| December 2004 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
Wednesday, December 29
U.S. Aid To S.E. Asia "Stingy" - Updated!
by
Chad Thompson
on Wed 29 Dec 2004 12:35 PM CST
 U.S. Aid To S.E. Asia "Stingy" - Updated!
This little tidbit noted by Atrios should catch on the conservative talk radio today. (It's called "WHO Radio" in Central Iowa)
From the Washington Times:
The Bush administration yesterday pledged $15 million to Asian
nations hit by a tsunami that has killed more than 22,500 people,
although the United Nations' humanitarian-aid chief called the donation
"stingy."
Now what would prompt someone to call such a donation "stingy"?
From MSNBC:
The war on terror will take center stage at next month’s second inauguration for Bush in Washington, D.C.
...The estimated budget for the event is $30-40 million, but that will not cover security costs.
UPDATE ONE:
The Washington Times report quoted above is a
complete lie. It seems that the Washington Times and the
WSJ have gone out of their way to use an international crisis to malign
the ever-hated United Nations.
The Gadflyer has a post
detailing how two outlets outright fabricating a story echoes through
the media outlets - and outrages Blog For Iowa posters....
Somewhat surprisingly, the WSJ points out the notion of using a natural disaster to further a political cause:
People prone to hysteria often become
further unhinged in the face of a great disaster, and that may explain
these remarkable comments on the tsunami disaster. Still, these
comments by the movement's leadership may serve as a case study of how
such imaginings work their way into public discussion of the
environment.
The author of this comment then proceeds to write about how the
Kyoto Protocol is holding back South Asian nations from creating a
Tsuanmi warning system similar to the one used by Pacific Rim nations.
I swear - you can't make this stuff up.
UPDATE TWO:
It seems that shame is an important motivator. From today's Washington Post:
The
Bush administration more than doubled its financial commitment
yesterday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean
tsunami, amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush has been
insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.
As
the death toll surpassed 50,000 with no sign of abating, the U.S.
Agency for International Development added $20 million to an earlier
pledge of $15 million to provide relief, and the Pentagon dispatched an
aircraft carrier and other military assets to the region. Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell, in morning television appearances, chafed at a
top U.N. aid official's comment on Monday that wealthy countries were
being stingy with aid. "The United States is not stingy," Powell said
on CNN.
Of course, one must take note of what happens when this administraton is shamed into a course of action - blame Bill Clinton!!
Earlier
yesterday, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said [Bush] was
confident he could monitor events effectively without returning to
Washington or making public statements in Crawford, where he spent part
of the day clearing brush and bicycling. Explaining the about-face, a
White House official said: "[Bush] wanted to be fully briefed on
our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel
your pain.' "
Many
Bush aides believe Clinton was too quick to head for the cameras to
hold forth on tragedies with his trademark empathy. "Actions speak
louder than words," a top Bush aide said, describing [Bush]'s
view of his appropriate role.
As I noted earlier - you can't make this stuff up.
UPDATE THREE: An mportant note on this story. There are several groups
out there providing relief aid to those stricken by the tsunami
now. Here are a couple that I know of immediately (not an
exhaustive list, by any means. Note: More links added 12/29):
Lutheran World Relief
United Methodist Committee On Relief
American Red Cross
... and for a good overview of other charities rasing money and providing relief efforts:
Bread For The World
If there are other organizations operating relief efforts that you support, please post them below.
Monday, December 27
Call to Action: U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency
by
Linda Thieman
on Mon 27 Dec 2004 12:59 PM CST
 Call to Action: U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency
True Majority
It is disheartening at this time when the spirit of the holiday season is in the air that we open the newspaper to find: "U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency."
While the number of the world's people who go hungry is rising
for the first time in years, the Bush administration can find no better
way to reduce spending than to cut $600 million from global food aid
programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.
That
belt-tightening of $600 million doesn't make much of a dent in a
federal discretionary budget of $965 BILLION (it's 0.0001 percent), but
in the developing world, it's emergency food to prevent the starvation
of millions, and long-term agricultural development to help people feed
even more people themselves.
Or put
another way, it's 1/60th of the $35 BILLION that remains in the budget
to maintain America's Cold War nuclear weapons equivalent to 150,000 of
the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima.
This is
so outrageous that there's now a BIPARTISAN effort in Congress led by
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) to convince the administration that
global food aid should not be cut.
Let's
make our voices really count this holiday season and give the most important
gift we can, the gift of life for millions of our hungry brothers and
sisters around the world.
And we
can make it happen. Flood
your members of Congress with faxes. Click here to send a message.
Be sure to select the "fax" button, as sending a fax always gets
through to members of Congress. Emails are too often
deleted. This is a free service. No fax machine required.
Kwanzaa: A Celebration of Family, Community, and Culture
by
Linda Thieman
on Mon 27 Dec 2004 05:39 AM CST
 Kwanzaa: A Celebration of Family, Community, and Culture
by Dr. Maulana Karenga, The Official Kwanzaa Website
Why was Kwanzaa created?
Kwanzaa was created:
--To
reaffirm the communitarian vision and values of African culture and to
contribute to its restoration among African peoples in the Diaspora,
beginning with Africans in America and expanding to include the world
African community.
--To introduce and reinforce the Nguzo Saba,
the Seven Principles and through this, introduce and reaffirm
communitarian values and practices which strengthen and celebrate
family, community and culture. These seven communitarian African values
are: Umoja (Unity), Kuji-chagulia (Self-determination), Ujima
(Collective Work and Responsibility), Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics),
Nia (Purpose), Kuumba (Creativity), and Imani (Faith).
--To
serve as a regular communal celebration which reaffirmed and reinforced
the bonds between us as a people in the U.S., in the Diaspora and on
the African continent, in a word, as a world African community. It was
designed to unite and to strengthen African communities.
--As an
act of cultural self-determination, as a self-conscious statement of
our own unique cultural truth as an African people. That is to say, it
is an important way and expression of being African in a multicultural
context.
Where does the word "Kwanzaa" come from?
 The word
"Kwanzaa" comes from the phrase, "matunda ya kwanza" which means
"first-fruits." Kwanzaa's extra "a" evolved as a result of a particular
history of the Organization Us. It was done as an expression of African
values in order to inspire the creativity of our children. In the early
days of Us, there were seven children who each wanted to represent a
letter of Kwanzaa. Since kwanza (first) has only six letters, we added
an extra "a" to make it seven, thus creating "Kwanzaa."
Why is Kwanzaa a seven-day holiday?
Kwanzaa is a seven-day holiday for two reasons:
--In
terms of authenticity, Kwanzaa is modeled on first-fruits celebrations
in ancient Africa, especially on Southern African first-fruits
celebrations like Umkhost of Zululand which has seven days.
--The
central reason for Kwanzaa's being seven days is to stress the Nguzo
Saba and through this introduce and reaffirm communitarian values and
practices which strengthen and celebrate family, community, and
culture.
Why has Kwanzaa grown among African people?
Kwanzaa grows among African people because:
--It
speaks to our need and appreciation for its cultural vision and life-
affirming values, values which celebrate and reinforce family,
community, and culture.
--It represents an important way Africans speak our own special cultural truth in a multicultural world.
--It
reaffirms the most ancient tradition in the world, the African
tradition, which lays claim to the first religious, ethical and
scientific texts, and the introduction of the basic disciplines of
human knowledge in the Nile Valley.
--It reinforces our rootedness in our own culture in a rich and meaningful way.
--It
brings us together from all countries, all religious traditions, all
classes, all ages and generations, and all political persuasions on the
common ground of our Africanness in all its historical and current
diversity and unity.
Dr. Maulana Karenga
The Creator of Kwanzaa
Chair, The Organization Us
Chair, The National Association of Kawaida Organizations (NAKO)
Sunday, December 26
Naughty and Nice 2004
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 26 Dec 2004 04:44 AM CST
 Naughty and Nice 2004
American Progress
The Progress Report
makes this year's holiday list and checks it twice
Naughty: Merck, for
spending millions to market the pain-reliever Vioxx to consumers long after
the company knew it was unsafe.
Nice: Dr. David Graham, of the
FDA's Office of Drug Safety, for fighting to keep
dangerous drugs off the market.
Naughty: Bernard
Kerik, for turning an apartment donated for weary Ground Zero police and rescue
workers into a
love nest for his adulterous affairs.
Nice: Miramax Films, for putting the kibosh on Kerik's
summer blockbuster biopic.
Naughty: Congress,
for underfunding the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). allocating "$164 million less than
needed to cover the expected 24 percent increase in home heating costs" this
winter.
Nice: Richard
Hamann and his wife, Donna, for paying the electricity bills for the entire
town of Anthon, Iowa, because they wanted to give something back to their
community.
Naughty: NRA
Radio, for broadcasting anti-gun-control propaganda and calling it
legitimate news.
Nice: Ed
Schultz, Arnie Arnesen, Tony Trupiano, Thom Hartmann, Wendy Wilde, Al Franken,
Katherine Lanpher and the rest of the Air America crew, for showing
progressive radio can be thought-provoking, hard-hitting and fun.
Naughty: Department
of Homeland Security, for omitting
"major sites" like chemical plants and dams from its unfinished national
database of potential terrorist targets.
Nice: Department of Homeland
Security, for including
"water parks and miniature golf courses" in the national database. At your
local putt putt, the terrorists never win.
Naughty: The
Environmental Protection Agency, for using
camcorders to bribe parents into offering up their toddlers as guinea pigs
for a study about the dangers of pesticides on children…sponsored
by the chemical industry.
Nice: The Natural Resources Defense
Council, for fighting to protect kids from the harmful effects of pesticides
and chemicals.
Naughty: Right-wing
conservatives in the House of Representatives, for changing
ethics rules so Tom DeLay (R-TX) could one day be their indicted
leader.
Nice: Whistleblowers like Bunnatine
Greenhouse, Richard
Foster and Paul
O'Neill, for holding our government to a higher ethical standard.
Naughty: Medicare
head Tom
Scully, Rep. Billy
Tauzin, Rep. James
Greenwood and trade representatives Ralph Ives and
Claude Burcky, for using public service for personal benefit, taking
lucrative, top-dollar jobs with the pharmaceutical industry they had formerly
regulated.
Nice: Rep. Henry Waxman, for using public service for
public benefit, compiling reports on everything from the Halliburton to undue
secrecy in the White House.
Naughty: EPA
administrator Mike Leavitt, for blaming pollution on
poverty.
Nice: The Union of
Concerned Scientists, for giving us the facts about global
warming, pollution, clean
energy and the Bush administration's ideological
approach to science.
Naughty: Sinclair
Media, for planning to run an
hour long anti-Kerry screed as "news" just before the U.S. presidential
election.
Nice: Media Matters and the
blogosphere [and Rapid Response!], for forcing Sinclair to change its plans. (And continuing to
demand that Sinclair stop broadcasting one-sided political spin.)
Monday, December 20
FDA's Credibility Hits Yet Another Low as Consumer Health Lands on Back Burner
by
Linda Thieman
on Mon 20 Dec 2004 04:07 PM CST
  
FDA's Credibility Hits Yet Another Low as Consumer Health Lands on Back Burner
American Progress
Pfizer's Greed A National Shame
The drug
maker Pfizer "reaffirmed its commitment" over the weekend to keep its
prescription painkiller, Celebrex, on the market, despite a disclosure
last week that the drug more than tripled the risk of heart attacks,
strokes and death among those taking high doses in a national trial.
That level of risk is even greater than the one found in patients
taking the similar painkiller, Vioxx, in a similar trial that led Merck
to withdraw Vioxx in September. The results have "raised new questions
about how well federal drug regulators protect the public and worsened
drug makers' already dismal image." Indeed, reports following the
discovery have shown Celebrex, "fast-tracked" by the agency and never
even proved it protected the stomach from gastrointestinal problems
associated with aspirin and ibuprofen – its primary advantage over
existing pain relievers.
MARKETING
TO MIDDLE AGE: Celebrex and Vioxx were designed for senior citizens,
who have the highest risk of stomach bleeding – "principally people
over 65 years who have suffered from gastrointestinal problems," – but
marketed aggressively to middle-aged Americans, who could have
benefited just as well from traditional painkillers like aspirin.
Dorothy Hamill, the 1976 Olympic figure skating gold medalist, "was the
middle-aged celebrity face of Vioxx," while commercials for Celebrex
targeted "baby boomers beginning to suffer from arthritis." Many
medical experts "now say that Celebrex and Vioxx, selling for $2 or $3
a pill, have been too widely prescribed to patients who could safely
obtain the same pain benefits from over-the-counter drugs costing
pennies apiece." Under pressure from the FDA, Pfizer now says it will
halt advertising to consumers, but not to doctors.
THE
PASSING LANE: Celebrex, like Vioxx, was "fast-tracked" by the FDA,
because it was suggested the drug would help cut the rate of
gastrointestinal bleeding associated with older painkillers. That meant
the FDA took only six months to approve the drug, even though
scientists concluded it had not "sufficiently demonstrated" it reduced
the rate of the gastrointestinal problems compared with existing
painkillers. Later studies by Pfizer "were never convincing enough for
the agency to remove the warning from Celebrex's labeling." In other
words, Celebrex "has never been proven to the FDA's satisfaction to
have the stomach-protecting benefits that originally were supposed to
be the point of that category of drugs."
THE
'SPECTACULAR' FDA: Celebrex and Vioxx are not the only drugs to come
under scrutiny lately. On the same day the Celebrex study broke, "in
less than 12 hours," AstraZeneca reported that a trial of Iressa, a
lung cancer drug approved in the United States last year, showed that
the drug did not prolong lives. Eli Lilly warned doctors that
Strattera, its drug to treat attention deficit disorder had caused
severe liver injury in at least two patients. And doctors writing in a
prominent medical journal recommended that physicians stop prescribing
Pfizer's Bextra painkiller. So what was the White House's reaction to
the finding that several FDA approved drugs are ineffective or
dangerous? White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said the agency was
doing a "spectacular job."
SPECTACULAR
NEGLIGENCE: The Washington Post reports the FDA, "which regulates
almost one-quarter of the U.S. economy, has been without a permanent
chief for almost two-thirds of the time that Bush has been in
office." The agency also has had a "high number of temporary appointees
administering its centers, offices and divisions, including the key
positions running the offices that evaluate new drugs and monitor the
safety record of approved medications." The White House's negligence
plays right into the hands of major drug companies, which would rather
"have no one there than someone who favors a proactive stance that
might slow down the industry or raise hard questions about profitable
drugs." Observers say the agency's lack of leadership has made it "less
able to respond quickly and effectively to emerging problems."
SPECTACULAR
FUNDRAISERS: Another reason Bush has not appointed an FDA head may be
that some Democrats have signaled they would "strongly oppose any
nominee from the pharmaceutical industry." But the pharmaceutical
industry, which was the major winner in last year's prescription drug
bill, includes some of the GOP's biggest supporters. And of health
industry contributors, Pfizer is number one. Company executives have
contributed $2.7 million to Republicans since 2000, and the drugmaker's
political action committee (PAC) has pitched in more than $1.4 million.
Since 2000, 79 percent of the company's contributions have gone to
Republicans. Merck has made almost $1.8 million in political donations
since 2000, 74 percent to Republicans.
Bush Propaganda Machine Takes Aim at Social Security
by
Trish Nelson
on Mon 20 Dec 2004 09:26 AM CST
 Bush Propaganda Machine Takes Aim at Social Security
Brace yourself for more Orwellian doublespeak, sleight of hand, smoke
and mirrors and bald-faced lies, as the Bushies launch their public
relations campaign to drum up popular support for dismantling…er, I
mean privatizing, Social Security. Progressives have
another opportunity to watch helplessly as the Bushies continue
getting away with saying down is up and black is white. If all
goes according to plan, and with help from the compliant media, no one will notice what is being taken from
them in broad daylight.
Groups with friendly, politically-correct
sounding names such as For our Grandchildren, Alliance for Worker
Retirement Security, Women for Social Security Choice [get
it? women…choice…oh, they are shameless!] are all part of the
strategy to convince the country that we need to rid ourselves of that
dastardly program, Social Security. And to add insult to injury,
they call themselves grassroots organizations while receiving
funding from such groups as right-wing zealots, Club for Growth (the one
they’re willing to name)…Read on. Then write a letter to your
local newspaper.
Help reframe this issue for the asleep-at-the-wheel media by calling it
what it is. This is not about reform, updating, reshaping or overhaul:
this is an attempt to dismantle, undo, take down, rob, destroy, Social
Security, a government program that works.
New York Times
By Edmund L. Andrews
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16
- Introduced as a "single mom" from Iowa, Sandra Jaques was cool and
confident as she praised Bush's plan to partly replace Social
Security with private savings accounts.
But Ms.
Jaques is not any random single mother. She is the Iowa state director
of a conservative advocacy group, FreedomWorks, whose founders are Jack
F. Kemp, the former vice-presidential nominee, and Dick Armey, the
former House Republican leader.
[Another
advocate for private accounts] Leanne Abdnor said she had raised
start-up money from friends, whom she would not identify. She said the
group would wage a publicity campaign to counter groups that oppose
private accounts.
Support
for overhauling Social Security also comes from numerous self-described
grass-roots organizations: For Our Grandchildren, which employed Ms.
Jaques as a director in Iowa; SocialSecurityChoice.org, backed by
pro-business political groups like Club for Growth; and USANext, a
Virginia-based group run by Charles Jarvis, a former Reagan
administration official.
(click here to read the entire article)
Join your fellow Iowans in the fight to take back the media for ordinary citizens. Click here to join RapidResponse - Iowa.
Friday, December 17
Buying Into Failure: The Abolition of Social Security
by
Chad Thompson
on Fri 17 Dec 2004 11:30 AM CST
 Buying Into Failure: The Abolition of Social Security
As we
hear more and more pundits and politicians on television tell us the
enormous wealth that we will accumulate by eliminating Social Security,
there is a large piece of information missing: government-sponsored private investments simply don't work.
Paul Krugman notes the failure of such proposals today.
Yet,
aside from giving the Cato Institute and other organizations promoting
Social Security privatization the space to present upbeat tales from
Chile, the U.S. news media have provided their readers and viewers with
little information about international experience. In particular, the
public hasn't been let in on two open secrets:
Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies.
It leaves many retirees in poverty.
Decades
of conservative marketing have convinced Americans that government
programs always create bloated bureaucracies, while the private sector
is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security,
the opposite is true. More than 99 percent of Social Security's
revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In
Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's
a typical number for privatized systems.
...
Privatizers
who laud the Chilean system never mention that it has yet to deliver on
its promise to reduce government spending. More than 20 years after the
system was created, the government is still pouring in money. Why?
Because, as a Federal Reserve study puts it, the Chilean government
must "provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough
capital to provide a minimum pension." In other words, privatization
would have condemned many retirees to dire poverty, and the government
stepped back in to save them.
The
same thing is happening in Britain. Its Pensions Commission warns that
those who think Mrs. Thatcher's privatization solved the pension
problem are living in a "fool's paradise." A lot of additional
government spending will be required to avoid the return of widespread
poverty among the elderly - a problem that Britain, like the U.S.,
thought it had solved.
Britain's
experience is directly relevant to the Bush administration's plans. If
current hints are an indication, the final plan will probably claim to
save money in the future by reducing guaranteed Social Security
benefits. These savings will be an illusion: 20 years from now, an
American version of Britain's commission will warn that big additional
government spending is needed to avert a looming surge in poverty among
retirees.
So
the Bush administration wants to scrap a retirement system that works,
and can be made financially sound for generations to come with modest
reforms. Instead, it wants to buy into failure, emulating systems that,
when tried elsewhere, have neither saved money nor protected the
elderly from poverty.
The problem of elderly poverty in the United States - for the most part - has been solved in 2004 America.
Something
else of note: despite the supposed windfall that will be produced from
the pockets of Wall Street financiers - the phrase "benefit reduction"
is still in play.
Krugman was nice about it - the comission the current administration set up to study the so-called crisis in 2001 plainly called it a "cut":
Although
Bush's Social Security commission gave him three main recommendations
in 2001 on how to fix the system, Bush has not said which alternative,
if any, he would support. The main plan put forward by that commission
would cut future promised benefits for younger workers in exchange for
allowing private investment accounts.
McClellan
suggested Bush would follow the commission's direction without
explicitly endorsing one of its proposals. "That bipartisan commission
put forward some innovative ideas to solve this problem," McClellan
said. "The president said that should be a guide for us moving forward."
Folks -
it doesn't get any clearer than this. This is a false crisis,
generated by those that want to pick the pockets of the American public
for personal profit.
Josh Marshall is putting together a list of
where congressional delegations stand on this issue. For the
Rapid Response folks: we need to contact the Iowa delegation and
find out where they stand on this.
If
anyone finds out, we'll post it here - and send any interesting
comments to whomever wants to print them - and keep them around for
2006.
One last item on this today: the Social Security Abolition
movement is being promoted by bringing "regular Iowans" to Washington -
so they can lie to the American people.
Wednesday, December 8
Meet the New [USDA] Boss
by
Chad Thompson
on Wed 08 Dec 2004 11:48 AM CST
 Meet the New [USDA] Boss
Last Friday's American Progress Report gives us a summary of some of the policies pursued by Mike Johanns,an Iowa
native and current Nebraska governor who was nominated as the new U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, replacing outgoing Ann Veneman.
In
a victory for corporate agribusiness and a defeat for family farmers,
Bush nominated Nebraska Gov Mike Johanns to become the next
Secretary of Agriculture. Announcing Johanns's nomination
yesterday, Bush
called the governor "a faithful
friend of America's farmers and ranchers". But as governor,
Johanns worked persistently to undermine a law passed by a citizen
initiative in 1982 that protects family farmers in Nebraska by banning
most corporate agriculture. Johanns used $300,000 from the Bush administration to fund a biased study of
the law – called I-300 – produced by a Texas consulting
firm. Predictably, the study recommended making it "easier for
agribusiness to gobble up traditional family farm agriculture" in
Nebraska. Johanns's study also suggested "more taxpayer financed
corporate welfare by 'incenting' the outside corporations that would be
gobbling up individual owned farm and rural businesses". As his
next step in
undermining the law, Johanns pushed a bill in the Nebraska legislature
which would "establish a 20-member task force to lookat the pros and
cons of I-300" (Johanns was to appoint 18 of the 20 members). The
legislature understood the purpose of the task force was "to weaken the state's anti-corporate farm law" and, thankfully, it was defeated.
But if Johanns is put in control of federal agriculture policy, his
corporate agenda will be much more difficult for the nation's small
farmers to overcome.
JOHANNS PROPOSES SCHOOL FUNDING CUTS TO PRESERVE CORPORATE WELFARE:
In the face of a multi-million dollar budget shortfall, Johanns
adamantly defended Nebraska's massive corporate welfare program The
state has given away $13 billion on the program since 1988 for giant
corporations like IBP, ConAgra and Union Pacific Corporations profited
to the tune of $148 million in 2001 alone. Each year, Nebraska spends three times as much on corporate welfare as on the entire University of Nebraska school system. Instead of trimming back corporate giveaways, Johanns "called for 10 percent cuts to higher education and K-12 school aid" JOHANNS FAVORS LOWER WAGES FOR WORKERS AT SUBSIDIZED COMPANIES:
A bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature that would require
workers at companies receiving subsidies from Nebraska to be "paid at
least $870 per hour if they have health insurance, and $957 for those
without". Johanns supported an alternative proposal that would pay
workers at taxpayer subsidized corporations lower wages, with no increase if the company didn't provide health care. JOHANNS FAVORS WITHHOLDING MAD COW INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC: With Johanns in charge,you'll likely know a lot less about the safety of the food you eat. As governor,Johanns has expressed opposition to the Department of Agriculture's policy of informing the public when the nation's beef supply may be contaminated.
Johanns asked the Department of Agriculture to reconsider their policy
of announcing when initial tests of cattle show they may be infected
with Mad Cow disease, also known as BSE. Johanns's position runs counter
to the conclusions of the USDA inspector general, which found the agency
isn't doing enough to protect the public from Mad Cow contamination.
The
American Progress Report gave us an idea of what types of experience
Mr. Johanns has in agricultural policy. Columnist Alan Guebert
gives us an idea of what issues Mr. Johanns will have to face in the
next four years:
LETTER FROM AMERICA:
NEW USDA BOSS FACES TROUBLE
WITH CONGRESS AND FARMERS
ALAN GUEBERT, AG COMM:
To hear George W. Bush tell it, Michael Johanns, Bush's
nominee to succeed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, is an
accomplished trade negotiator, ardent defender of American farmers,
ranchers and biofuels and a proven leader with "executive skill."
Moreover,
explained Bush December 2, Johanns, governor of the nation's fourth
largest farm state, Nebraska, and now in line to lead nation's fourth
largest government agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "grew up
close to the land."
Right,
as U.S. farmers are fond of reminding politicians who boast they grew
up on a farm, "So did every mule and hog in America."
Truth
is, nothing in Johanns' background has prepared him for the challenges
he now faces in what he somewhat romantically calls his "dream job,"
running the $82 billion, 113,000-employee USDA.
After
a rapid and certain confirmation by the U.S. Senate in January, nothing
about leading USDA will be romantic. Johanns' will face domestic and
foreign farm fires immediately --- if not sooner.
First,
America's ballooning federal debt, an all-time record $413 billion in
2004, guarantees USDA farm programs will go under the knife in Congress
in 2005. Already, rumors suggest the White House has alerted all
federal agencies to expect heavy budget cuts; maybe two to four percent
below 2004 levels.
For
USDA that means the fiscal conservatives in Congress who won sweeping
election victories in the Republican "red" heartland last month could
slice as much as $3 billion from food aid and farm support programs.
That
will be a tough diet because Congress, with Bush's blessing, already
made the easy cuts in 2003 and 2004. For example, in the last two
fiscal years Congress lopped more than $1 billion from 2002 Farm Bill
soil and water conservation programs.
As
such, any new cuts will dismantle many rural development programs,
slice deeper into conservation and begin paring farm price support
programs.
Current
ideas center on cutting annual "base" payments guaranteed grain and
cotton producers under the 2002 Farm Bill as well as lowering Farm
Bill-pegged commodity prices that deliver greater government support as
commodity prices fall.
Johanns'
job in the budget fight will be two-fold. First must position himself
and [Bush] as a defenders of farmers so rural congressman and
senators have political cover with their constituents when cuts are
made.
The
operative line Johanns must learn is "Congress wanted deeper cuts, but
[Bush] and I limited the damage." It may pinch the truth, but,
hey, this is politics.
The
second job will be far harder --- convincing farmers and ranchers that
less money for American agriculture is good for them and the country.
The
supporting line for that argument is plain: America must reform (read
that cut) most of farm price support programs to complete world trade
talks.
That
script was a better seller before November 22, the day USDA announced
that for the first time in nearly 50 years the U.S. will not run and
farm trade surplus in 2005. The news shocked American farmers who have
long warmed themselves with the thought that "America feeds the world."
Not
anymore. According to USDA's latest estimates, U.S. farm exports in
2005 will be $56 billion, nearly $7 billion under 2004's. More
importantly, 2005 ag imports will be (in a curious coincidence) an
identical $56 billion, $9 billion more than as recently as 2003.
That
means in just four short years White House economic and trade policies
have taken the US farm trade surplus from $13.6 billion in 2001 to zero
in 2005.
Gov.
Johanns will be looked to by farmers to stop that freefall. While Bush
touts Johanns' trade experience, the governor's actual experience is
mostly as a salesman. Over the past six years he has led nearly a dozen
one-and two-day Nebraska trade junkets to the Far East and South
American.
If
that makes Johanns a trade expert, then anyone who has watched a
baseball game at New York's hallowed Yankee Stadium is Babe Ruth.
Johanns'
best links to agriculture came as a politician; he has not farmed since
childhood in Iowa. As Nebraska governor, though, he served as chairman
of the National Governor's Association Biotechnology Partnership with
American business.
Johanns'
ties to agribusiness were tested last January when he led an effort to
undermine a Nebraska law called Initiative-300, the toughest
anti-corporate farming law in America. It was a raw political move to
open the nation's biggest red meat-producing state to corporate
livestock integrator-meatpackers.
The
effort quickly backfired, however, and Johanns was soundly rebuked by
Nebraska farmers and ranchers who cherish their independence almost as
much as their cherish their guns.
It
is a lesson Johanns may endure again as he prepares to battle for Bush
farm policy initiatives--budget cuts and more free trade --- in the
U.S. and abroad. Both will be met with worry and anguish on the farms
and ranches of America.
Bottom
line for Secretary-to-be Johanns? He's Ann Veneman with a firmer
handshake and a quicker smile. The problems he faces, however, are the
not only the same as Veneman's, they are bigger, too.
Mr. Guebert's column is excerpted from A.V. Kreb's Agribusiness Examiner #383.
Alan Guebert is the author of the weekly column Farm and Food File, as
well as this weekly column written for European and Asian newspapers.
|
|
