Politics!

[Berliner]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8459

In addition, less than 1% of Americans are employed in agricultural sector, compared to more in manufacturing and much more in services. That is a lot of money to be spending on 1% of American workers.

On the other hand, many developing world countries depend almost primarily on agriculture, but cannot export it at a decent price because US (and developed world) farm subsidies make their own products too artificially cheap and competitive.

[Umlaut]

Is the problem then that while a small percentage of the population is employed in the agri- sector, there are about a dozen states where agricultural jobs are the primary employer. And these states, while among the least populous in the union, still account for several senators and electoral college votes? Or is it as simple as lobbying, lobbying, lobbying?

[Berliner]

Even in those states, they are not necessarily primary employers, but there may be some members in the House that represent basically farmland. Still, services account for the vast majority of jobs in this country, even at the state level.

One problem is that agricultural committees in both the House and Senate are primarily made up of members who represent areas where farming does make up higher than average employment. If more ag committees had representatives from, say, Manhattan, then there may be members of that committee that would look at the bills being created and say, "yeah, this helps farmers, but it actually hurts the country as a whole." But people from Manhattan aren't really interested in filling seats in agriculture committees (or would really have the expertise anyway). So the people who do fill those seats are more interested in giving out pork to farmers.

Despite actually employing very few numbers of actual people, agribusiness in this country is highly profitable and they do make donations, so lobbying is a factor.

Also there are perceptions in this country. One perception is that when Americans think about farms, they think of old McDonald, not a giant business like DuPont or Monsanto. They want to help old McDonald. Also, people can be convinced that putting price floors on farm products leads to food security in this country.

[Berliner]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...democrats.html

[Berliner]

So foreign companies are starting to lobby against the bills being introduced. They really opened up a pandora's box with this one.

[ProfessorShutYoMouth]

Originally Posted by Berliner

So foreign companies are starting to lobby against the bills being introduced. They really opened up a pandora's box with this one.

Thanks SCOTUS!

I for one welcome our new foreign overlords...perhaps they will manage to get an "Arabic Only" bill passed.

Then we'll see how the Fox News rabble likes the New Nationalism™.

(NOTE TO NSA SPOOKS MONITORING THIS MESSAGE BOARD: Just kidding, I don't speak no Arabic).

[Berliner]

If I lived in Illinois, I would probably vote for Mark Kirk for Obama's old seat. The Democrat looks terrible.

[ProfessorShutYoMouth]

Originally Posted by Berliner

If I lived in Illinois, I would probably vote for Mark Kirk for Obama's old seat. The Democrat looks terrible.

This seems to be a widespread problem, which is perhaps why they brought Plouffe back in to consult on Dem campaigns.

The campaign arms of the Democratic party are so insulated, especially regionally, that there will be a lot of mistakes made (as far as grooming and selecting candidates to be put on the ballots) just for the sake of maintaining the social order.

[ericluxury]

When it comes to agriculture and food, I am a bit confused. The person I trust when it comes to food is Michael Pollan. Getting rid of farm subsidies in the way that you mention, Berliner, seems like it could have terrible consequences. The more we learn about nutrition and energy, the more it seems clear (to me, at least) that having food be local and fresh is really important. Shipping food halfway around the planet doesn't strike me as a good idea.

But at the same time, having our nation be basically a corn producer is awful. Its bad for our health, its bad for the land, its bad for farmers (except the corporations who own them). And the main reason we produce so much corn is these subsidies. So I am not sure if the answer it to get rid of the subsidies or shift them to healthier foods.

Also agribusiness isn't just in corn growing states. The fast food industry is a significant employer in lots (if not most) districts.

[Berliner]

That's actually a good point, and one I've never really considered. Shipping food from Africa to the United States would be energy intensive. That's certainly something I would like to look into. I would say that just because subsidies are removed en masse does not mean that our grocery stores we will be flooded with foreign produce. Transportation costs and quality would still be a factor.

Also, as you mentioned the healthy foods you are concerned about don't enjoy nearly the level of subsidies that the kind of products that goes into unhealthy processed foods do. If we were to remove all subsidies, it might actually allow locally grown (and therefore cheaper to transport) unprocessed food to get an advantage over processed food. A lot of lawmakers have been batting around the idea of a soda tax lately, and that seems very overly complicated to me. Instead of subsidizing the corn that goes into corn syrup and then taxing it again, we should just remove the subsidy for the corn and let the price of soda get more expensive naturally. That might also have the effect of making more soda makers to switch to cane sugar for their sweeteners.

Also, there are cases where getting rid of subsidies would actually be better for energy policy. For example, ethanol production in the US is based on corn. Scientists have actually found that corn based ethanol is probably more harmful to the environment than oil. The entire process of growing the corn, refining it into fuel, and finally using that fuel produces huge amounts of CO2. Corn based ethanol is also pretty inefficient. For one unit of energy you put into it, only 2 comes out. On the other hand, sugar based ethanol, which is mainly manufactured from Brazil, releases 7 units of energy for every 1 unit of energy you put in. The entire process also produces significantly less emission than oil extraction, refining, and combustion. Brazilian ethanol would also be cheaper than corn based ethanol in a freer market. Corn based ethanol would actually probably be prohibitively expensive to produce. But due to corn subsidies, which are especially generous for ethanol creation, and protectionist tariffs, we use a more expensive, less efficient, and more polluting form of ethanol in the United States.

[charles star]

As far as the environmental effects of subsidies due to international shipping, I'd assume that it would dampen US exports far more than it would promote foreign imports. Subsidies have long allowed US farmers to dump goods on other countries, undermining the local farm economies. The downside here to cutting off the subsidies is increasing food costs for already impoverished countries because it is unclear if local agriculture could affordably step up to fill the demand.

I don't pretend to know the answers but I do know that agricultural policy and international political economy is much more complicated than "subsidies suck."

On the other hand, ADM's history of bribery clearly sucks.

[Berliner]

Based on the objections of the Group of 77 at the Doha round of the WTO, developing countries themselves at least feel that subsidies are a hindrance more than a benefit for their countries. Food prices would become more expensive, but then again, due to the fact that most of the people in these countries subsist through agriculture, their incomes should also increase, and demand would in the long run hopefully bring increased supply.

[Berliner]

http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.ph...f655b7ee740494

[nathansmart]

Can't wait to see how bipartisan the Republicans are when they get back in office in 3 years. I'm no fan of "Well, they did it, so we can too" politics but it kills me when one side accuses the other of doing something they have always done.

[ProfessorShutYoMouth]

Originally Posted by nathansmart

Can't wait to see how bipartisan the Republicans are when they get back in office in 3 years. I'm no fan of "Well, they did it, so we can too" politics but it kills me when one side accuses the other of doing something they have always done.

Ugh, I don't want to see them back in office.

American voters are really frustrating. It takes them 8 years of Republican disaster to elect a Democrat again, and in less than a year after that Democrat takes office they are swept away by the Republican spin machine once again.

I do blame the Democrats for not figuring out how to fight the Republican bullies in the media but the majority of the blame lies on voters for being so forgetful. As much as it is fashionable for progressives to bash Obama because he apparently "hasn't done anything" in his first year in office, the tendency of Democratic-leaning voters to cannibalize their own elected leaders isn't helping either.

Yeah, it's admirable that "liberals", Democrats and progressives can so easily voice their disagreements with the people they elect, but at the same time that kind of attitude doesn't help win elections in a highly partisan and divided political atmosphere.

I'd rather have an imperfect Democratic administration making gradual changes in the right direction than a Republican administration making huge leaps in the wrong direction. My guess is that the progressives who have so quickly join the Republican shit slinging against Obama just want to be able to say "I told you so", even if that means helping elect another Republican to the presidency.

[Berliner]

The problem that I found frustrating through this entire healthcare process is that there are so many opinions going around about matters that people don't actually know anything about. I work in government affairs, and I can't claim to really, really know healthcare reform. I like to think that I know a little more than the average person, but there are matters that are so specialized in healthcare that only experts can really predict how it will affect things.

People are ready to fight tooth and nail for or against the public option, but when you actually ask them to define it, they either confuse it with single payer, or they really have no idea what it is at all. This goes for both parties.

If people get their opinions from pundits, they are getting opinions from people who may understand politics, but they don't really understand policy, or they do understand it but either don't think their audience would understand it, or it won't help achieve their political goals.

[ProfessorShutYoMouth]

This is encouraging:

In the week since Dan Coats announced he was preparing to challenge Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, Democrats have launched a withering, no-holds-barred assault on the former Republican senator, throwing him off balance and raising questions about whether his prospective candidacy has suffered lasting damage.

...

By Monday, less than a week after he floated the idea of a comeback bid for the seat he held for one full term in the 1990s, Democrats had framed the former senator as a carpetbagger, a Washington lobbyist for PhRMA and big banks and a foreign agent with ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Yemeni interests — with almost no noticeable pushback until Coats brought on a campaign spokesman at the beginning of this week.

The ferocious barrage — a coordinated effort unleashed by a small core of senior Democratic strategists in Washington, top Bayh political hands and Indiana Democratic Party officials — has partisans on both sides of the aisle wondering not whether Coats has been bruised by the punches but whether he will be able to pick himself up off the canvas.

Hopefully Dems around the country will take note and finally start beating Republicans at their own game (or at least trying to).

[chapina]

I have been tentatively eligible for this We Draw the Lines.

From what I hear they got very few applications from Latinas. I need three letters of rec and I have to write a few essays. Being a commissioner sounds time consuming, but the nerd in me really wants to see this all happen.

[charles star]

Originally Posted by ProfessorShutYoMouth

This is encouraging:



Hopefully Dems around the country will take note and finally start beating Republicans at their own game (or at least trying to).

This would have been great if Evan Bayh weren't so useless. First, as a Senator and now as a guy who is giving the GOP a shot at an open seat.

[ProfessorShutYoMouth]

Originally Posted by charles star

This would have been great if Evan Bayh weren't so useless. First, as a Senator and now as a guy who is giving the GOP a shot at an open seat.

Yeah, I had a feeling that the offensive against Bayh's opponent was somehow just a glitch in the political Matrix.

I love his reasoning, too: "It's too hard to get anything done."

Boo-hoo. But yeah, maybe Obama's latest meeting with Satan will yield some sort of soul-exchange for the replacement of all of the centrist Democrat do-nothings with ball-kickin' progressives.