability to be economically feasible without the government funding that politicians are wanting to get credit for having financed. Supposedly, we’re to bow and be appreciative of all the bounty that government spending will accomplish to make our lives better. In the long-run we’d be better if we just got to keep more of what we earned and not have to send it off to government so they can give it back to us for things that would be better initiated from the ground up (instead of the top down).

Thank You Very Much For Reasonable Decision

2011-08-10T20:44:49Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

As someone who would have offered some very visceral observations on the state of things, should the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration made a decision to impose commercial license requirements for farm equipment, I want to just as emphatically applaud the decision (made very quickly) to not go forward with the imposition of such controls. Through their August 10 news release, the agency announced that they weren’t going to bring farm equipment under their regulatory control.

By way of a more detailed explanation of the decision, William Bronrett, Deputy Administrator, clarified the agency’s point of view, as well as clearly articulating that they got the message from the input which was provided.

Earlier this week I had written of the concerns, following the August 1st, close of public input comments and shared the input that had been provided by both the American Farm Bureau Federation and Nevada Farm Bureau Federation. A day before the release of the announcement from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, I had been interviewed by the Nevada News Bureau, who restructured their news story to include the newly announced decision.

All in all, the decision to not regulate in this case is extremely welcomed – as is the prompt response made by the agency in coming to the conclusion they did. It’s worthy to note that the strong turn-out of input and consistency of opposition was also positive.

Thank you to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for the decision you’ve arrived at making.

Regulations In Search Of A Problem

2011-08-09T00:34:50Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

One of the marks of the Obama administration is the intention to bring about greater command and control oversight, inventing their authority to exercise the power they wish to initiate. Having not always accomplished the objectives that they’ve desired in legislative ways and actually having been pushed back in the court system (by such notable authorities as the U.S. Supreme Court), government agencies are simply pressing forward through their own designs and systems. A current theme appears to be the construction of “guidance documents” which are leveraged to impose regulatory controls.

We’ve seen this end-run tactic in play with the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corp of Engineers in their quest to undo the Supreme Court ruling on whether they can bring every drop of water under their controlling boots.

There has even been a spin-off of this “guidance” strategy launched by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, who also have been dreaming about ways in which to take federal control over farm equipment moving up and down roads. In their one-size fits all mindset and under the guise of “better safety” (who can argue against wanting Big Brother’s “protection”), the agency sought input on gaining oversight on farm equipment.

Review of their request for input demonstrates the lengths federal agencies will go to in order to stretch and apply imagination to find ways of making farm equipment that nearly always travel on intra-state roads fit their inter-state authority. Farm tractors should be treated the same way as over-the-road semi-trucks…Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDL) ought to be required for everyone climbing aboard an old John Deere…and if you are involved with a rental agreement which is based on share-cropping, you better be considered in the mix as well.

This comment letter, submitted by the American Farm Bureau Federation, does an outstanding job of giving the would-be regulators a clear understanding on how they are not relating to what happens in the real world and where their invention of having authority falls short.

Not being quite as obliged to worry about whether their feathers got ruffled over a more straight-forward approach, Nevada Farm Bureau’s comments took a few less pages.

The issue even drew attention from a significant voice in agricultural policy matters, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who co-wrote with 22 other U.S. Senators a letter of concern on what the agency was planning to do…

“The FMCSA proposed rule changes would provide no proven benefit, and would only serve to excessively and unnecessarily overburden our agriculture producers who are already overstrained by government regulations,” said Senator Roberts. “Farming can be dangerous, and we want to make sure these proposed rules will keep our producers safe while they’re doing their jobs.”

We’re now down to the waiting to see how the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration moves forward, wondering if the comments will have any influence – or if they simply plan to advance with their pursuit of heavy-handed government edicts.

Moving Forward On Trade Agreements Side Tracked By Debt Ceiling Falderal

2011-07-29T15:47:32Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

While the debt ceiling limit drama plays itself out and our elected representatives find a way to authorize our country to go deeper into debt, one area of prospective good economic progress has been put on hold. We recently received this update from those working in Washington, D.C. to encourage passage of three pending trade agreements, requiring attention by lawmakers to go forward…

”The three pending trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama will not be introduced until Congress returns from the August District Work Period. Action on the trade agreements has been complicated by the issue of whether to include Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as part of the package and the ongoing negotiations over the debt ceiling and deficit reduction. The Administration has stated they will send the implementing bills and TAA to Congress in September. In addition, twelve key Senate Republicans have sent a letter to the Administration saying they would support TAA as a stand-alone bill on the Senate floor. This announcement is critical to keeping the trade agreements moving forward, given that the main opposition to the process of TAA and the implementing bills is Senate Republicans.”

The American Farm Bureau Federation and others interested in the long-term strength of our country’s agriculture have been pushing hard to gain favorable actions by Congress to move forward with adoption and implementation of the trade agreements that are hung up with the problems outlined above. As we can see from this background information, there are very solid reasons to get the deals cinched with Korea, Columbia and Panama.

The track record of past trade agreements, as detailed in this piece by Daniel Griswold, should further reinforce the importance of Congressional action to get these arrangements finalized.

Our only real path out of the malaise of our current doldrums is growing private sector jobs through actual economic ventures like the business opportunities offered in these trade agreements. Government can’t spend us out of the mess we’re in, but they can take the necessary steps to authorize win-win trade agreements and then stay out of the way.

It would also help if they could figure out a way to keep from spending more than they are taking from the private sector, who are trying to earn enough to make a living and support government’s over-spending addictions.

Moving Forward On Trade Agreements Side Tracked By Debt Ceiling Falderal

2011-07-29T15:47:04Z

”The three pending trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama will not be introduced until Congress returns from the August District Work Period. Action on the trade agreements has been complicated by the issue of whether to include Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as part of the package and the ongoing negotiations over the debt ceiling and deficit reduction. The Administration has stated they will send the implementing bills and TAA to Congress in September. In addition, twelve key Senate Republicans have sent a letter to the Administration saying they would support TAA as a stand-alone bill on the Senate floor. This announcement is critical to keeping the trade agreements moving forward, given that the main opposition to the process of TAA and the implementing bills is Senate Republicans.”

Laying The Groundwork For Agricultural Research Funding

2011-07-27T18:42:36Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

In spite of the concentration now being focused on the debt ceiling limit issue and getting a handle on government expenditures, other – more normal – legislative pursuits are continuing within Congress. Lawmakers from agricultural states (mostly Midwestern and Southern) and involved as members of the House Agriculture or Senate Agriculture committees are pulling their ideas and materials together for the regularly scheduled deliberations over a new farm bill. One section of the Farm Bill deals with the subject area of agricultural research and is a major driver in directing/moving agricultural research.

Although agricultural research is considered by those connected with agriculture as a critical component in making the future of American agriculture all it needs to be, there isn’t as wide-spread of support as those involved would like to see be available. Without the financial backing that is made available through the research funding elements of the Farm Bill, actual agricultural research and development isn’t pursued with the necessary emphasis to advance productivity with the same rate of improvement as has been the case in the past.

Against this backdrop we’re seeing a variety of thought-pieces being put together to promote the necessity of putting extra bucks into the research section of the next Farm Bill, pretty much on the policy drawing board right now. A friend who is inclined to believe very strongly in the importance of agricultural research shared a couple of the policy documents that are circulating to stir up the support sought for more than a status quo approach to putting money into the plans.

Having followed some of the policy notions coming from the American Enterprise Institute, I was somewhat surprised to read their paper, “For Want of a Nail”. In other agricultural policy ideas that they have put out, it seemed that they weren’t inclined to be as pro-funding as they come across in this policy paper.

My friend also included in his link-sharing this background document from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service, highlighting the needs for putting more financial fuel into the engine of agricultural research.

As a product of a traditional, main-stream, agricultural upbringing, the importance of agricultural research and the benefits that come from such pursuits is a given in my mind.

Part of the frustration over the approaches (or lack thereof) in Nevada’s agricultural research endeavors stems from knowing the importance, but not believing that our Land Grant University has any interests/ability to deliver, in the area of applied agricultural research. Because the policy papers take as a given that there is an infrastructure for agricultural research, that simply needs dollars, the situation that Nevada faces is not covered (at least from this writer’s point of view).

If you don’t have the researchers who are in place to carry out the applied research, it doesn’t matter whether there is sufficient funding to promote delving into questions of how to boost agricultural productivity and growth.

When Nevada’s Land Grant University and connected agricultural research operations made the determination that basic research was a more favorable direction to go in pursuit of funding (and the applied research manpower was deleted from the system) the fate of what we now have was established. Rebuilding that research capacity is extremely challenging in light of financial constraints that struggle simply to keep in place -- a place to do the research.

As the more agriculturally-inclined areas of the country scramble to build their case for increased funding, the Silver State’s ag. advocates have their hands full just getting those in charge to believe applied research needs to have the where-with-all for an opportunity to be carried out.

Senator Reid’s Plan To Deal With Debt Limit Ceiling

2011-07-26T15:49:37Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

With the effort in Washington, D.C. to come up with a legislated solution to the problem of Uncle Sam having his credit card maxed out and needing an additional cushion of deeper debt to pay the 40-cents (which needs to be borrowed) of every dollar that government spends – agricultural spending is being included in the mix of things that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is proposing. This is not to say that agricultural spending shouldn’t be included in the overall reduction of unsustainable government spending…probably, the $10-15 Billion, spread out over a ten year span wouldn’t have a serious effect. Although it isn’t real clear on the exact actual reductions of the Reid plan and how much the whole thing isn’t simply an illusion of smoke and mirrors to get the extension needed for the debt ceiling moved past the 2012 elections that Democrats are pushing as essential.

Whether the two versions of spending reductions/increased debt ceiling amount to more than what the past differing proposals have been is uncertain, as we read in this Washington Post article. So it doesn’t pay to get too excited over what might come about with reductions in any area.

As is common with most proposals in Washington, D.C. deliberations, the real world consequences of any changes are so far beyond comprehension that most don’t believe the political rhetoric one way or the other. Besides that, what gets “cut” today doesn’t mean that those elected to be our representatives won’t reverse themselves tomorrow. That’s probably the reason that the majority party of the U.S. Senate all voted against the cut, cap and balance legislation that was sent to them by the U.S. House…how dare anyone restrict the ability to be fiscally irresponsible and spend more than what taxpayers have already forked over!

In better understanding the real issues of the debt ceiling issue, this article (also from the Washington Post) offers a good overview of the actual situation.

What will unfold over the next couple of weeks will likely be a lot more of what we’ve already been treated to this summer…finger pointing, breathless indignation at the other political party’s unreasonable unwillingness to compromise…yahta, yahta, yahta. When they actually pass a bill, through both legislative bodies that does something…we’ll see what the details they’ve agreed to then.

Alternative Energy – Great Beat, But Will We Ever Dance To It

2011-07-25T15:56:55Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

For those of the era of American Bandstand you will recall the rate a new record portion of the program where the song would play and young people would give their opinion, often sharing the observation that a song would have a great beat…but you couldn’t really dance to it. Does the same apply to Nevada’s future being in alternative energy development?

Jon Ralston’s recent column in the Las Vegas Sun drew attention to the hyperbole over how Nevada’s future is linked with green energy, but the actions of agencies like the Nevada Public Utilities Commission cause us to wonder whether getting there will ever be accomplished. His points were well made, both from the standpoint of how overblown the hype is over Nevada’s future prosperity in the alternative energy field…and the reality of the mad rush to implement a higher-priced energy system.

Some would have you believe that since the sun shines for free or the wind blows without costs – alternative energy is free for the taking. Actually, both of these sources for electrical energy aren’t in the ballpark when it comes to costs comparisons to the way we get power now (natural gas, coal, etc.) There’s also the matter of getting the power from where it is harnessed to the light switch that pays the bill when it is flipped.

One of Nevada’s more costs-effective energy sources, geothermal, does compete in the price comparison, but still requires the electrical power lines to connect to the grid. It is also limited to requiring the power generation site to be where the natural hot water sources are located.

In some respects wind power is also restricted to wind-prone areas (not just frequently windy, but actually the type of steady wind that makes electrical power generation more efficient than it is in a once-in-a-while quality wind).

These limitations for locating generation facilities come with their own challenges – not widely discussed when it comes to the promises of how alternative energy will result in economic boons for Nevada. Due to Nevada’s 80-plus percent federal lands make-up, doing what it takes to develop energy sites involves fairly complicated approvals. Those approvals aren’t easy to get in the first place and the desires to protect Sage Grouse from becoming a higher listed species on the Endangered Species Act list is making it even more unlikely that the lights will be going green for progress.

Behind the scenes activities are raising the bar to make it more difficult to get federal agencies to sign off on approval for not only the generation facilities, but also the power lines that carry the electricity to markets. Power lines are also deemed problematic for Sage Grouse survival, primarily because of the way they provide a platform for damaging predatory birds like Ravens.

As we continue to hear about the promise of how green energy is going to serve as a foundation for Nevada’s job market and become a significant engine for our economy, it would be worth having some honest dialogue on what it’s actually going to take to deliver on the promise and what the consequences will be (higher still energy prices) if we ever get where we’re supposed to be drooling over getting to.

Without The Strings Things Might Be Different

2011-07-22T14:16:36Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

With the on-going discussions taking place in Washington, D.C. over legislative authority to increase the nation’s debt-ceiling and allow for further government borrowing…attention is being given to the importance of cutting spending. In conversations about reductions of government spending it isn’t uncommon to have the point raised about the subsidy programs that go to agricultural producers.

Given the way that our federal government has to borrow 40-cents for every dollar it spends -- since revenue coming in doesn’t match the outgo being spent – all areas of government spending need to receive attention. Recently a group of 33 farm organizations, representing their farmer and rancher members, sent a letter to President Obama and others in leadership roles, urging timely action on a long-term, comprehensive solution to the federal debt issue.

Those involved, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, reminded the decision makers that agriculture has a track-record of taking more than its fair share of reductions -- $6 Billion in reductions of the budget baseline last year.

In urging action the letter from the agricultural leaders stressed the importance of providing the House and Senate Agricultural Committees with the responsibility of determining how reductions should be made to agricultural funding. In the construction of the next Farm Bill, these key experts on the topic of farm programs are the best equipped to evaluate specific details for changes.

When you look at the current Federal $3,729 Billion budget, the portion going to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) ($144.2 Billion) amounts to 3.9 percent. Further, of the amount going to USDA, roughly 10 percent is spent on agricultural programs – 74 percent of the USDA budget is paid out in Food Assistance and Nutrition programs. (Information provided by American Farm Bureau Federation’s Food & Farm Facts.)

As evaluations are made for what can be gained by cutting back on levels of federal dollars paid out to agricultural producers, this Phil Brasher post caught my attention, highlighting some of the consequences that come with not paying some of the payments which currently are part of the mix. Each dollar that comes out of Washington, D.C. has strings attached, attempting to influence the results that central-planning has in mind. When the dollars aren’t available, you no longer have the strings (or should we say “incentives”) to perform the desired actions…

In many ways it would be good to see agriculture (and the economy as a whole) become weaned of the dollars coming from the federal treasury. Significant spending reductions for all of the things currently related to the federal government, when also combined with the reduced tax burdens to cover the expenses, would put us all in a more self-sufficient place, letting those who earn the dollars spend their dollars for themselves – as they see fit.

Having Your Say On Southern Nevada Water Pipeline Project

2011-07-21T17:09:47Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

The Bureau of Land Management in Nevada is looking for public comment on a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that has been prepared for the pipeline portion of the Southern Nevada Water importation project. This draft EIS deals with the construction and operations of a system of regional water components that include over 300 miles of buried water pipeline, a system of pressure reducing facilities, five pumping stations, six regulating tanks, a couple of storage tanks and a water treatment plant. The complete system also includes 323 miles of a power line system with seven electrical substations. When you throw in the road system to maintain the set-up, you’ve got yourself quite an elaborate “foot print” traveling along the East-coast of Nevada.

BLM officials are looking to get the public’s input for the pipeline EIS, under the National Environmental Protection Act’s (NEPA) process, with a 90-day comment period (currently underway), scheduled to end September 9, 2011.

Those wishing to make their input known to BLM can do so by submitting their comments to:

Peggy Woods, BLM Project Manager
PO Box 12000
Reno, NV 89520

The comments can also be faxed to (775) 861-6689
Or emailed to nvgwprojects@blm.gov

Over the coming several weeks BLM will be hosting a series of nine public meetings where members of the public can attend, learn more of the details regarding the pipeline project and offer input. These meeting dates and locations include:

Aug. 2 at 5 p.m., Pioche, NV -Pioche Elementary School, 651 Airport Road
Aug. 3 at 5 p.m., Baker, NV - Baker Elementary School, 120 Main Street
Aug. 4 at 5 p.m., Delta, Utah - Delta High School Gym, 50 W. 300 N.
Aug. 9 at 5 p.m., Ely, NV - White Pine High School Gym, 1800 Bobcat Drive
Aug. 10 at 5 p.m., Elko, NV - Red Lion Hotel and Casino, 2065 Idaho Street
Aug. 11 at 4 p.m., Salt Lake City, Utah - Hampton Inn and Suites, 307 N. Admiral Byrd Road
Aug. 15 at 4 p.m., Las Vegas, NV - Henderson Convention Center, 200 S. Water Street
Aug. 16 at 5 p.m., Alamo, NV - Lincoln County Alamo Annex, 121 Joshua Tree Street
Aug. 18 at 3 p.m., Reno/Sparks, NV - Sparks High School Large Gym, 820 15th Street

Even though public input is supposed to be primarily focused on the pipeline aspects of the water project (Nevada’s State Water Engineer is in charge of deciding the fate of the water applications) – the EIS does have some of the details regarding water rights, pumping rates, etc. for information.

With something this important to the future of rural Nevada it would be very appropriate for maximum levels of participation in the public discussions taking place and at the very least attendance at the public meetings planned in your area.

Finally, Moving Forward With Management Action

2011-07-20T20:00:49Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Those who care about responsible management of federally-managed rangelands got good news in the announcement of this Bureau of Lands Management news release that the court had ruled that the gathering of Wild Horses, overpopulating portions of Elko County, could move forward. Hopefully, this project will now go forward without further delays.

As the BLM news release highlights, the estimated population for these herd areas is over 450 percent above the appropriate management levels and getting the herds back into the population range which fits the carrying capacity of the resources means gathering roughly 1,726 head of horses. Unfortunately, this is the only planned gather for Nevada this year, leaving the rest of the state’s federally-managed lands teeming with populations that continue to grow beyond the numbers which sustainably match a healthy range environment.

In addition to the delay tactics employed by those who oppose responsible management of the out-of-control horse numbers, financial realities of the agency in charge of administering the Wild Horse and Burro program (BLM) result in the melt-down situation we’re fast approaching. Solutions to work through these circumstances are as difficult to find as fiscal sanity in Washington, D.C.

While we can appreciate the ability to finally move forward with this small segment of Nevada’s overwhelming Wild Horse mess, figuring out ways of dealing with the overall inability of the BLM to meet its Wild Horse management obligations needs much more extensive attention.

When Big Government Doesn’t Get Its Way

2011-07-19T15:35:51Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

During the last Nevada Legislature we had the chance to watch the hissy-fit thrown by the majority party over not being able to get their tax increase package passed. In spite of the serious economic doldrums the private sector was dealing with, increasing taxes to provide for bigger government was still their number one agenda. We’re seeing the same thing in Washington, D.C. with the same political jerseys being sported as part of their mantra for dealing with America’s $14-plus TRILLION credit card bill.

The unwillingness of the Republican party to compromise and join the raise taxes crowd is being slammed by the same media outlets as were involved in the Nevada Legislature. It seems that unless you will vote for tax increases – you’re an ideologue who is unfit to be an elected official. Why isn’t blind and uncompromising adherence to ever expanding government not viewed as also being inappropriate?

Then again, why would we expect the media folks reporting on this issue to give us a balanced perspective? They are also of the mind-set that government expansion, without limitations for spending, is the proper function of government.

I couldn’t help but pass notice of the way some of the “news” accounts are identifying the debt ceiling limit as a point where the U.S. will no longer be able to pay its obligations. Hopefully, for most thinking persons, this understanding won’t go unchallenged. The debt ceiling limit is the point where government can’t borrow any more to pay obligations. There is still revenue coming into government coffers – it’s just not enough to cover the expenses being paid out. That is how our country got $14-plus TRILLION in the hole. Those who have been elected to be our representatives (of both parties) have spent beyond the income they had to operate with. Fixing that problem will not only require fiscal responsibility in the short-term, but also attention by voters in the upcoming elections…if we keep electing the Big Government supporters who have been getting elected (at all levels of government) we will keep getting the Big Government results that we can’t afford!

In the spin of trying to convince us that Republicans, who won’t go along with tax increases are the problem, we need to recall that there have been times when the shoe was on the other foot. I appreciate the insight offered by a friend who shared a link that reports on the way the Democrats voted in 2006, when the debt ceiling question was under consideration in the U.S. Senate. It should be very obvious that the “Nay” votes on the question of raising the debt ceiling all have (D) initials after their name. Scanning down the alphabetized list, please take note of the last names beginning with the letter “O”…then down a little further to the “R” section – anything strike you as rather “interesting”? (Does that mean they were right in 2006, but now have decided that spending us further into the hole is the right thing to do?)

Bottom line, we do need to see the debt ceiling addressed in a meaningful way. That meaningful way would not be the games being offered by the political hacks who are more concerned over appearances than results. We need federal spending reduced and we need limitations placed on keeping those who have run up the bill from digging us deeper into the hole we’re in. Tax increases are not the answer and should be completely off the table for further consideration…fueling the spending addicts need for more won’t help any of us get things under control.

The Government Is Coming – The Government Is Coming

2011-07-18T16:09:18Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

One of more classic and beloved stories of our country’s history was the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere...the story of a hard-charging Patriot rushing through the countryside sounding the alarm to let his fellow countrymen know that the British Military (the government enforcers of that era) were approaching with the purpose of taking away the citizen’s freedom.

Over the past few days there has been a rash of e-mail messages in my electronic mailbox, asking for my perception of the Obama Administration’s Executive Order 13575 and the formation of the White House Rural Council.

Of concern for those posing the question and seeking my thoughts, this theme is central -- the potential that this force of united government agencies is being assembled to play out the world wide pursuit of destroying America and hooking us into an international agenda.

Now, while there are legitimate concerns about agency over-regulation and inappropriate expansion of government – this initiative probably doesn’t apply.

On June 9, President Obama signed an Executive Order that establishes a Rural Advisory Council. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack will chair the council, which includes representatives from 25 executive branch departments, agencies and offices.

The council will be responsible for providing recommendations to the president on investment in rural areas and improving the quality of life for rural Americans. The council will identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation and other conservation related activities. The council will coordinate with a variety of rural interests, including agricultural groups, small businesses and state, local and tribal governments.

The council will advise the White House on rural issues, including:

Jobs: Improve job training and workforce development in rural America;
Agriculture: Expand markets for agriculture, including regional food systems and exports;
Access to Credit: Increase opportunity by expanding access to capital in rural communities and fostering local investment;
Innovation: Promote the expansion of biofuels production capacity and community based renewable energy projects;
Networks: Develop high-growth regional economies by capitalizing on inherent regional strengths;
Health Care: Improve access to quality health care through expansion of health technology systems;
Education: Increase post-secondary enrollment rates and completion for rural students;
Broadband: Support the president’s plan to increase broadband opportunities in rural America;
Infrastructure: Coordinate investment in critical infrastructure; and
Ecosystem markets: Expand opportunities for conservation, outdoor opportunities and economic growth on working lands and public lands.

Instead of the frets over things like the White House Rural Council, which is really more of an Obama campaign effort to convince rural American’s that only government can create economic opportunity – we need to keep our focus on government agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who are out seeking to enforce their self-initiated regulations, intending to damage the economy and destroy property rights/liberty...doing just what they do on a day-to-day basis.

Pretty Sound Reasoning

2011-07-15T15:10:42Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Las Vegas Sun columnist Jon Ralston shared on his blog this interview which took place in Douglas County with Congressional Candidate Mark Amodei. I’d encourage you to click on the link to Mr. Ralston’s column and read for yourself the responses that Amodei presented to the topics that were discussed.

If the intended outcome was to sway the reader away from Amodei as the best choice for the special election in September to fill the opening for Nevada’s 2^nd Congressional District – I don’t think that would be the result. Amodei’s thoughts on the issues of the day are very sound and indicate that he would be a good fit for the constituents he would be representing and the state of Nevada as a whole.

If All It Took Was Talk

2011-07-14T17:06:16Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

There’s a big difference in talking about the importance of alternative energy and doing something to make it happen. We’ve got the talk part down pat – doing something is the place where things fall apart.

Probably the biggest reason for not getting it done, when it comes to alternative energy development, is the market reality on why “alternative” is alternative for a reason. In spite of all the editorials and politically-correct posturing…if it wasn’t for government’s efforts to force us into alternative energy and subsidizing the start-up, there would be even a whole lot less alternative energy than we have now. The numbers just don’t add up to create a market-driven, real economic reason for getting into solar or windmill powered energy.

Even with the hype over how Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of alternative energy (or supposedly we should be) the reality of where things stand is explained very clearly in this piece by the Nevada Policy Research Institute. When we already have extremely high power rates…how much sense does it make to go out of the way to see if you can find even more expensive rates.

Another factor that is emerging in the supposed wisdom in all getting behind building Nevada’s green energy economy is the problems in finding a place to have the components, necessary for the green energy, to exist. As a member of the state group which is working on Sage Grouse conservation, there are no secrets that locating alternative energy generation facilities is a significant issue…and so are the power lines to take the power from where it is made to where it will be purchased.

The most likely energy source (geothermal) to fit into the current mix is limited to where there is hot water under the surface of the earth. Sage Grouse problems abound for potential sites for development of geothermal power and the most probable approach will be expensive mitigation or flat out “No” as an answer from federal land managers.

Wind power development in Nevada is also running into Sage Grouse problems, along with the “not in my backyard” attitudes related to impeded “view sheds”.

Solar, besides being completely uneconomical without artificially higher regular energy prices isn’t the panacea promoters would like to advance. “Free” sun power energy costs a lot of green (and we’re not talking the environmentally-proper kind of green) and it takes a lot of water and a lot of space…which seems to be part of the story we don’t see highlighted in the rambling rhetoric of it being our future.

So other than the reality of being too expensive and not fitting into the other things that we believe are more important uses of the land – alternative energy development has real possibilities…or, so I’ve been told.

Thrilling News – Except For

2011-07-13T20:29:49Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

There is so much desire to convince us that alternative fuels would be a wonderful thing, saving the planet from the invented crisis of global warming, while still making it possible to feed a hungry world. In and of itself there’s not a problem in coming up with a viable alternative source for our gas tank…there’s nothing wrong with finding a viable alternative energy source which reduces carbon emissions…and there’s nothing wrong with developing a viable alternative energy source which doesn’t give even the slightest indication that it might be taking real food out of people’s mouths. There’s probably also nothing wrong with promoting the outstanding qualities of switchgrass.

In the same way that the ruling regime has determined that $250,000 per year is the watershed for determining who ought to be taxed to the utmost – switchgrass has been established as the magical crop that will cure all energy ails. The matter has been further established to be a factual certainty as heralded in the headlines of this account – “CSU Study: Biofuel grasses should replace corn as method of producing ethanol”

Probably every agricultural producer on the planet should now be considering the merits of switching their current agricultural production to switchgrass (not an original idea of mine, since I’ve been hearing lots of non-farmers proposing this as a great idea for quite awhile. It would not only help the energy situation – allegedly, switchgrass requires less water than any other crop ever planted).

As you can read for yourself in the Colorado State University news story – “raising biofuel crops on previoiusly cultivated land will result in ‘massive reductions’ in greenhouse gas from agricultural systems.”

How much better could Utopia become?!

As a passing, nearly throw away aside…nearly the last line of the breaking news item…

“The study conceded that there are currently a lack of economically viable techniques of producing ethanol from the biofuel crops.”

So other than the problems of it not working – this conversion to switchgrass “should” be the way to go.

Then again, as we know from the plans of the Environmental Protection Agency and the agenda of the global warming zealots – with enough regulation and forced infusion of government “help” the costs associated with the energy we now have can be driven to levels which would make switchgrass become more economical by comparison.

Central planning can be a great way to proceed in making the world a better place to live…all you have to do is decide that switchgrass should be the replacement and you don’t have to worry for long about the intended outcome being implemented – whether it’s possible…or not.

Are We Learning More Than What Some Might Want Us To Understand?

2011-07-12T23:29:22Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

It is very apparent that the Obama Administration believes it has the greatest opportunity to sway the outcome of events to their agenda when they are able to create the nexus of a crisis. (Can you count how many of them we've had since he moved into the White House?) It’s the way the current debt ceiling limit issue has simmered and has been brought to a boil with the clock ticking down on predicted disaster if the Republicans don’t fall into line and approve tax increases.

With the heated rhetoric and counter points, you start hearing things come out that maybe cooler heads would have preferred to keep quiet about – or at least carefully construct the message to be presented.

Listening to a radio interview with U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, the dots were brilliantly connected in response to the comment that President Obama made about not being able to guarantee the Social Security checks being mailed out in early August. (Without even getting into the way in which the Democrats play the fear-mongering game of scaring those drawing Social Security payments) – Rubio noted that Social Security is supposedly not connected to the debt issue.

We’ve been assured by leaders such as Senator Harry Reid that Social Security is safe and solvent. Some have talked about a “lock box” which payments made for Social Security purposes are soundly preserved for payment when necessary.

If that were the case – why wouldn’t the U.S. Government be able to make payments to Social Security recipients, regardless of whether further debt can be incurred? If there is linkage between the government being able to borrow more and the capability of making payments for Social Security – what does that really say about the safety and solvency of Social Security?

It’s also been interesting to watch as high-ranking Democrats attack the proper position taken by the Republicans of not being willing to increase tax burdens as a way of addressing the $14.3 Trillion debt hole that our nation’s leaders (of both parties) have spent us into. These attacks make the normal class warfare spin, suggesting that those who earn or who have earned a certain level of money, should be required to pay more of their fair share.

Those spoken of in this game of blame the taxpayer for Washington, D.C.’s over-spending are already paying the bulk of the tax load which elected officials can’t responsibly spend now. We're suppose to accept the idea that confiscating more of the resources of this targeted group will somehow make it more likely that fiscal stewardship will become the norm for the federal government’s mode of operations?

There’s good reason why the polls are coming in with a public split over the issues of raising the ability for government spend-a-oholics to spend even more of our country’s future away – or clamping down with tough spending restrictions. Increasing taxes doesn’t take care of any of the fundamental problems that have us on the brink we face.

When looking into what the Democratic plan might be for the current dilemma I came across this insight of the budget proposal (pulled from a Washington Post article) President Obama's presented for the upcoming fiscal year…

"The budget request Obama submitted to Congress in February would have required about $9.5 trillion in fresh borrowing by 2021. Under his current proposal, the debt would continue to rise, by roughly $5 trillion over the next 10 years. It would stabilize, however, as a share of the overall economy and eventually begin to fall by that measure."

Obama’s proposal in the form of his budget, is based on increasing borrowing by $9.5 Trillion. With tax hikes as the way to fix things we still go $5 Trillion deeper into debt… And he wants us to eat our peas?

The fear we need to concentrate on really does come down to whether we want those who have been in power and driven us this far into debt to keep racking up such impressive results!

Federal Budget Mess Not Brought About By Lack Of Taxes

2011-07-10T23:55:53Z

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

With the tizzy over the federal government’s problems of reaching the limit for how deeply in debt our elected officials are permitted to spend us – the solution isn’t going to be found in allowing the debt to grow worse and thinking that we will be better off being taxed at higher levels. The simple concept of cutting spending, capping spending levels and reforming tax policy should be the approach that federal lawmakers take.

No, I don’t believe that it will be that simple and that they will actually do what’s necessary – I said that is what they should do.

The editorial I read in today’s (Sunday, July 10, 2011) Reno Gazette Journal caught my attention, with further thoughts on the problem that they suggest is our problem – a broken budget system. I don’t think it’s the process that’s not working…it’s been the people operating the process. We are not in the mess we’re in because taxes haven’t been high enough… Picking targets to tax and blaming the other party for not joining in going along with higher confiscation of their resources is also not going to correct the fundamental problem of too much spending.

The issue in passing budgets and resolving the federal deficit is the same…Democrats believe that tax increases are the way to get at the issue of spending more than the federal government takes away from the private sector. While there is this invented crisis worry over the federal government smacking up against the limits of how deeply the government can go into debt – the bigger worry should be about what happens if the Republicans cave in and let the debt limit go to greater levels, without getting the concessions necessary to cut significantly the over spending that is taking place.

As long as we keep electing “leaders” who represent us as they have been and can’t vote for responsible and reduced government – we’re going to keep getting what we’ve got. Fixing the problem is only going to be accomplished by forcing accountability on those who keep spending us deeper into the hole that they’ve already got us into.