Blog for Rural America

Blog for Rural America - We Moved

2007-05-27T09:23:00.000-05:00

Last month we moved the Blog for Rural America over to the main Center for Rural Affairs website. You can find it at http://www.cfra.org/blog.

It took us a little while to get cranking, but we're now posting on the new blog on a regular basis. If you are not reading the new site, you are missing out on a number of interesting posts.

If you read our blog by RSS feed, the new feed url is http://www.cfra.org/blog/feed.

I hope to hear from you all in the comments on the new site.

The New Blog for Rural America

2007-04-11T17:23:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to leave one last post to let you all know that the Blog for Rural America has moved to the Center for Rural Affairs website - www.cfra.org. I have truly enjoyed the interaction that I have had with the readers here. I hope you will continue to show the same enthusiasm at the new location - www.cfra.org. Again, thank you all very much for being a part of this. With a few more than 400 blog posts under the bridge, it has been a good long conversation that has touched on many, many things. Come to the new Blog for Rural America as soon as possible - www.cfra.org - thank you, John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Washington Post - Rural Aid Goes to Urban Areas

2007-04-06T12:02:00.000-05:00

Rural Aid Goes to Urban Areas

USDA Rural Development Program Helps Suburbs, Resort Cities

By Gilbert M. Gaul and Sarah Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 6, 2007; A01

PROVINCETOWN, Mass. -- In a few weeks, artists, lawyers and bankers will begin arriving here for the busy summer season on high-speed ferries that take 90 minutes to make the trip from Boston. They will land at a recently refurbished municipal dock that was built with the help of a $1.95 million low-interest loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

A few blocks away, the Provincetown Art Association and Museum has used nearly $3 million in grants and loans from the Agriculture Department to add gallery space and renovate a historic sea captain's house. A short drive back down the Cape, the department is financing a new actors theater in Wellfleet and recently awarded a grant to a garden center in Hyannis to build a windmill.

Although Cape Cod is only a short trip from Boston and Providence, R.I., and is home to some of the wealthiest beach towns in the United States, to the Agriculture Department it meets the definition of rural America. That means it qualifies for aid originally intended for farmland and backwoods areas that were isolated and poor, struggling to keep their heads above water.

"Provincetown is many things to many people, and to USDA we're rural," said Keith A. Bergman, the town manager. "We'll take it."

He isn't alone.

On Martha's Vineyard, the USDA guaranteed a $4.5 million loan for the popular Black Dog Tavern. The loan, which has since been repaid, was to refinance the tavern's mortgage and expand Black Dog's retail clothing stores. On Nantucket, where the population swells to the size of a small city in summer months, the Agriculture Department provides rental subsidies for families priced out of the local market.

All told, the USDA has handed out more than $70 billion in grants, loans and loan guarantees since 2001 as part of its sprawling but little-known Rural Development program. More than half of that money has gone to metropolitan regions or communities within easy commuting distance of a midsize city, including beach resorts and suburban developments, a Washington Post investigation found... read the full Washington Post article online at - www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040501895.html?referrer=emailarticle.

... editor's note... remember, we will be finishing the transition of the Blog for Rural America to the Center for Rural Affairs redesigned website next week. Look for the Blog for Rural America at www.cfra.org from now on. Thank you, john

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Medicaid Generic Drug Refund Cut Could Hurt Rural Pharmacies

2007-04-05T17:53:00.000-05:00

Cut in Medicaid generic drug refund could hurt small, rural pharmacies

...editor's note, this post is credited to our friends at the Rural Blog at the University of Kentucky, see the link under the title of this blog post

Independent pharmacies could be hurt by a federal proposal to cut the reimbursements they receive for providing generic prescription drugs to people on Medicaid. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ new rule would pay pharmacists an average of 36 percent less than what it would cost them to provide the drug, according to a Government Accountability Office study.

The new rule would go into effect July 1 and would apply to all pharmacies, but small pharmacies would be hurt most because they don’t have the same sales volume as chain stores and serve more Medicaid patients. Small pharmacies might be forced to stop serving Medicaid patients. About 75 percent of the independent pharmacies in the United States are located in rural areas.

The proposal could leave many rural Medicaid patients with fewer places to get prescriptions filled, says a staff-and-wire report in the Journal News of White Plains, N.Y.

Pharmacies now make only 1 to 5 percent profit on drugs under Medicaid, according to the National Community Pharmacists Association. Steve Feinstein, co-owner of the Prescription Center of Ossining, said that as an independent pharmacist he feels “there's a concerted effort by our government to really put us out of business… We're seeing reimbursement rates, for example, from (Health Insurance Plan of New York), of 87 cents for a co-pay.” Most pharmacists don't determine the drug prices, which are set by third parties such as pharmacy-benefits managers, said Bob Giaquinto, owner of Rye Beach Pharmacy.

“CMS disputes the GAO's findings that pharmacists would be underpaid,” the story says. “In its response to the report, CMS said its results are unreliable because they are based on confidential data the GAO received from IMS Health, a private company that tracks drug prices, and cannot be verified. Congress mandated the change in reimbursement rates in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act because under the current formula pharmacists are overpaid, the agency said. The change is supposed to save taxpayers $8 billion over the next five years.” (Read more)

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action

Alert - Iowa Legislation Requires Hog Purchases From Independent Producers

2007-04-04T12:28:00.000-05:00

Bill Requiring Hog Purchases From Independent Producers Passes Iowa Senate
Radio Iowa - Wednesday, March 21, 2007
By Stella Shaffer, Radio Iowa

...editor's note, I am posting this because this crucial legislation is stuck in the Iowa House Agriculture Committe. In order for farmers, independent producers and contract growers alike, to be treated fairly in the livestock marketplace, there must be an open (spot or cash) market with real competition where multiple buyers bid for hogs and, thereby, establish a competitive price. Livestock market competition is important to farmers, yes, but also to the rural communities in which they live. Competitive markets would also help forestall the environmental, economic and social catastrophe that awaits us as a result of consolidation and industrialization of hog production. Please contact your state Representative's and urge them to support SF 504, the 25% spot market bill (see below for additional contact information).

Meatpackers will have to purchase more of their hogs from independent family farmers under legislation approved by the Iowa Senate on Tuesday afternoon. Big meatpackers now buy many of their hogs on contract from farmers, and lock in the price without a sale at auction. The bill requires them to purchase at least 25-percent of their hogs from independent farmers.

Senator Jack Kibbie, a Democrat from Emmetsburg, urged the Senate to pass the bill. "I would ask the senate to think again about casting a vote for the small independent pork producers of this state, the ones that keep our fairs alive, our 4-H and our future farmers."

Kibbie said the market for independent hog producers has almost disappeared. He describes signs at packers' unloading docks that say "contract hogs only." Kibbie says we must provide a market for the independent producer. Supporters argued consumers would get a better price on meat if fewer hogs were produced on contract for the big packing companies.

Critics said you can't turn back the clock on Iowa agriculture. The drive to curtail packer ownership of livestock on the farm stems in part from the discovery that so few animals are sold at public auction these days that the open-market price is hard to determine. This bill puts into effect an agreement Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller worked out with meatpackers Smithfield, Cargill, and Hormel -- and extends the agreement to Tyson Foods as well.

...editor's note, the House switchboard number is 515-281-3221 and members of the agriculture committee are listed below, along with members of the subcommittee where the 25% spot market bill is being held up.

Dolores Mertz (D, District 8), Chair and subcommittee chair
John Whitaker (D, District 90), Vice Chair and subcommittee member
Jack Drake (R, District 57), Ranking Member
Mark Davitt (D, District 74)
Betty De Boef (R, District 76)
Cecil Dolecheck (R, District 96)
Marcella Frevert (D, District 7)
Elesha Gayman (D, District 84)
Sandy Greiner (R, District 89), subcommittee member
Dan Huseman (R, District 53)
Mark Kuhn (D, District 14)
Helen Miller (D, District 49)
Steven Olson (R, District 83)
Dawn Pettengill (D, District 39)
Henry Rayhons (R, District 11)
Mike Reasoner (D, District 95)
Nathan Reichert (D, District 80), subcommittee member
Doug Struyk (R, District 99) , subcommittee member
Kurt Swaim (D, District 94)
Andrew Wenthe (D, District 18)
Gary Worthan (R, District 52)

Guest Opinion - Preserving History, Preserving Community

2007-04-03T22:26:00.000-05:00

Preserving History, Preserving Community

By Elisha Greeley Smith, elishas@cfra.org

... editor's note, remember, on April 9th we will finalize moving the Blog for Rural America to the Center for Rural Affairs website - www.cfra.org

The Center for Rural Affairs often emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurship in rural communities. For one rural community, entrepreneurship has kept the small town alive.

St. James, Nebraska was once a thriving farm community, but like many rural towns, found itself quickly dwindling. The town was struggling, and after the church was closed and the remaining building burned to the ground in 2000, the old school house and a few other establishments were about the only signs that a town existed.

Fearing that the loss of the church would destroy the community, five entrepreneurs -- Mary Rose Pinkelman, Vicky Koch, Jeanette Pinkelman, Violet Pinkelman and Louise Guy -- came together and purchased the old school house. With entrepreneurial spirit, hard work and determination the ladies renovated the school house and created St. James Marketplace. The marketplace now houses a farmer’s market, craft room, tea room, and a historical room.

The Marketplace provides a place for local vendors to sell their products and draws hundreds of visitors each year. Guests get a taste of local goods and learn about the history of early pioneers.

Not only did the ladies preserve the school house, but they preserved the rich history of that area, and they preserved their community.

Recently Readers Digest recognized the success of St. James and chose to do a piece featuring the marketplace.

The Marketplace will open its doors for the season on May 5. For more information on St. James and a schedule of events visit: http://www.stjamesmarketplace.com/ .

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Supreme Court Rejects I-300 Appeal

2007-04-02T21:36:00.000-05:00

Supreme Court Rejects Initiative 300 Appeal

...editor's note - in one week we will complete the process of moving the Blog for Rural America onto the Center for Rural Affairs website. Until that time we will continue to host the Blog for Rural America here and there at the same time...

LYONS, NE – Today the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Nebraska Attorney General’s petition for a writ of certiorari - a request for an appeal of the Omaha federal district court ruling that I-300 is unconstitutional. This means the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an appeal and I-300 can no longer be enforced.

“This decision puts the ball back in the Legislature’s court. Judge Smith-Camp and the 8th Circuit are still wrong on the facts and we are disappointed that the Supreme Court will not give Initiative 300 the hearing it deserves. But now the Legislature must work diligently to create new corporate farming policies that will again level the playing field for family farmers, ranchers and rural communities,” commented John Crabtree, Development Officer at the Center for Rural Affairs.

In 1982, by a vote of the people, the constitution of Nebraska was amended to include a provision that prohibited corporate farming, with crucial exceptions for family farm and ranch corporations, commonly known as Initiative 300.

Initiative 300 has been part of an agricultural climate in Nebraska that has helped the state retain more family farmers and ranchers than most states while also retaining agricultural production, livestock production in particular.

For more information on Initiative 300, visit: www.cfra.org.

“We will now turn over attention to the Nebraska Legislature, and immediately to LB 516 and whatever type of study or task force on corporate farming issues that comes from that bill currently pending in the Agriculture Committee of the Unicameral,” said Jon Bailey, Center for Rural Affairs Rural Research & Analysis Program Director.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs

Values. Worth. Action.

A Letter to Senator Harkin

2007-04-01T16:55:00.000-05:00

--- editor's note - this is the letter that I sent to Senator Harkin on behalf of my family... john

Senator Harkin,

We farm 400 acres of corn and soybeans near Dougherty, Iowa. We used to raise hogs but were driven from that endeavor long ago by the consolidation and vertical integration of pork production. Sheffield, where I attended high school, has about 1,000 people; a consolidated K-12 school (Sheffield, Chapin, Meservey and Thornton); and Sheffield’s main street, which has struggled, like most, to hold onto enough economic activity to remain viable. So far, they have done so. Many others have not.

The consolidation in farming that has resulted from unlimited farm program payments is hollowing out my part of the country. We farm land in Franklin and Cerro Gordo counties, and both have experienced a virtual exodus from our rural communities.

Senator Harkin, no one will ever farm our farm again after we leave, not if things remain the way they are now. Of course, someone will till the soil, plant and harvest. But no one will farm here, no one will live here. If a beginning farmer wanted to farm our land, we would likely do whatever we could to help. But he would not be able to afford to add onto our small farm. The current farm bill has driven up land costs to the point where young farmers have no chance. The only so-called “farmers” that are still buying land are mostly speculators or very large operators that do not even live around here.

We are selling 80 acres to a local banker, not the bank, but the banker – purely a speculative purchase on his part – because we need the cash to keep my mother in the care center where she now resides. But the transaction confirms what I suspected. No one will farm here when we are gone, unless you do something about all of this.

We farm some of the best land anywhere. There should be lots of farms with kids and with livestock and lots of building for the future. The November elections made you the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. No one will play a bigger role in writing the next farm bill than you. I urge you to stand up to the Southerners and tell them we will no longer write nor tolerate farm bills that destroy family farms. If they want to destroy their family farms, let them have their way with cotton and rice, and may God have mercy on their souls.

But let us have a farm bill here in Iowa, the Midwest and the rest of the nation that supports family farmers, especially beginning farmers, and the communities that have grown up around them. Let us have a farm bill with real payment limits. No more tricks, no more loopholes, no more multiple entities – but real farm payment limits that level the playing field and bring young families back to our communities.

I have heard many farmers say that they would rather have no farm bill than one without payment caps, and perhaps they are right. I will say this, there is nothing in the current farm bill, nothing, not… one… single… thing… that is worth trading away payment limits. Any farm bill without payment limits is doomed to fail. And the people who will suffer that failure the most are the family farmers and rural people living in and around places like Sheffield, Iowa.

Sincerely,

John Crabtree
Crabtree Farms
2238 Thrush Ave
Sheffield, Iowa 50475

Post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

The Debate over the Future of Rural America Begins

2007-03-31T11:31:00.000-05:00

Congress is beginning deliberations over a new farm and rural policy bill slated for this year.

You have a unique opportunity to make a difference.

--- editor's note - the following action alert was sent to our supporters in Iowa. Obviously, if you are outside Iowa you should communicate with your Senators and Representative. If you need to know who to write to, post a question here or contact me, johnc@cfra.org. Letters from the 7th district in Minnesota to Representative Collin Peterson, House Ag Committee Chair, are also particularly important. But all of our Senators and Representatives need to hear from us.

Senator Tom Harkin chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee. Under his leadership, Congress will decide whether to continue subsidizing mega farms to drive smaller operations out of business, or target support to family size farms and invest in proven strategies to revitalize rural America. If we don’t speak out now, Congress will likely continue the failed approach of subsidizing the destruction of family farming.

Your letter to your Senator will influence the outcome and help shape the future of rural America. Early letters matter most because they help shape the debate before positions are hardened. With your help, we will reach our goal of 500 letters to Senator Harkin by March 15.

Please write today to Senator Tom Harkin, Attention Susan Keith, Room 328A, Russell Senate Building, Washington DC 20510; Fax 202 228 4576; or email susan_keith@agriculture.senate.gov. Key points to make include:

Close the loopholes and make the paper limits real. Stop allowing mega farms to increase payments by subdividing on paper into multiple entities or between spouses. Limits should be limits, regardless of how farms are organized.

Without real limits, farm programs don’t work. They subsidize mega farms to drive smaller operations out of business by bidding land away from them. And large, aggressively expanding producers bid farm their payments into land prices, forcing everyone to higher rent and property taxes. Unlimited farm programs do nothing to increase operators' incomes except on previously owned land.

Just say no to any farm bill without meaningful payment limitations. Rural America cannot afford another farm bill that destroys family farming.

Describe your farm – the struggles you face and how real payment limitations would make a difference. This makes your letter unique and demonstrates you are a truly concerned citizen with opinions that deserve to be heard.

Good letters don’t have to be long – one page is more than enough. Typed or hand written is fine. In email, it is essential to include your name and address so they know you are a constituent.

Farm bill discussions are starting so please send the letter or email soon. This farm bill should be about the people of rural America. By writing, you are taking responsibility for shaping our future. We cannot expect others to help us, if we don’t act ourselves. The future of rural America is in our hands.

Please let us know you have taken action and taken responsibility for the future of rural America.

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Nebraska Legislative Update

2007-03-30T01:48:00.000-05:00

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
MARCH 30, 2007

Revenue Committee Tax Cut Plan Finalized: A “Little” Something For Everyone

On March 29, the Revenue Committee finalized its tax cut proposal on a 7-0 vote (Sen. White abstaining for reasons explained below). Members of the committee and news reports claim the plan has “a little something for everyone,” with, as you will see below, “little” being the key point for many taxpayers.

The package totals $418 million over the next two years. This amount will have to fit in the budget the Appropriations Committee is currently developing. The plan will be rolled into and presented to the Legislature as LB 367. Key components of the Revenue Committee’s tax cut plan include:

A property tax credit to all landowners equal to 8 cents per $100 valuation in 2007-08 and 4 cents per $100 valuation in 2008-09, or about $80 for the owner of a $100,000 home in the first year ($40 in the second year). The credit will equal $100 million in 2007-08 and $50 million in 2008-09.
In the second year, reduce of school property tax levies from $1.05 to $1 per $100 of valuation; this will cost $60 million in additional state aid to schools. It is estimated that the property tax credit and additional school aid will reduce property taxes by 5 cents per $100 valuation in the second year.
Lower the top income bracket from 6.84 percent to 6.65 percent.
Eliminate the “marriage penalty” by increasing the income tax standard deduction for married couples by $1,800 and increasing the amount of income for married couples in the top income tax bracket (from $50,000 to $54,000). All income tax changes are retroactive to January 1, 2007.
The income tax changes would reduce revenue by $108 million in 2007-08 and by $87 million in 2008-09.
Raise to $2 million (from $1 million) the size of estates subject to the state estate tax. This change would reduce revenue by $2 million in 2008-09.
Repeal the sales tax on labor for commercial construction. This change would reduce revenue by $15 million over the two years.
Creates a tax credit for renewable energy production, the estimated revenue cost of which is $160,000 over two years.

For most low- and moderate-income taxpayers this package provides few benefits. Property tax credits will total less than $100 over two years for most rural non-farm homeowners. The property tax credit will provide greater benefits to farmers and ranchers, and, in fact, provides greater benefits for farmers and ranchers than did earlier versions of the property tax credit that provided a flat amount to homeowners. Depending on the amount of land owned, its value, and one’s property tax obligation, the property tax credit could be in the thousands of dollars for farm and ranch households. Higher income earners will be the chief beneficiaries of the income tax changes, with married taxpayers benefiting from the higher standard deduction and some middle-income married income taxpayers benefiting from a lower rate.

Sen. White abstained from the final committee vote in order to keep open the option of attempting to amend the package to include his $500 tax credit for property taxes paid by homeowners. The tax relief package is slightly smaller than that proposed by Governor Heinemann in January. The Governor proposed about $240 million in tax relief in the first year, mostly in income tax changes and with no property tax relief. However, the Governor seemed to express support for the committee’s plan.

Bills Update

As in the past, we will divide into categories the bills we are working on or tracking. Any bill designated a Priority Bill will also have a “P” attached to its number (for example, LB 123P). The chief sponsor of the bill is listed in parentheses.

The words Support or Oppose after a bill description indicate where the Center for Rural Affairs has taken a position on the bill. If neither word is indicated, the Center has not taken a position at this time.

As bills are killed in committee or become law through floor stages, they will be deleted from the Legislative Update.

Rural Development

LB 232P (Dubas) – Modifications to the Building Entrepreneurial Communities Act. On March 28, the bill was advanced to Select File on a 36-0 vote. Support
LB 498P (White) – Establishes the Business Partnership in Rural Education Program to use donated business tax incentive tax credits to raise funds for projects related to educating students for economic development needs. The bill awaits committee action
LB 567 ((Louden) – Establishes the Recreational Liability Act; generally exempts private landowners from liability for the public use of property for recreational purposes. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 609 (Carlson) – Establishes the Nebraska Recruitment Promotion Act, a grant program for communities, counties, or regions losing population to develop marketing and promotional materials. The bill awaits committee action.

Agriculture

LB 46 (Hudkins) – Would create an assessment on grapes for marketing and promotional purposes. The bill awaits action on General File.
LB 69 (Hudkins) – Modifies the state value-added agriculture grant program. The bill awaits action on General File.
LB 368P (Erdman) – The Limited Cooperative Association Act. Rewrites Nebraska cooperative law. The bill awaits action on General File.
LB 488P (Wallman) – Creates an income tax credit for perpetual conservation easements. On March 27, the bill was advanced to General File by the Revenue Committee on a 5-0 vote. The bill was amended in committee to cap the credits at $5 million per year.
LB 516P (Agriculture Committee) – Establishes the Corporate Farming Policy Advisory Council. The bill is awaits committee action. Oppose
LB 633 (Dierks) – Modifications to the Competitive Livestock Markets Act regulating livestock production and marketing contracts. The bill awaits committee action. Support

Taxes

LB 177P (Janssen) – Proposed modifications to the Microenterprise Tax Credit. The bill awaits action on General File. Support
LB 331 (Janssen) – The Governor’s $1.06 billion tax cut proposal. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 366 (Janssen) – Would create a $12,000 homestead exemption from property taxes for residence and would reduce to 70% (from 75%) the value of ag land subject to property taxes and would eliminate the authority of community colleges to levy property taxes. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 367 (Janssen) – The Revenue Committee’s tax cut plan (see above).
LB 453 (White) – Creates a $500 refundable income tax credit for property taxes on primary residences. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 511 (Avery) – Would exempt 10% of average assessed value of residences from property taxes and would reduce to 65% (from 75%) the value of ag land subject to property taxes. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 683 (Dubas) – Would increase the earned income tax credit on the state income tax from 8% of the federal EITC to 15% of the federal credit. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 684 (Dubas) – Creates a refundable income tax credit for homeowners and ag land when property taxes exceed a percentage of the taxpayer’s federal adjusted gross income; known as a property tax “circuit breaker.” The bill awaits committee action. Support

Education

LB 658P (Raikes) – Would allow for the creation of new Class I school districts anywhere in the state through a reorganization and election process. On March 29, the bill was advanced to Select File on a 29-0 vote.
LB 595 (Kopplin) – Sunsets the current K-12 state aid formula in 2009 and establishes the Task Force on School Funding for Economic Growth to develop a new school funding system to recommend to the Legislature. The bill awaits committee action.

Renewable Energy

LB 9 (Preister) – Creates an income tax credit for installation or improvements to residences or businesses for energy conservation or renewable energy generation. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 343P (Langemeier) – Creates an income tax credit for investments in biodiesel facilities. On March 28, the bill was advanced to Select File on a 40-0 vote. .
LB 444 (Stuthman) – Modifies amount of renewable energy tax credit for electricity generated by new zero-emission facilities by making all such facilities eligible for the credit. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 581 (Preister) – Establishes a system of net metering for customer-generators of electricity from renewable energy sources. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 626 (Dierks) – Creates the Biodiesel Fuel Producer Incentive Fund. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 629P (Dierks) – Establishes a program for community-based wind energy development. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 648 (Preister) – Exempts from sales tax any personal property used in community-based wind projects; also modifies the renewable energy tax credit for electricity generated by new zero-emission facilities. The bill awaits committee action. Support
LB 672 (Lathrop) – Prohibits the eminent domain condemnation of community-based energy projects by publicly-owned utilities. The bill awaits action on General File. Support

Health Care

LB 281 (Stuthman) – Appropriates $1.25 million to the five federally qualified community health centers in the state. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 378 (Pahls) – Modifies the Small Employer Health Insurance Availability Act by adding association plans. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 531 (Nantkes) – Creates a $5,000 refundable tax credit for small business employers who offer and pay a portion of an employee health insurance plan. The bill awaits committee action. Support

Industrial Livestock and Low Feed Prices

2007-03-29T22:56:00.000-05:00

Industrial Livestock Companies Gains from Low Feed Prices

by Timothy A. Wise and Elanor Starmer, Tufts University - Tim.Wise@tufts.edu

With rising demand for corn-based ethanol, representatives of many of the nation’s leading meat companies have expressed concern over the rising price of animal feed, which has increased significantly with the price increases for its two principal components, corn and soybeans. Feed prices have indeed increased significantly. As feed costs generally account for more than half of operating costs for industrial operations, higher prices can have an important impact on the bottom line for these companies.

So too can low prices. Any discussion of today’s high prices should take into account the extent to which these same firms have benefited from many years of feed that was priced well below what it cost to produce. In the nine years that followed the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, 1997 - 2005, corn was priced 23% below average production costs, while soybean prices were 15%
below farmers’ costs. As a result, feed prices were an estimated 21% below production costs for poultry and 26% below costs for the hog industry.

We estimate cumulative savings to the broiler chicken industry from below-cost feed in those years to be $11.25 billion, while industrial hog operations saved an estimated $8.5 billion. As we show below - http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/CompanyFeedSvgsFeb07.pdf - the leading firms gained a great deal during those years from U.S. agricultural policies that helped lower the prices for many agricultural commodities...

--- editor's note... this excerpt is from a short paper from Tufts University's Global Development And Environment Institute... you can view the entire paper at the links above or under the title of this post

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

COOL Issues Heating Up Once Again

2007-03-28T15:41:00.000-05:00

COOL Issues Heating Up Once Again

exerpted from an article by Troy Marshall in Beef Magazine

The political wrangling for the new farm bill is starting to hit high gear. One hint is the debate over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) in which both sides are pulling out the heavy artillery.

The Food Marketing Institute (FMI), in characterizing the food industry's experience with mandatory COOL for seafood, said this week that the measure hadn't increased U.S. seafood sales but had cost the supermarket industry 10 times more than what USDA had estimated.

Meanwhile, Ranchers - Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF), the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) and consumer activist groups leveraged the latest news from Canada on BSE incidence to press for full implementation of COOL by next fall.

Practically every producer in the country agrees with COOL in theory; they like the idea of designating the country of origin at the supermarket level. But they become divided on philosophical lines when the discussion becomes voluntary vs. mandatory.

I've always believed the market functions best without government intervention. If consumers wanted it, and were willing to pay for it, food providers would already be doing it. Others believe that, regardless of the fact that consumers won't pay for it and the implementation cost is high, it still should be done. There's no question COOL will cost the industry from a profit standpoint, but a great number of producers are willing to accept the loss as a matter of principle.

It's too confusing to even try to figure out the logic of how those who support mandatory COOL are against mandatory ID. After all, ID is a prerequisite to COOL. They tout COOL as a food-safety issue, while rejecting the system that would actually protect herd health and consumer safety -- individual animal ID.

ID and COOL are similar in that the economic incentives vs. the cost to implement them simply aren't there. As a result, neither will happen without government intervention, so the economic arguments are pointless.

Rather, the debate on COOL and ID should be focused on how much disconnect there really is between the programs' goals and their ability to deliver on them. The current COOL law is a terrible law; it exempts our major competitors and doesn't apply to more than 50% of the beef market, besides violating trade laws. Implementation of COOL as currently written would be a major fiasco.

But that doesn't have to be the case. If the majority of producers want a COOL program, then let's work on getting a workable program, instead of forcing one that's destined to fail.

Relative to national ID, a voluntary program may be the stated position of the various cattlemen groups, but it's obvious that "voluntary with 100% participation" is simply another way to say "mandatory". Voluntary national ID can't meet the stated goals of the program.

It's time to lay the cards on the table, make the case for why it's in the best interest of the industry to have a traceback system, and gain consensus for a mandatory program. Either that, or accept that the industry will be unprepared in the event of a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak.

Where national ID and COOL are concerned, there's no mistaking who's at fault for these programs' not being implemented. It's the proponents, not the opponents.

Cattlemen are supportive of the concept of COOL; they understand they have to protect their herds and the consumer from the threats we face with animal disease, etc. They're looking for viable ways to achieve those goals, and voluntary ID and the current COOL law simply fall well short of the target.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Senator Tester on Payment Limits

2007-03-22T19:42:00.000-05:00

Comments of farmer and Senator Jon Tester on the floor of the U.S. Senate speaking in favor of stricter farm bill payment limits... editor's note, this was first posted on the Rural Populist and is reproduced here courtesy of the Rural Populist - http://ruralpopulist.org...

Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus for allowing me to speak. I also thank the good Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 464, the Grassley-Dorgan amendment on farm payment limitations, making those limitations max out at $250,000. That is a quarter of a million dollars. That is how much money that is going to be maxed out for individual family farmers to get. That is a reasonable request. I think it makes the farm bill more defendable to the American people.

I am a family farmer. I understand family farmers are the backbone of this country. They keep our food security there so we do not have people going hungry. What the farm program was meant to do, and has always been meant to be, is a safety net for farmers so when market prices drop they have that safety net to depend upon. There is not one farmer I know of who does not want to get their income from the marketplace. So we need to keep it that way.

We need to encourage fair trade deals. We need to encourage more competition in the marketplace. We need to make sure our freight rates are, what I would call, not abusive, if we are going to keep family farmers on the land.

Some 30 years ago, the student body in the high school I went to in a farming community had 160 kids in it. Today, that same student body is less than half that size because we have not had a farm bill that has worked for the farmers.

This amendment makes sense because it puts a cap of $250,000 on the benefits from farm program subsidies and eliminates those big agribusinesses that have been taking money they do not need, quite frankly. They do not need that safety net that the farm program subsidies provide in our farm program.

So with that, Mr. President, I ask that all the Members of the Senate support amendment No. 464, the Grassley-Dorgan amendment, because it is the right thing to do.

Thank you, Senator Tester... the Rural Populist

Nebraskans - Stand Up for Rural Entrepreneurship

2007-03-21T01:43:00.000-05:00

You have an opportunity to make a difference on a bill to strengthen rural Nebraska through support for small business and beginning farmers.

LB 177 would improve the Nebraska Micro Enterprise Investment Tax Credit (see details below). It provides a 20 percent investment tax credit up to $10,000 for owner-operated businesses with five or fewer employees. But one critical element was eliminated in committee.

The total tax credits for all microenterprises in the state would continue to be limited to $2 million per year, on a first come first serve basis. Once $2 million in tax credits are claimed, all subsequent applications are denied. Meanwhile, tax credits for big businesses are uncapped at a cost 50 - 60 times that amount.

Please call or write your Senator today using the contact information provided at -
http://www.cfra.org/take_action/alerts/ne_micro. Urge them to support LB 177 to improve microenterprise tax credits. Most importantly, urge them to amend LB 177 to remove the $2 million cap on total credits.

If we can afford over $100 million annually for big business, surely we can afford more than 1/50th of that amount for small businesses that have been the backbone and true economic engine of Nebraska's economy, especially in rural communities.

Under current law, the microenterprise tax credit applies only to new investment in plant, equipment and employees. Under LB 177, the credit would also apply to health insurance, legal services, advertising and professional fees. In agriculture, the credit would be targeted to beginning farmers and ranchers. It would also be available for diversification into nontraditional enterprises such as agritourism and specialty crops.

Please find your Senator's contact information at the links above and under the title of this post and then write or call your Senator today!

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Under Secretary Bruce Knight - COOL is Like Liver

2007-03-19T23:05:00.000-05:00

Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling implementation moving forward

Tuesday, February 20, 2007, by Tom Steever, Brownfield Radio News Network

Audio related to this story

editor's note... the views stated in this article are those of Bruce Knight, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and do not reflect the opinions of the Center for Rural Affairs... John Crabtree, Blog for Rural America editor.

Mandatory country of origin labeling is moving toward implementation over the next year and a half, but with some changes, according to Bruce Knight, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

“I’ll be going through things to see if there’s options for flexibility or not,” Knight told Brownfield Tuesday in Jefferson City, Missouri.

Whether people embrace the issue or not, Knight says those who are on middle ground are rare, and most do not like the original proposed rule because of its exemptions of poultry and retail food service items.

“I want to re-launch that rule making process, I want to go through a robust economic analysis (and) figure out how to make this law that’s on the books workable and implementable by September 30, 2008,” Knight said.

The administration stance is that COOL should be voluntary and market driven, according to Knight, however he says consumers are not willing to voluntarily pay for a “grown-in-the-U.S.” label. “The debate will continue,” said Knight. “It is law, however, and we will move forward and implement that law.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

I encourage those that disagree with Under Secretary Knight to call him at 202-720-4256 and let him know.

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

You Better Call Your Senators Today... about the budget

2007-03-12T09:12:00.000-05:00

... and, for that member, your Representative too... an action alert from our friends at the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (of which the Center for Rural Affairs is a member)...

...editor's note... I know, I know, budget bills and appropriations always sound, well, boring, but reforms that we have fought for over the last decade and more as well as most of what we are trying to accomplish in the next farm bill will hang in the balance with this budget resolution, so, I am making my calls (and sending my faxes) today and urge you to do the same... john

BUDGET COMMITTEES DEBATE BUDGET BILLS IN COMING WEEK

OUTCOME WILL DETERMINE FATE OF THE 2007 FARM BILL

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PRIORITIES HANG IN THE BALANCE!

Phone calls or faxed letters are needed immediately, directed at the Senate and House Budget Committee members, to urge them to increase the spending allowances available for the writing of the 2007 Farm Bill (covering 2008 through 2012) as well as the Agricultural Appropriations bill for 2008.

i. The list of Budget Committee members follows below. If no one from your state is on the budget committee, please call or fax a very brief letter to the Chairman of the House and Senate Committee.
ii. The Senate Budget Committee will convene on Wednesday, March 14 to take up the Budget Resolution, and will start voting Thursday, March 15. The House Budget Committee intends to write its budget bill the following week.

The funding level set by Congress in the Budget Resolution will dictate how much money the Agriculture Committees can spend on the new five-year Farm Bill. The spending level set in the Budget Resolution for domestic discretionary social spending will largely determine how much money the Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee will have when it writes the discretionary spending bill for next year. Our chances for winning major farm bill reform or increased funding levels for sustainable and organic programs will be determined in large part by action on the Budget Resolution.

PLEASE CALL OR FAX TODAY
The message is simple. I am a constituent and I am calling to ask Senator _______ (or Representative ________ ) to vote for a Budget Resolution that
- Increases mandatory spending levels for the 2007 Farm Bill by $20 billion; and
- Increases spending levels for the 2008 Agricultural Appropriations bill by at least $1 billion.

I believe we need to invest in conservation, renewable energy, sustainable and organic farming, rural economic development, beginning farmers and ranchers, and local and regional food systems.

It’s easy to call or write. Please call the Capitol switchboard (202-224-3121) and ask for your Senator’s or Representative’s office by name. Ask the Senator’s or Representative’s receptionist for the legislative aid who covers the budget resolution. If the budget aid is unavailable, leave a message with your name, phone number and the message above on the aid’s voice mail or with the receptionist.

If you prefer to write, fax a brief letter with the points above, along with your name and address and contact information, to the fax number listed in this list of Budget Committee members ---www.msawg.org/pdf/ACTION_ALERT_-_BUDGET_RESOLUTION.pdf

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Nebraska Legislative Update

2007-03-09T20:06:00.000-06:00

NEBRASKA LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Halftime!

by Jon Bailey, Center for Rural Affairs, jonb@cfra.org

-- editor's note... the following is excerpted from Jon Bailey's weekly legislative update, to receive a full copy of the update just send me an e-mail - johnc@cfra.org...

March 13th marks the halfway point of the 2007 session. The halfway point of the session is also the deadline for Senators and committees to designate Priority Bills. All Senators and committees designated their Priority Bills by March 9. These designations are important because Priority Bills will make up the bulk of legislative issues that will receive attention during the second half of the session.

Bills Update

Any bill designated a Priority Bill will also have a “P” attached to its number (for example, LB 123P). The chief sponsor of the bill is listed in parentheses. The words Support or Oppose after a bill description indicate where the Center for Rural Affairs has taken a position on the bill.

As bills are killed in committee or become law, they will be deleted from the update.

Rural Development

LB 232P (Dubas) – Modifications to the Building Entrepreneurial Communities Act that was adopted in 2005. The bill is awaiting committee action. Sen. Karpisek designated this as his Priority Bill. Support
LB 498 (White) – Establishes the Business Partnership in Rural Education Program to use donated business tax incentive tax credits to raise funds for projects related to educating students for economic development needs. The bill awaits committee action. Sen. White designated this as his Priority Bill.
LB 567 (Louden) – Establishes the Recreational Liability Act; generally exempts private landowners from liability for the public use of property for recreational purposes. The bill awaits committee action.
LB 609 (Carlson) – Establishes the Nebraska Recruitment Promotion Act, a $100,000 grant program to communities, counties, or regions losing population to develop marketing and promotional materials. A hearing was held on March 5 before the Business and Labor Committee.

Agriculture

LB 69 (Hudkins) – Modifies the state value-added agriculture grant program. The bill was advanced to General File on March 7 by unanimous vote of the Agriculture Committee. The committee amended the bill to omit a proposed 25% set-aside for specialty crops.
LB 46 (Hudkins) – The bill was advanced to General File on March 7 by unanimous vote of the Agriculture Committee. The committee amended the bill to substitute a grape assessment mechanism similar to other commodities.
LB 313 (Natural Resources Committee) – Requires those required to obtain permits for animal feeding operations to comply with the Engineers and Architects Act; it exempts small and medium animal feeding operations. The bill was approved on Final Reading on March 1 by a 31-0 vote and signed into law by the Governor on March 8.
LB 515 (Stuthman) – Would eliminate certain planning and zoning commission public hearings, specifically for conditional use applications by livestock operations. On March 7, the Agriculture Committee voted 7-0 to Indefinitely Postpone (kill) this bill. Oppose
LB 516P (Agriculture Committee) – Establishes the Corporate Farming Policy Advisory Council. The bill is awaiting committee action. The Agriculture Committee designated this as one of its Priority Bills. Oppose
LB 633 (Dierks) – Modifications to the Competitive Livestock Markets Act regulating livestock production and marketing contracts. The bill awaits committee action. Support

Education

LB 234 (Dierks) – Would reestablish Class I schools reorganized or dissolved after November 30, 2005. On February 28, the Education Committee Indefinitely Postponed the bill by unanimous vote. Support
LB 658P (Raikes) – This is the Class I bill advanced by the Education Committee. Speaker Flood also designated it as his Priority Bill. The bill would allow for the creation of new Class I school districts anywhere in the state through a reorganization and election process instituted by individuals or groups of individuals.

Packer Owned Livestock Depress Prices

2007-02-27T19:09:00.000-06:00

The Organization for Competitive Markets said a new USDA report confirms that packer owned livestock, in conjunction with long term contracts, push cattle and hog prices lower than competitive prices. At a cost of $4.5 million in taxpayer money, the study added very little new information to the captive supply debate and suffered many fundamental problems.

“In 2002, meat packers and members of Congress opposed to pro-competition measures requested this study as a diversion from real legislative action during the last Farm Bill debate,” said Keith Mudd, OCM President. “The authors either had no experience in antitrust economics, or were previously on record supporting packers' opposition to fair markets. Despite these flaws, the inescapable conclusion was that captive supplies drive livestock prices lower.”

“Captive supplies” are cattle and hog supplies that are committed to a packer more than 14 days in advance of slaughter because a packer owns the livestock or has them under contract. The livestock are moved outside the open (cash) market process in which negotiations determine the prices which are then reported to the public. Most credible studies have found that captive supplies lower prices, and consumers do not benefit.

USDA commissioned this report on livestock marketing in 2003. In the process, USDA rejected calls to focus on how packers manipulate prices through captive supply practices. Nevertheless, the study could not avoid this finding:

“The use of [captive supplies] is associated with lower cash market prices... .”

“Some of the authors of this report have longstanding, documented political bias against pro-competition rules,” continued Mudd. “Stephen Koontz of Colorado State University ridiculed criticism of captive supplies’ price effects in a 2002 BEEF magazine article entitled ‘Captive Supply Witch Hunt’.”

Koontz successfully lobbied to be on the team conducting this USDA study, as shown in his written comments submitted to USDA during the time period the study was being designed. He wrote the USDA, in June 2003:

“I would like to communicate that I would like to be involved in the proposal review process and that I intend – with a group of other agricultural economists – to submit a proposal or be part of a larger proposal.” …

“Lastly, I have heard indirectly a number of very troublesome statements attributed to government personnel with respect to the integrity of Land Grant University economists – that we are unscientific and unethical.”

Another author of the recent USDA report is John Lawrence of Iowa State University, who operates an institute receiving funding from beef checkoff dollars controlled by the anti-market competition group, National Cattlemens Beef Association. Lawrence has a record of attempting to prevent legislation to improve livestock markets. On January 14, 2002, Lawrence and Koontz and other Land Grant academics released a political report attacking legislation introduced by Senator Tim Johnson (D. SD) that would have restricted some captive supplies.
They collaborated with Ted Schroeder of Kansas State University, an expert witness hired by Tyson in captive supply litigation.

“The authors' bias was further revealed in an interim report to USDA during this $4.5 million taxpayer funded project, in which they documented ‘industry consultations’ with only special interest groups who oppose pro-competition reform,” said Mudd. “Organizations that favor competition were shut out of the process. The scientific method is supposed to be a search for the truth, but these authors let their pre-conceived opinions drive their conclusions.”

The authors completely omitted reference to a February 2004 jury verdict finding Tyson used captive supplies to manipulate cattle prices. They could have sought actual cattle transaction information, and viewed sworn testimony from scores of depositions and weeks of trial. They chose to ignore that information.

“The USDA report chose to exclude longstanding economic analysis designed to discover price manipulation,” said Mudd. “The industrial organization subspecialty of economics uses analytical tools to determine price impacts from large company conduct. USDA chose to exclude industrial organization economists from the study. This report will have very little impact on the pro-competition debate.”

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Battle in Congress Over Packing Contracts

2007-02-26T11:04:00.000-06:00

Battle set in Congress over packing contracts

Such deals reduce prices paid to farmers, a new study reports

By PHILIP BRASHER REGISTER WASHINGTON BUREAU

Washington, D.C. - When Iowa hog producer Max Schmidt signed a three-year contract with a big meatpacker he knew he was taking a risk that he might not make as much money as he could selling pigs the old-fashioned way - on the spot market.

He sure didn't. Schmidt, who kept meticulous records of what he was paid under the contract vs. what prices were on the spot market, calculates that he lost a full $1 million on the deal. "We left a pile of money there," he said.

To Schmidt, that's the way business works. But critics of the meatpacking industry said processors are unfairly driving down the prices paid to farmers by increasing their control of livestock supplies through contracting and outright ownership of the animals.

Iowa's senators - Democrat Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Republican Charles Grassley - will lead an effort in Congress this year to impose a series of marketing restrictions on packers, including a ban on their ownership of livestock supplies.

Other measures would allow producers to challenge contracts in court and require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set up an office to investigate allegations of anti-competitive actions by processors and other agribusinesses.

A new study that was required by Congress says that meatpackers' use of contracts and ownership of livestock reduces the prices that producers are paid for livestock, including hogs...

Packers "put their thumb on the farmer and see the family farmer as an employee of theirs, kind of an indentured servant of theirs," Grassley said. "They want to control everything.

"In addition to the ban on packer ownership of livestock, the senators want to stop processors from imposing arbitration clauses on contract producers. Requiring arbitration prevents farmers from taking packers to court over contracts.

Grassley said the ban on packer ownership has a good chance of passing the Senate, as it did in 2002, but faces an uncertain future in the House. Meatpackers argue that the legislation could even outlaw contracts between processors and farms, a claim disputed by lawmakers and legal analysts at Iowa State University...

... Read the full article at...
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=BUSINESS01

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Harkin Bill Calls for Competition in Ag Markets

2007-02-19T11:54:00.000-06:00

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) this week introduced legislation to correct deficiencies in USDA’s enforcement over agricultural markets and provide needed protections for producers involved in production contracts for agricultural commodities. The Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act will be the basis for the development of a proposed competition title in the upcoming farm bill. Harkin is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

“Producers need to have a fighting chance in an industry that is becoming far too consolidated and vertically integrated,” Harkin said. “I will propose and seek to include this legislation as part of a competition title in the farm bill.”

Last year, USDA’s Inspector General released a report commissioned by Harkin that detailed widespread inaction, the blocking of anti-competitive investigations, and efforts to cover up the lack of action by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). A hearing Harkin called to evaluate GIPSA’s enforcement dysfunctions also uncovered the lack of commitment towards preventing anti-competitive practices by USDA’s Office of General Counsel.

“If you take these facts together, it represents a complete lack of enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act passed by Congress in 1921, to protect producers from unfair, deceptive and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace,” Harkin said. “If we want to get serious about getting young people into agriculture, creating a fair and evenhanded marketplace is an obvious place to start.”

The Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act would:

Reorganize USDA to streamline and improve enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and Agricultural Fair Practices Act by establishing an Office of Special Counsel whose sole responsibility will be to investigate and prosecute violations on competition matters. The Special Counsel would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This position will also serve as a liaison between the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.

The legislation also amends the Packers and Stockyards Act:

Strengthens producer protections by making it easier for them to prove unfair actions by firms without additional burdens of having to prove adverse effects on competition across a region or sector and requires USDA to define the term "undue preference" - disallowing price premiums that are based solely on volume, or number of head, thereby discriminating agains smaller producers.

The bill also makes changes to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act...
...prohibiting unfair, unjustly discriminatory, anti-competitive or deceptive practices by a person that affects the marketing, receiving, purchasing, sale or contracting of crops... and provides needed contract protections to ensure that the production contract clearly spells out what is required of the producer... and prevents discrimination against producers belonging to an organization or cooperative...

How About Some Help Here?

2007-02-16T13:20:00.000-06:00

by John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) is preparing to introduce legislation to foster competition in livestock markets that serve family farmers and ranchers. The bill is intended to lay the foundation for a competition title in the 2007 farm bill. Unfortunately, there is no stampede of Senators beating a path to Senator Harkin’s door to co-sponsor the bill, despite the fact that during the election cycle they made a lot of hay with rhetoric about “standing up for family farmers and ranchers.”

Let us give credit where credit is due, however. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) quickly became a co-sponsor of Senator Harkin’s competition bill. And Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has announced his intent to reintroduce legislation banning meatpacker ownership of livestock.

Senator Harkin’s bill calls for fair treatment of producers who labor under contracts with packers and processors; seeks to define what constitutes an undue price preference when packers deal unfairly with small and mid sized farmers and ranchers; and establishes a special counsel’s office for enforcement of competition policy within USDA. Anyone who cannot muster the political will to support these provisions should not claim that they stand with family farmers and ranchers.

The American Meat Institute and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association are exerting pressure on Congress to oppose these reforms. But recently the Center for Rural Affairs joined 211 farm, faith and rural organizations in calling for a competition title, with these provisions, in the farm bill.

Family farm and ranch livestock production has been decimated in the five years that have passed since a conference committee tossed aside the hard fought competition reforms that were won on the Senate floor in 2002. Without action now, there will be far fewer farmers and ranchers to fight for in another five years.

Senators and Representatives whose voices are yet unheard on these issues, a vast majority, must steel their resolve and offer much needed leadership. Both Senator Harkin’s and Senator Grassley’s bills need and deserve broad, bipartisan co-sponsorship and support.

Each of us bears the responsibility of urging our Senators and Representatives to lead the debate, publicly, instead of following the herd. If enough of us demand that they stand with rural America, demand the leadership they promised in their campaigns, we will not lose. Time is of the essence, but every day that we stand, undaunted, brings us closer to victory.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Ranch Steakhouse Drops Natural Beef

2007-02-15T11:35:00.000-06:00

Partners split over dropping products free of hormones, antibiotics

by Jim Bainbridge, Colorad Springs Gazette

Mike Callicrate, the face of the Ranch Steakhouse and Market since it opened in October 2005, has sold his minority partnership in the restaurant because of a disagreement over how the business should be run. Ranch Steakhouse was started as a showcase for the no-hormone, no-antibiotic brand of meats sold by Callicrate’s Ranch Foods Direct Co., and while it developed a loyal following — sales of $2.5 million last year — majority owner Neil McMurry wanted to try a new direction. McMurry is buying his meats from industry giant Iowa Beef Processors (IBP), a division of Tyson Foods.

“My partner and I didn’t agree on the concept for the restaurant,” Callicrate said. “Essentially, he owned the building and I was unwilling to compromise on our company’s pledge and purpose, so the relationship has ended.” The last meals with Ranch Foods Direct meat were served on Valentine’s Day, and the Ranch Food Direct market just inside the front entrance at 575 Garden of the Gods Road closed Thursday, soon to be replaced by a bar.

The restaurant will undergo a name change — it may be announced as early as today, according to manager Steve Abeyta — and has placed notices on each table letting customers know about the change of meat providers. “I can’t tell you what it felt like to walk into the cooler at the restaurant and see IBP beef there,” Callicrate said. “These are the people I’ve been fighting for years.”

Callicrate, 55, was the lead plaintiff in a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Tyson Foods-IBP a decade ago — the first such challenge to a major meatpacker since 1921 — and has been an ardent opponent of big agribusiness all of his career. Callicrate said he attempted to buy the majority interest in the restaurant, but that McMurry, 83, “was not willing to work with me. It is a very big disappointment. I put a lot of money into the business, not to mention time and effort.” McMurry was not available for comment Thursday. Terms of the buyout have not been finalized.

Callicrate said that McMurry once believed in the Ranch Steakhouse concept, but thought that his advisers had convinced him that he could do better “with less expensive meats.” “I think these guys see a place like Outback Steakhouse with the parking lot full,” Callicrate said, “and don’t see the value of buying a better product.” Callicrate will continue to operate his other Ranch Foods Direct stores and online at www.ranchfoodsdirect.com.

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Fueling Global Prosperity

2007-02-13T20:12:00.000-06:00

Fueling Global Prosperity

Worldwide Gains for Farmers Are in Reach

By Jake Caldwell, Center for American Progress

What if we could combat global warming, eliminate unfair trade barriers, and reduce global poverty with policies that could (simultaneously) lessen our country’s dependence on fossil fuels and lift the fortunes of farmers around the world? If that sounds too good to be true, it’s not.

In fact, the 110 Congress could vote key components of this multi-faceted strategy into law this year. Congress only needs to act.

Today, Secretary of Agriculture Michael Johanns testifies before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee on the administration’s plan for the 2007 Farm Bill. The administration’s proposal is a modest first step, particularly in boosting biofuels research and reducing subsidies to the wealthiest corporate farm entities. But Congress must accept that there is much more work to be done.

The 2007 Farm Bill, which will come up for a vote later this year, will require the 110th Congress to make critical decisions on energy legislation and trade policy. The timing is right for Congress to seize this opportunity to make the investments needed to jumpstart and sustain a global agricultural economy driven by clean renewable energy, technological innovation, and fair and open markets at home and abroad.

The 2007 Farm Bill offers the United States a strategic opportunity to improve the competitiveness of our nation’s farmers. Unlike the Bush administration, the Center for American Progress is putting forward a proposal that moves agriculture, energy, and trade forward together in unison and better prepares our rural communities and the nation for the future by expanding our farm policy to more farmers...

You can Watch Jake Caldwell Discuss the 2007 Farm Bill (YouTube)

An executive summary and the full "Fueling a New Farm Economy" report can be found here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/farm_economy.html

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Organic Companies Promise to Remain Clone-Free

2007-02-12T21:31:00.000-06:00

Cloneburgers Won't Come with Warnings...
Organic Companies Promise to Remain Clone-Free

By LIBBY QUAID (AP) Food and Farm writer for the Jackson Hole, WY Star Tribune

Cloneburgers won't come with warnings. When the government approves food from cloned animals, expected in the next year, the Food and Drug Administration doesn't plan special labels. Government scientists have found no difference between clones and conventional cows, pigs or goats.

However, shoppers won't be completely in the dark. To help them sort through meat and dairy products, one signal is the round, green USDA organic seal, says Caren Wilcox, who heads the Organic Trade Association.

While many people choose organic to avoid pesticides or antibiotics, Wilcox says the U.S. Department of Agriculture label also means clone-free.

"Organic animal products will not come from cloned animals," she said.

Cloning is taboo to Organic Valley, the country's biggest organic farming cooperative.

"This is absolutely prohibited in our world. It goes against everything we believe," said George Siemon, CEO of the 700-member cooperative. "Organic is based on having plenty with what nature's given us."

"Clone-free" labels are also likely on some nonorganic food, such as ice cream made by Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.

Still, it's unclear how much cloning will matter to consumers.

The nation's milk industry worries that people might reject food from clones or turn away from dairy products altogether. But so far, public opinion appears mixed. In a September poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 64 percent said they were uncomfortable with animal cloning.

In a December poll by the University of Maryland, the same percentage said they would buy, or consider buying, such food if the government said it was safe...

...Organic is a rapidly growing segment of the nation's food market. Organic sales have grown by up to 20 percent annually; overall growth in food sales is around 3 percent.

Some in Congress want to require labels on food from clones. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., has introduced legislation to require this note on packages: "This product is from a cloned animal or its progeny."

Mikulski and other critics disagree with FDA, which has said labels probably are unneeded because clones and their food are as safe as conventional versions.

"The FDA has gone astray, insisting that anytime they say a food is safe, consumers are obligated to eat it," said Carol Tucker Foreman of Consumer Federation of America.

The dairy industry says the bill would hurt their business.

"A huge burden would be on every single milk, cheese and ice cream company in this country, large and small, to provide 100 percent traceability and segregation and labeling of their milk," said Susan Ruland, spokeswoman for the International Dairy Foods Association.

"This is for a kind of milk that isn't even out there yet and that we're not even sure anyone is going to produce," Ruland said.

According to biotech companies, it may be difficult to promise that food is clone-free...

...The Agriculture Department was asked to address cloning when the organic standards were written, a process that drew comments from more than 300,000 people and organizations. The standards, which took effect in 2002, do not mention clones or their offspring; instead, they say genetic engineering is not allowed.

That is a source of disagreement between the department and the cloning industry.

Department officials say cloning is forbidden in organic animals. The process is incompatible with the standards, says Lloyd Day, head of the Agricultural Marketing Service, which governs the organic industry. The department still must decide whether the offspring of cloned animals are allowed, Day said...

...On the Net:

National Organic Program: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexIE.htm

Federal Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Working Together We Can Do More

2007-02-09T11:21:00.000-06:00

Working Together We Can Do More

By Elisha Greeley Smith, elishas@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

Not all farming and ranching communities have the traditional amenities that some touristy communities have such as beaches or mountains, but virtually all of our rural communities have space and often lots of it. Un-crowded natural land is hard to come by and is going to become a more valuable asset for rural communities in years to come.

What if our land retirement based conservation programs provided bonus payments for enrollments that allowed public access as part of a community development plan? It could provide for the basis for tourism-based small businesses such as bed and breakfasts and other agri-tourism and eco-tourism enterprises.

In the 2002 Farm Bill a program call the Conservation Partnership and Cooperation Program was created to serve these purposes, but its statutory language was vague and never implemented by the USDA.

The Center for Rural Affairs proposes that the 2007 farm bill reauthorize that program as the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI) – allowing bonus payments up to 50 percent for enrollment in conservation programs. Enrollment would be conditioned upon certification of the land as consistent with a plan to develop natural space and habitat as a community development asset, the land is restored to native plant species and habitat for native animal species and the land owner provides public access to the enrolled land.

The 2007 Farm Bill should strive to make better use of conservation programs to make rural communities more attractive places to live and visit.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

USDA Allows Producers to De-register Animal ID Premises

2007-02-08T13:22:00.000-06:00

USDA allows livestock producers to de-register NAIS premises

by Peter Shinn, Brownfield Network

USDA has decided to allow livestock producers who have already registered their premises as part of the still-developing national animal identification system to de-list their operations.

Andrea McNally is a spokesperson for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. She told Brownfield since national animal ID is strictly voluntary, producers should be allowed to decide to stop participating at their discretion."

You know, the national animal ID system is a voluntary program," McNally said," and, you know, we intend to put a process into place that would allow people to opt-out if they choose to do so, and we're working on that process right now."

At least one state, Idaho, has added existing breed registration databases to their premises registration database. In the process, Idaho officials have involuntarily registered some livestock premises. But McNally said that's not what's driving USDA's decision to let livestock producers de-register their premises."

No, no," McNally insisted. " It's just that, you know, it's an understanding that if you have a voluntary program that these are the sorts of processes you have to have in place should people choose to no longer be a part of it."

But are other states besides Idaho registering livestock premises without the knowledge of livestock producers? Nebraska Ag Director Greg Ibach told Brownfield he wants to assure producers that's not happening in Nebraska. "We as a state aren't manually working some of our present databases into the system in any way, shape or form," he said.

Calls to the state animal ID coordinators for South Dakota and Iowa revealed both those states are also only registering premises through the direct action of livestock producers themselves. As far as progress in actually registering livestock premises, Nebraska remains a regional and national leader, with nearly half registered. Just over 25% of Iowa's livestock premises and a bit more of 21% of South Dakota's livestock premises are registered as of now.

Audio related to this story - Peter Shinn, Brownfield Network reports http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/resource/20070202/7e0b3d22-fd06-c618-adccdcf98956a307/103852/Peter%2520Shinn%2520reports%2520on%2520premises%2520registration.mp3

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Can Natural Assets Drive Rural Community Growth?

2007-02-07T21:09:00.000-06:00

Can Natural Assets Drive a Portion of Rural Community Growth?

Amenity-driven growth offers a new means to bring economic returns to rural communities, especially in farm and ranch states with private land

by Michael Holton, Center for Rural Affairs, michaellh@cfra.org

In August 2006, ECONorthwest of Eugene, Oregon, studied Nebraska’s natural assets. They looked specifically at land amenities and analyzed the potential economic contribution of amenity-driven growth. This type of growth contrasts with converted-amenity growth like crop production, electricity, or other commodities that are changed and altered for economic purposes.

The report detailed four major mechanisms that challenge our thinking, particularly in economic terms. They included topics such as improving the quality of life, encouraging feedback to the farm sector, expanding recreation and other commercial uses of natural resources, and protecting environmental values.

The perception in Nebraska – probably shared in other farm states – is that our natural resource base has been degraded. People don’t see the quality of life values that are still present.

About 97 percent of Nebraska is privately owned. Most news tends to focus on the devastating effects of herbicides, chemicals, and other environmental hazards that converting crops into dollars has had on our natural amenities. It is no wonder that citizens view the influence of land and other resources negatively.

What should rural citizens do to derive more quality of life in amenity-driven decisions? The first key is to work through a fundamental transition in attitude and behavior towards our natural resources.

It is not easy to shift away from businesses that have made profits from degradation of the land, air, and water. Commercial farming, banks, grocery stores, and others whose fortunes have been linked to the industrial farming model will resist efforts for amenity-driven growth.

The second and more important key is to change the conversation in our communities. People are not satisfied watching their small communities dry up and are looking for alternatives. New options for deriving income from natural assets can prove more lucrative than past practices.

Fishing, bird-watching, boating, eco-tourism, agritourism, and hunting opportunities can help our economy flourish in the future.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

What Would Rural America Look Like...?

2007-02-06T10:25:00.000-06:00

What Would It Look Like If Rural America Mattered...?

by John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

--- editor's note - we have asked this question before, but our recent discussion on community development and related issues spurred me to ask it again... so, what would rural America look like if rural people and rural places mattered (in Congress, the White House, state capitols, etc.)... or mattered as much as we deserve, no more, no less...

A few months ago I was invited by the nice folks at Chipotle Mexican Grill and Niman Ranch natural meats to visit Ron Mardesen’s farm near Elliott, Iowa. I had missed all the good food at the main event where Chipotle chefs prepared special pork dishes with Niman Ranch pork for media and others interested in their natural pork business.

Ron raises hogs, farrowing in huts in his fields as part of a five-year rotation. He finishes hogs in hoop buildings and markets them at a premium through Niman Ranch. His weaning rate is as good as or better than a lot of the “state of the art” total confinement systems, despite the fact, as Ron pointed out to me, that extension, USDA, and the land grants have not been tripping over themselves to help producers like him address their challenges in engineering, husbandry, and genetics.

I first met Bill Niman, the founder of Niman Ranch, in 1998 when he came to Walthill to visit the Center for Rural Affairs and share his vision for expanding their natural pork business. The Center has put considerable effort into helping farmers reach high value markets over the years. We have helped Niman Ranch and others connect with producers. And we have helped farmers and ranchers form their own cooperatives to reach into high value markets.

I remember when Bill came to Walthill. We had lunch at Cowabunga Korner, and I listened to him talk about his vision of building a more sustainable, humane, and economically rewarding system of raising, slaughtering, and marketing hogs and cattle. And while listening I thought, for the first, but not the last time, what would rural America look like if we were able to put all these visions together? What would rural America look like if we succeeded in making rural issues, rural people, and rural places truly matter?

Ron Mardesen is a true success story. He and his family have built a profitable, diversified farming operation. They raise some of the best tasting pork anywhere. They have made a beautiful home for themselves and their family. And as we stood among the sows and farrowing huts on Ron’s farm that day, I realized that Ron provided me with part of the answer to my question. What would rural America look like? Well, for one, there would be a lot more farms like Ron Mardesen’s.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

New Scientific Report Shows Global Climate Change Real...

2007-02-01T17:37:00.000-06:00

Scientific Report Shows Global Warming Real and Man-Made

by David Law, Greater Dakota News Service

Watertown, SD - A report released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows with a new degree of scientific certainty that global warming is real and mostly man made, and it's fueling a new debate over the proposed Big Stone Two power plant in South Dakota.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report today showing with new certainty that global warming is happening and is mostly man-made. The report, the fourth since 1990, is prompting renewed debate over the merits of a new coal-fired plant under consideration in northeast South Dakota. Jeanne Koster with the South Dakota Resource Coalition says the Big Stone Two power plant would contribute to global warming and that it makes more sense to develop wind power.

Jeanne Koster, member of the South Dakota Resource Coalition and an opponent of the Big Stone Two power plant explained, "This is development that can be pursued incrementally. The power isn't needed all at once, in fact, Big Stone Two can't come on all at once. It will take years. We can gradually be phasing in wind and the coal that we already have is the backup. We have it upside down."

Koster says that a strong economic argument can be made for wind power. "Wind power will bring us more than four times as much annual income as Big Stone Two would. We're looking at 7 million dollars annually economic gains from Big Stone Two, but an investment in wind in South Dakota would bring a steady 35 million annually and several times more permanent jobs. And remember, once those turbines are up, the fuel is free, a gift from heaven," added Koster.

Proponents of the Big Stone Two plant say it's needed to prevent a future energy shortage, but Koster says global warming is moving at an alarming pace and that Congress will eventually respond with carbon charges against customers who purchase energy from power plants that contribute to climate change. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will be holding hearings to either reject or approve a request to build power lines into that state.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

USDA Offers Rural Business Grants

2007-01-31T11:36:00.000-06:00

USDA Offers Rural Business Grants

Bryan Daniel, with the USDA Rural Development State Director announced the agency is accepting applications for the Rural Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG) Program for fiscal year 2007. Applications will compete nationwide for the funding.

The primary objective of the RBOG Program is to improve the economic conditions of rural areas. Assistance provided to rural areas under this program includes technical assistance for business development and conducting economic development planning. The grants are available to public bodies, non-profits, federally recognized Tribal groups and cooperatives.

Applications for RBOG non-earmarked funds will not exceed $50,000 and for multi-state projects $150,000. Completed applications must be submitted to the Texas USDA Rural Development Office, 101 South Main, Suite 102, Temple, Texas 76502, by March 30, 2007. Applications will be tentatively scored by the State Office, with the two highest scoring project applications being considered for funding and submitted to the National Office for final review and selection.

USDA Rural Development works to ensure that rural citizens can participate fully in the global economy by providing technical assistance, funding, and other programs that help rural American build strong economies to improve their quality of life.

For additional information or an application package, contact Danny Torres at (254) 742-9780. For information regarding USDA Rural Development Programs, visit http://www.rurdev.usda.gov.

©Nueces County Record Star 2007

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org...

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Sowing the Seeds

2007-01-26T10:49:00.000-06:00

In March of 2003, a small group of rural Nebraska United Methodists, under the auspices of Peace with Justice Ministries formed the Sowing the Seeds Covenant group. It has grown to include representatives from other denominations. The goals of the group are to pray, study, and act for rural Nebraska. The newly formed group decided that the design of a Christian-based adult study could be helpful in fostering healthy discussions about God’s dream for rural people, their communities, and the land.

The project has piloted in various locations throughout the state of Nebraska. It is designed for small groups of 12 for six-60 minute sessions.

The study group may consist of local community residents and pastors of different congregations. Each week the conversations and ideas broaden as people began to see the downfall of their own community in another light – what has been driving away our youth, why can’t we hold on to factory based business, how did the decline of the family farm start, what can I do to better my community and state?

These discussions can’t be answered by a small group of people. This project has a snowball effect, it starts out small and gradually each snowflake picks up a few more until the snowball is so large, that it must be dealt with. Participants are invited to join the Rural Action Network, a project of the Center for Rural Affairs, which will enable individuals and/or groups to make a difference, both statewide and at the federal level.

The goals for the sessions include:
- Create space to hear the voice of God.
- Encourage discussion about trends in rural Nebraska communities.
- Explore biblical understanding of land management.
- Discuss how public policy shapes our future.
- Discuss the pros and cons of policy proposals for a better future.
- Engage parishioners in creating a better rural future by participating in policy debates.

The Sowing the Seeds curriculum is adaptable to rural faith communities throughout rural America. To obtain a copy of the curriculum contact Kim Preston, kimp@cfra.org, 402-687-2100. Also, coming very soon, Sowing the Seeds will be online at www.sowingtheseedsministry.org

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Meetings to Discuss Farm Bill in Iowa

2007-01-23T10:10:00.000-06:00

Meetings to Discuss Farm Bill in Iowa

Lyons, Nebraska – Traci Bruckner will be representing the Center for Rural Affairs at a Farm Bill meeting held at the University of Iowa, Indiana Room in Iowa City, 7:00 p.m., Thursday, January 25th, 2007. It is one of five Farm Bill meetings being held in five communities across Iowa.

Farmers and rural residents are encouraged to attend the Farm Bill meetings to provide ideas on how this farm bill can work to create a real future for beginning and family farms and rural communities. "For better or worse, the 2007 Farm Bill has the potential to be a tremendous instrument of change in Iowa and the rest of rural America. It is important to bring voices into this debate that have not received enough attention in the past - small family farmers, beginning farmers, rural citizens concerned with economic growth in their communities, and anyone concerned with the environmental health of the countryside and the safety and quality of our food supply. I think these meetings provide a forum for all those viewpoints," commented Jana Linderman, a volunteer from Cedar Rapids who is helping organize the meeting.

In addition to discussing ideas that farmers and rural people bring to the meeting, the meeting will cover policy options that have been developed to address barriers and opportunities for beginning, and family farmers and ranchers, such as the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program. This program holds great hope for beginning farmers and ranchers, but was never funded under the 2002 farm bill.

Also discussed will be the Value Added Producer Grants Program, a program that has helped family farmers and ranchers create high-value, niche markets.

“To ensure that policy makers are educated on how the next farm bill creates a future for all of rural America, it is important to work together,” says Bruckner, Assistant Director for the Center for Rural Affairs Rural Policy Program.

Location – University of Iowa, Indiana Room, Iowa City, IA
Date – Thursday, January 25th, 2007 7:00 p.m.

Location – St. Mary’s Catholic Church, Dorchester, IA
Date – Monday, January 29th, 2007 7:00 p.m.

Location – Wild Rose Casino, Emmetsburg, IA
Date – Tuesday, January 30th, 2007 7:00 p.m.

Location – Cass County Community Center, Atlantic, IA
Date – Monday, February 5th, 2007 7:00 p.m.

Location – Iowa State University, Cardinal Room, Ames, IA
Date –Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 7:00 p.m.

post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Why No One Should Miss Marketplace...

2007-01-22T17:38:00.000-06:00

Why No One Should Miss Marketplace

By John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

On Wednesday, February 28, 2007 people will have the opportunity to participate in Marketplace: Opening Doors to Success, at the Ramada Inn in Kearney, Nebraska. Marketplace is the first conference of its kind in this part of the country and will focus on how entrepreneurship and innovation can help our rural communities thrive by focusing on proven rural strategies to build assets and create economic opportunities from within.

The Center for Rural Affairs decided to host Marketplace after discussing the success of North Dakota’s Marketplace with the planners of that annual event.

Exhibiting at MarketPlace provides an excellent opportunity for professionals to reach an audience seeking opportunities to start and grow their businesses. Individuals attending the conference will be afforded the opportunity to make professional contacts, network with other entrepreneurs, and locate potential customers and suppliers. With 50 booths filled with successful small businesses and service providers, attendees will meet exhibitors with a broad array of business and professional experience.

Marketplace attendees will also have the opportunity to participate in teach-ins focusing on financing, marketing, community capacity, innovative agricultural opportunities, small business development and public policy. Experts in many fields such as attorneys, accountants, web designers, etc. will be available to answer participant questions.

Entrepreneurs, farmers, ranchers, community leaders, rural developers, … everyone interested in revitalizing rural communities and rural economies will find many opportunities to meet, listen to and talk with their peers and other experts about rural community development and issues impacting rural communities.

For more information: www.marketplacenebraska.org.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Building Entrepreneurial Communities Grants...

2007-01-19T21:07:00.000-06:00

Action Alert -- Economic Development Opportunity!

If you live in Nebraska, you have until February 9, 2007, to apply for a Building Entrepreneurial Communities (BECA) grant.

If you live anywhere else, perhaps you should contact your state legislator and urge them to sponsor legislation to create the same kind of grant program in your state...

The purpose of the Building Entrepreneurial Communities Program is to support economically depressed rural areas of Nebraska in building entrepreneurial communities through grants that will create community capacity to build and sustain programs to generate and retain wealth in the community and region.

The Department of Economic Development (DED), with assistance provided by the Rural Development Commission (RDC), has established a grant process to provide grants to two or more municipalities or counties that are collaborating on a project related to the purpose of the Building Entrepreneurial Communities Program with priority given to projects that best alleviate chronic economic distress.

Eligible applicants include every local government (municipality or county). Two or more local governments must collaborate on the project. At least one of the local governments must have chronic economic distress as indicated by:

1. An unemployment rate which exceeds the statewide average unemployment rate;
2. A per capita income below the statewide average per capita income; or
3. A population loss between the two most recent federal decennial censuses.

Note: see section following the Application Form for the distress criteria information

Eligible activities must be projects that address one (or more) of the following:

1. Provide education and technical assistance to energize small business development and entrepreneurship;
2. Provide technical assistance to facilitate small business transfer;
3. Build community business capacity and leadership programs;
4. Generate opportunities that will attract and retain young people and families;
5. Provide education about philanthropy and intergenerational transfer of wealth; and
6. Build community endowments to support these activities.

for more information, got to www.cfra.org/pdf/ActionAlert_BECA020907.pdf

...post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Harkin May Not Include Tough Payment Caps in His Farm Bill

2007-01-18T06:38:00.000-06:00

Harkin May Not Include Tough Payment Caps in His Farm Bill

exerpted from Agriculture Online story by Dan Looker, Successful Farming Business Editor

Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA), who remains a strong supporter of putting a firm cap on commodity program payments, said Thursday that he may not include a strict payment limit in the farm bill he will submit to his committee.

"We'll have a vigorous debate. We'll probably have it in the committee and we'll have it on the floor (of the full Senate)," he told reporters Thursday.

Harkin was asked to respond to a comment that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson made at the Farm Bureau convention in Salt Lake City this week. Peterson said passing a farm bill would be difficult without support from Southern members of Congress, who have opposed capping program payments.

Harkin said that "in a sense, he's right" referring to Peterson's recognition of the regional politics of the payment limits issue. Some large commercial corn and wheat farmers would be affected by a firm cap, but cotton and rice farmers are likely to be the hardest hit. If Harkin left this issue out of his bill, it might make writing a new farm bill easier.

"To be frank with you, I haven't made a decision whether to include it (payment limits) in the chairman's mark," he said, referring to the bill he would submit to the committee to consider.

"Maybe the best way to do this is on the floor" of the Senate.

Harkin believes that payment limits have broad bipartisan support in the Senate, so the farm bill could be amended to include them when the full Senate considers the bill.

"I think that it's clear. Payment limits are going to happen," he said.

Harkin made it clear, though, that he does intend to make major changes in the next farm bill.
"This new farm bill is not going to be your old-fashioned farm bill as we've known it in the past," he said.

Harkin wants to spend a lot more money on conservation programs and on developing bioenergy. He'd like to have programs that help farmers make a transition to growing energy crops such as switchgrass, one of many possible sources of cellulosic ethanol.

Harkin said that it won't be possible to finish writing a farm bill until the Senate decides how much money to spend on it. He'd like the Senate Budget Committee to add back some $16 billion that has been saved from current commodity program spending, compared to projections when the 2002 bill was passed. And he'd like the $4 billion that the Administration cut from conservation spending made available for the farm bill. He said the committee can't do much on the farm bill before having budget numbers for potential spending, probably at the end of March or in April.

Agree with Senator Harkin? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action

There is more to the farm bill than farming

2007-01-17T11:32:00.000-06:00

There is more to farm bill than farming

By Elisha Greeley Smith, Center for Rural Affairs, elishas@cfra.org

Many rural people do not think about the farm bill, assuming it affects only farmers. But the farm bill affects all of America.

The farm bill has, for decades, been the primary federal support mechanism for rural America. But it is not working.

Unlimited farm program payments are fueling consolidation by driving up land costs and driving smaller farm operations out of business. Small main street businesses that once served those farms are disappearing as a result.

As those businesses disappear there are fewer jobs and the jobs that are available often pay low wages. Current rural policy is forcing the next generation of rural residents to settle for lower incomes, fewer assets and a diminished quality of life.

Now is the time to reach out to Congress. With the New Year comes a new Congress, new Agriculture Committee members and new chairmen; just as the writing of the farm bill begins in earnest. The 2007 farm bill will impact every American - by affecting our farms and ranches; our soil and water; our rural communities; our taxes and the food we eat.

The farm bill must invest in the future of rural America through proven, effective strategies such as entrepreneurial development, conservation, community development, encouraging new farmers, and building assets in rural areas.

If you think that the farm bill is worth caring about, go to http://www.cfra.org/ for information about our farm bill proposals and please get involved. Strengthening rural America strengthens all of America.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Conservation Security Draws Farmers to Capitol

2007-01-16T09:41:00.000-06:00

CSP Draws Farmers to Capitol

Top USDA staff visit with farmers about their support and their suggested changes for the Conservation Security Program

by Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org

Farmers from Nebraska, Iowa, and Maryland met with USDA’s Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) Chief Arlen Lancaster and other NRCS staff on November 27, 2006 to discuss the Conservation Security Program (CSP).

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss farmers’ concerns with CSP implementation and ways the program could be strengthened. But, just as importantly, it was a chance for farmers to share their experiences, both positive and negative, with the program and their support for CSP.

Our report, The Conservation Security Program: An Assessment of Farmers’ Experience with Program Implementation released in fall 2006 provided the basis for the visit. Through that report we examined the issues impacting the effectiveness of CSP by looking at the program through the perspective of farmers and ranchers.

A major concern of the visiting group was the nature of declining enhancement payments over the life of their contracts. Dave Welsch, a farmer from Milford, Nebraska, told NRCS that declining enhancement payments need to be eliminated because they disadvantage farmers who have always practiced conservation. Under this regulatory provision the best are not being compensated, so the CSP motto of “Reward the Best and Motivate the Rest” is not holding true.

The farmers also lobbied members of Congress on Capitol Hill on the need for increased funding for CSP. They want to see the program fully funded, citing problems with the current watershed rotation. It is unfair when a farmer on one side of the road receives CSP payments and the neighbor across the road doesn’t because he or she isn’t in the chosen watershed.

They believe it puts the recipient of the CSP payments at an unfair advantage because they have extra funds to buy or rent more land. The other farmer who cannot enroll in CSP is at a disadvantage because she or he can’t compete.

CSP’s intent was not to provide a competitive advantage to one farmer over another, and thus it is critical that the Conservation Security Program be fully funded. Congress, in the 2002 farm bill, intended for CSP to be a program for farmers and ranchers demonstrating good stewardship across the nation. But budget cuts have drastically restricted the program to select watersheds, impeding the ability of many conservation-minded farmers and ranchers to participate.

Congress must make CSP funding a priority in the 2007 farm bill and voice their clear conviction that they will remain committed to CSP in the long run. For a full copy of the report see: http://www.cfra.org/pdf/CSP_Report_farmerperspective.pdf.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Global climate change???

2007-01-15T12:00:00.000-06:00

-- editor's note, for some reason this post was not published when it was orginally posted back on December 29th, so I am republishing it today...

I have read an advance copy of the annual global temperature report from the National Oceanographic Aeronautics Administration, and they will report, shortly after the first of the year, that 2006 was the hottest year on record, easily beating out the previous two hottest years which were, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

We always have skeptics when we discuss global climate change, I thought, for this statistic, perhaps it is better to just report the numbers and see if anyone chooses to comment.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Maine Governor Urges Mass School Consolidation

2007-01-12T14:20:00.000-06:00

Maine governor urges mass consolidation of school districts, many rural

-- editor's note... this post is from our friends at the Rural Blog at the University of Kentucky and the link under the title will take you directly there, the story was also reported in Education Week prior to the Rural Blog... john

Maine Gov. John E. Baldacci wants to "eliminate hundreds of locally elected school boards and scores of superintendents and replace them with 26 regional boards and schools chiefs," Education Week recently reported. "Maine has 195,000 students and 290 school districts, each with an elected school board. Many are in rural parts of the state and enroll a small number of students. In many cases, such districts have formed a “union” with neighboring districts to share a superintendent and central-office administration."

State Education Commissioner Susan Gendron told Education Week reporter Lesli Maxwell, “By having only 26 districts rather than 290, we could meet on a monthly basis with all the superintendents and with all the curriculum coordinators to talk about our standards and best practices, and to get agreement on what our academic outcomes need to be.”

The regional sboards would have between five and 15 elected members. "The regions would follow the same boundaries used now to govern Maine’s vocational education program. The regional districts would vary in size from 1,800 students to nearly 20,000," Maxwell writes.

Kim Bryant Bedard, president of the Maine School Boards Association, told Education Week, “These regions don’t make any sense. Some of us could be driving an hour just to be able to see the superintendent.”

Maxwell also notes: "In New Jersey, lawmakers are debating a similar consolidation plan on a pilot basis. Rural Gloucester County, which has 10 districts, is seen as a likely candidate for the program, said state Sen. Bob Smith, a Democrat who is sponsoring the measure." (Read more)

Thoughts? Concerns? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#10 Reason Rural Community Development is Hard to Do

2007-01-11T14:35:00.000-06:00

Leadership Capacity

-- editors note, this is the ninth in a top ten list of reasons why rural community development is hard to do by Michael Holton that ran as the feature article in the December 2006 Center for Rural Affairs newsletter... john

Of all of the factors and indicators of small town demise, I see the lack of leadership as the biggest of all. We are changing, and leadership is needed to address these conditions. The very definition of change is the ability to bring people and ideas together without coercion or force.

I heard a leader in one of the rural communities I work with say to me, “Why should I take leadership training, I am already a leader!” What this said to the community was that he was unwilling to lead the town in a positive direction. There is untapped leadership in every community, and one of our goals should be looking for those resources.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

The Grocery Stores that Lined Main Street were...

2007-01-10T22:02:00.000-06:00

Rural Communities Embrace Cooperative Grocery Stores

by Nafeesa Syeed, Associated Press, January 8, 2007...

ANITA, Iowa -- The grocery stores that lined Main Street were always key to the little farm town of Anita, Iowa.

At one time, four groceries met the needs of the large families who lived in the town and surrounding areas. Maxine Christensen recalls the horses that farmers once hitched behind her family's general store. “Grocery stores were a staple of town,” said the 85-year-old Christensen.

Times have changed as Anita's population dwindled and larger competitors arrived, but the final market remained so important that its pending closure spurred residents to buy shares and create a grocery cooperative.

Co-ops are old hat for most Midwest farmers, but experts believe only a dozen or so across the nation have been created to hang onto community groceries. It's a move some think will spread to other rural areas beset by similar problems, but they caution that such efforts carry risk.

In Anita, townspeople felt they had no choice – loss of the 90-year-old Main Street Market would mean a virtual end to downtown traffic and trouble for the businesses that remained. And residents wondered what would become of their town without a gathering spot.
"I know quite a few people in town really just because of the store," said Don Norris, 40, who buys all his meat at the market.

In creating the Anita Grocery Cooperative, residents formed a board and sold about 300 shares at $200 a piece. The co-op board also took out $150,000 in public and private loans. On Dec. 1, the market opened its doors under new ownership.

Although most residents could have managed the inconvenience of a longer drive for groceries in the regional city of Atlantic, rural towns lose something when fixtures such as a grocery store close. A domino effect kicks in and other businesses begin closing, said Kimberley Zeuli, who studies rural cooperatives and is a visiting professor of economics at The College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

"At some point, it's no longer a town," Zeuli said. "It's just a gas station."

Townspeople understand this shift and often try to fight it, frequently by embracing the very chain competitors who put Main Street shops out of business. But many communities can't entice a Wal-Mart or Target, and in the past decade more have turned to innovative approaches such as co-ops, Zeuli said.

Of the roughly 300 food-store cooperatives nationwide, 5 percent or less are conventional grocery stores, said Stuart Reid, a food co-op development specialist with Food Co-op 500.

The private organization grants money to cooperatives through sponsors such as the National Cooperative Bank.

Any thoughts? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#9 Reason Rural Community Development is Hard to Do

2007-01-09T23:41:00.000-06:00

Purpose of Existence

-- editors note, this is the ninth in a top ten list of reasons why rural community development is hard to do by Michael Holton that ran as the feature article in the December 2006 Center for Rural Affairs newsletter... john

Community identity is often clouded by confusion over the true motive for the community’s existence. Every small town in America, rural or not, has an identity and a purpose. This is part of the culture that is passed from one generation to the next. Communities have forgotten why they exist, and when change has altered that reason, they have not learned to adapt to the change.

History plays a large role in establishing the purpose and ultimately the pride we feel towards our hometown. The key to survival is to not live in the past. The truth is that history is not static; it is dynamic.

We are making history in our communities everyday. History is the change we make to our communities to make them better. In the end these changes serve a purpose for the community’s very existence.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#8 Reason Community Development is Hard to Do

2007-01-08T18:36:00.000-06:00

Lack of Participation across the Generations

-- editors note, this is the eighth in a top ten list of reasons why rural community development is hard to do by Michael Holton that ran as the feature article in the December 2006 Center for Rural Affairs newsletter... john

This question is always brought up in two ways. The lack of volunteers for community events causes an outcry, yet youths and senior citizens complain of not being asked to participate in a meaningful way. I often hear, “Why should I voice my opinion, they don’t care anyway?” This is brought up by both young people and the elderly.

Small communities talk about the crisis in the dwindling number of volunteers for special events and the burnout that occurs with the volunteers they do have. So why are the elderly and youth left out? Communication is a big key to crossing generations and finding a meaningful way to include all of the community rather than a few overworked individuals. An inclusive, open communication process benefits all.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#7 Reason Community Development is Hard to Do

2007-01-05T21:26:00.000-06:00

7. Negative Attitudes

-- editors note, this is the seventh is a top ten list of reasons why rural community development is hard to do by Michael Holton that ran in the December 2006 Center for Rural Affairs newsletter... john

It easier to be an art critic than it is to be an artist. In small rural community development, we all know what we will hear from many of the residents of a town. It is nearly always negative and destructive.

I often say in meetings in small rural communities that I can find out everything that is wrong with the community in one hour at the local coffee shop. It takes me much longer to get people to talk about what is good about their community.

We need to focus on positive contributions of the community and its people to the world as we know it. Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) is an approach that works well in identifying positive attributes of our communities and starts the conversation in a positive direction. We will discuss this concept and practice later.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

From Cradle to Career - 2007 Quality Counts Education Report

2007-01-04T12:24:00.000-06:00

Quality Counts 2007

- editor's note - this post is taken from Education Week's news release regarding the 2007 Quality Counts report - From Cradle to Career - follow the link under the title or the link below for the full report and much more information...

A child born in Virginia is significantly more likely to experience success throughout life than the average child born in the United States, while a child born in New Mexico is likely to face an accumulating series of hurdles both educationally and economically, according to an analysis published by Education Week.

The analysis by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center is based on the “Chance-for-Success Index,” which tracks state efforts to connect education from preschool through postsecondary education and training. The index was developed by the EPE Research Center for Quality Counts 2007: From Cradle to Career, Connecting American Education from Birth to Adulthood, produced by Education Week with support from the Pew Center on the States. The report is available online at www.edweek.org/go/qc07.

The Chance-for-Success Index provides a perspective on the importance of education throughout a person’s lifetime and is based on 13 indicators that highlight whether young children get off to a good start, succeed in elementary and secondary school, and hit key educational and income benchmarks as adults.

Virginia, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire rank at the top of the index, while Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, Louisiana, and New Mexico lag significantly behind the national average in descending order.

“Smart states, like smart companies, try to make the most of their investments by ensuring that young people’s education is connected from one stage to the next – reducing the chances that students will be lost along the way or require costly remedial programs to acquire skills or knowledge they could have learned right from the start,” said Virginia B. Edwards, the editor and publisher of Education Week and Quality Counts.

The 13 indicators that make up the index capture key performance or attainment outcomes at various stages in a person’s lifetime or are correlated with later success. For example, in the early-childhood years, indicators include the percent of children living in families that earn a decent wage and the percent of children with at least one parent who has a postsecondary degree – factors that research shows have an impact on how well children perform in school.

Christopher B. Swanson, the director of the EPE Research Center reported that, “We find that a child’s life prospects depend greatly on where he or she lives.”

- editor's note - Minnesota ranked third nationally in providing opportunities for its children to succeed in life, just behind Virginia and Connecticut. Wisconsin ranked 8th, Nebraska 9th and Iowa 11th. North Dakota was in a three-way tie for 12th with Kansas and Illinois.

Minnesota scored will in eleven areas, including high school graduation rate (79%) and adults with incomes at or above the national averge (55%). North Dakota did well in nine areas, including high school graduation rate (83 %); young adults enrolled in two or four year colleges or with degrees (58%); and children with at least one parent with a postsencondary degree (58% - the highest in the nation). But North Dakota lagged in income at or aboce the national average (42%) and preschool enrollment (26%).

Minnesota and North Dakota were rated highly in an evaluation of achievement for K-12 education, tying for fifth in the nation behind Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Connecticut. Although the findings in the report may indicate that where a child grows up matters, growing up in more rural states, especially in the Midwest and Northern Great Plains, can be more of an asset than Education Week mentions in their release.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#6 Reason Rural Community Development is Hard to Do

2007-01-03T12:44:00.000-06:00

Lack of Resources and Capacity

by Michael Holton, Center for Rural Affairs, michaellh@cfra.org

-- editors note, this is the sixth is a top ten list of reasons why rural community development is hard to do by Michael Holton that ran in the December 2006 Center for Rural Affairs newsletter... john

Due to depopulation, the changing face of agriculture, and dwindling businesses in towns, the ability to find what we need locally has diminished. We are forced to look to outside resource agencies for help and to find the resources we once found locally.

Viewing this in economic terms creates a bleak picture, but not one without hope. Choices become clearer when we understand the realities. We may still need to buy products out of town, and we may need to ask for help from outside agencies. But when we make our own community development choices, we can strengthen the local economy based upon the diversity our choices bring.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Court of Appeals Rules on Initiative 300

2007-01-02T22:34:00.000-06:00

Federal appeals court upholds ruling that Initiative 300, Nebraska’s prohibition on corporate farming, is unconstitutional

by John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org

In 1982, by a vote of the people, the constitution of Nebraska was amended to include a provision which prohibited corporate farming in Nebraska – Initiative 300.

Twenty-four years later, on December 13, 2006, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith-Camp’s December 2005 decision that declared Initiative 300 in violation of the United States Constitution.

Judge Smith-Camp never held a trial to discern the evidence in the case. She ruled that Initiative 300 is unconstitutional on its face, essentially because it is inconvenient for out-of-state interests to comply with the provision in Initiative 300 that requires that a family member live on or operate the farm or ranch to qualify as an allowed family farm or ranch corporation. The three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concurred.

“This is a flawed ruling. This is what happens when the courts make crucial decisions without holding a trial and hearing the facts of a case,” said Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director of the Center for Rural Affairs. “Initiative 300 should have its day in court,” argued Hassebrook.

The circuit court’s decision compounded another problem with the district court’s ruling: it’s wrong on the facts. Initiative 300 does not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state corporations. For example, a Montana rancher who works everyday on his Montana ranch could qualify his operation as a family ranch corporation just as easily as a Sandhills rancher, and having done so could place cattle in Nebraska custom feedlots just like Nebraska ranchers.

Moreover, the legal precedent established by this ruling is broad and dangerously expansive. It could undermine a wide range of state laws and dramatically diminish the power of states to control corporate power and excess.

In his appeal to the 8th Circuit Court, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning argued, “Initiative 300, Nebraska’s ban on corporate farming, does not violate the commerce clause, nor does it discriminate against out-of-state individuals or corporations.”

He was right – and since he will decide whether to continue the battle to protect Initiative 300 and the right of Nebraskans to choose family farms and ranches over corporate farms – we urge him to reaffirm his commitment to Initiative 300 and what the law has meant to family farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and the economic and social well-being throughout Nebraska for the last 24 years. We urge him to continue the fight.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#5 Reason Community Development is Hard to Do

2007-01-01T15:08:00.000-06:00

Parochial Attitudes

by Michael Holton, Center for Rural Affairs, michaellh@cfra.org

editor's note - this is an excerpt from the "ten reasons why rural communiting development is hard to do..." from the December 2006 Center for Rural Affairs newsletter feature by Michael Holton - this excerpt includes the narrative explaining the fifth reason...

You hear the term parochial brought up in discussions regarding rural communities, even with those trying to work together regionally. Many people do not know what parochial means or why it is used in the context of community development. Our definition refers to small rural communities being insular or narrow in focus or scope.

Parochial attitudes in small rural communities [reflect] the ability [of] these areas to shut themselves off from the outside. Communities, particularly small rural communities in the Midwest, have the notion that they have always managed to do it on their own, and they don't need any outside help. It is this independent desire of the people that is reflected in local institutions and their way of doing businesss.

The problem with this attitude today is that small rural communities cannot do it on their own as we tranistion from a local to a global economy. This [is] change and upheaval in the traditional sense of economic and social development.

Agree? Disagree? Post a question here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#3 Reason Community Development is Hard to Do

2006-12-29T21:53:00.000-06:00

Understanding Community Gate Keepers

by Michael Holton, Center for Rural Affairs - editors note... brought to you by "popular" demand...

Rural communities are made up of a social group called the gate keepers. This may prove to be one of the most difficult aspects of community development in small rural towns.

Gate keepers are usually people who have lived in the community for years, often clear back to the time when small rural communities were thriving. They made a living and prospered while raising their children. The community was and is still good to them. They do not want to see new community development come in and take away what they have acquired.

These people often resist big changes with statements like, “We don’t need that!” or “It was good enough for me when I was growing up.” The key to dealing with the gate keeper plight is to involve them from the beginning in the discussion and work.

Agree? Disagree? Post a question here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#4 Reason Rural Community Development is Hard to Do...

2006-12-28T09:49:00.000-06:00

Change Is Not Comfortable

by Michael Holton, Center for Rural Affairs, michaellh@cfra.org

More detail on another of Michael Holton's ten reasons rural development is difficult. This is the narrative portion about the fourth reason rural community development is hard to do (Center for Rural Affairs newsletter)... I skipped the third reason because we have been talking about gate-keeper thinking on all three of the posts so far (and can continue that dicussion thread here as well)... John

Like the gate keeper mentality, change is also a barrier to community development. Comfort levels and routine are easier to understand for most community members. Large-scale change is uncomfortable and often hard work.

When you are dealing with buildings, you may have destruction and construction going on all around the community that disrupts routine. When you are dealing with people and politics, elections bring new leadership, but they also may bring change to the community.

New business brings competition which communities may view as healthy, but to existing business that must now compete for the shrinking rural dollar, it is not. Communities are made up of people first and structures second. Change must be addressed in those terms.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Rural Alaska is Crumbling...

2006-12-27T14:41:00.000-06:00

Rural Alaska is crumbling...

Erosion affects rural Alaska on myriad levels

In a five part series, the Associated Press recently examined the impact of erosion in its various forms as well as the strengths of Alaskan rural communities and Alaska natives who have endured some of the harshest conditions on Earth for thousands of years... Winds and water continually wear away at scores of native communities. Every year whole chunks of land simply float away...

RACHEL D'ORO, Associated Press, December 24, 2006 - see full story at Anchorage Dailey News - www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/

Perhaps the plight of rural Alaska can be summed up in the story of the beaver.

Patricia Cochran never saw the web-footed rodent during her childhood in Nome, an old gold-rush town halfway up the western Alaska coast. No one ever saw trees there either, that is, until residents began planting aspens and birch, and those and other alien plant-life firmly took hold in the warming region. Also multiplying along streams and lakes were brush willows and alders, choice fare for the beavers that followed.

"Before, there were no beavers there because there was no source of food for them," said Cochran, 57, executive director of the Alaska Native Science Commission. "Now there are trees in people's front yards. The treeline has moved so much farther north that the beavers are now moving into the area..."

Cochran and others believe the beaver's expansion is but a symptom of rising temperatures that have brought other dramatic changes, including the pervasive erosion eating away at Native communities.

With change comes complications, as aptly manifested by the beaver. The animal is blamed for bringing disease, interrupting fish migration patterns and blocking navigation routes in areas it was never seen before. This voracious rodent is known to abandon overforaged or dried up sites.

Now, ecological shifts have given it more space, said Dave Klein, a biology professor emeritus with the University of Alaska Fairbanks... "Climate change is not affecting just part of the world. It's a global phenomenon," added Klein.

The repercussions, however, are drastic closer to the Arctic. This is where effects of warming have appeared with mounting intensity, partly because as snow and ice shrink, the terrain absorbs more heat instead of reflecting it.

In Alaska, warming climate is melting permanent sea ice, leaving coastal villages vulnerable to stronger storms and flooding, their shorelines and riverbanks washing away. Native subsistence hunters are traveling farther for seals and other icebound prey. Ancient graves are surfacing in village cemeteries. A handful of threatened communities are even planning expensive relocations.

Other regions also are prone to erosion and flooding, but Alaska is unlike any other place in the nation, said Bruce Sexauer, a senior planner with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The corps investigates erosion and designs and builds solutions such as sea walls and breakwaters.
"The uniqueness is in the remoteness and high reliance upon natural resources for survival," Sexauer said. "The communities are hundreds of miles away from Anchorage, have no connection by road, rely heavily upon hunting and fishing for their food, and do not have the financial-based economies often needed to participate as cost sharing partners in federal programs."

Almost as widespread as erosion, the beaver's range has inched up the state over the past two decades. State wildlife officials say reports have placed the animals as far north as 140 miles above the Arctic Circle.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#2 Reason Rural Community Development is Hard to Do

2006-12-26T16:07:00.000-06:00

Differences between Rural and Urban

by Michael Holton, Center for Rural Affairs, michaellh@cfra.org

Agencies and funding sources often try to address community development as if what worked for urban areas will also work for rural areas. This very seldom happens as they are two different beasts. Why refer to them as beasts? Because urban and rural communities have lives of their own.

Where do we separate the two so that we can all grasp the differences? Maybe we don’t have to. This is an area of understanding and perception, so it all leads back to the fundamental, yet simple, conclusion that rural is anything urban is not.

While this is easy for some of us who live in smaller rural townships (less than 2,000 in population), it is not as easy for agencies addressing development and providing funding. Fair or not, this becomes one of the reasons why community development in rural areas is so difficult.

Since a good discussion about our two previuos posts is ongoing, I thought, let's just stick with it and provide more detail on another of Michael Holton's ten reasons rural development is difficult. This is the narrative portion about the second reason rural community development is hard to do (Center for Rural Affairs newsletter)... John Crabtree

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

#1 Reason Rural Community Development is Hard to Do

2006-12-23T12:10:00.000-06:00

People Don’t Understand What Community Development Is

by Michael Holton, Center for Rural Affairs, michaellh@cfra.org

Community leaders and resource providers tend to put characteristics in with community development that constrict the definition. Often it is confused with other development ideas such as economic development, infrastructure, schools, and business development.

Community development is all of these things, but not packaged separately. Contrary to the belief that any one of these can fix or solve problems that need to be addressed, it takes all of them to complete the puzzle we call community development.

The definition of community development can be stated as, “The process of improving the social, economic, and cultural conditions of a village or small town.” Even this definition may come up short, but at least it addresses other facets of what the community is all about.

Since a good discussion is beginning about our previous post, I thought i would provide more detail. This is the narrative in Michael Holton's feature in the Center for Rural Affairs newsletter article about the top ten things that make rural community development hard to do... John Crabtree

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Top 10 - Reasons Rural Community Development is Hard to Do

2006-12-22T22:59:00.000-06:00

Top 10 Reasons Rural Community Development is Hard to Do...

by Michael Holton, Center for Rural Affairs, michaellh@cfra.org

For the past three years, the Center for Rural Affairs newsletter has carried a monthly column by Michael Holton focused on rural community revitalization. S ome articles referred to community development successes, while others related various struggles that come with the territory in community development. This month, Michael uses his experiences and insights to define the top 10 reasons rural community development is so difficult to accomplish.

These are the reasons Michael outlines:
1. People Don’t Understand What Community Development Is
2. Agencies Overlook Differences between Rural and Urban
3. Community Gate Keeper Resistance
4. Change Is Not Comfortable
5. Parochial Attitudes Must Be Overcome
6. Lack of Resources and Capacity
7. Negative Attitudes
8. Lack of Participation across the Generations
9. Confused Purpose of Existence
10. Lack of Leadership Capacity

you can read the full explanation for each at www.cfra.org/newsletter/current.htm

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Farm and Rural Organizations Send Letter to New Senate Leaders

2006-12-21T22:36:00.000-06:00

the following is an excerpt from a letter from 15 farm, rural and environmental organizations to the Majority Leader and President of the Iowa Senate...

Dear Senators Kibbie and Gronstahl:

We, the undersigned food and agriculture organizations, would like to congratulate you on your Election Day victories. The people of Iowa, both rural and urban, have placed their trust in you. We know you are working hard to develop and implement an agenda that is good for Iowa, and will show the citizens that they elected true leaders with vision and wisdom…

…Democracy can be strengthened with more citizen participation in the process, breaking any view of special interest control.

We would like to suggest the following topics and initiatives.

1. An Ownership Society: Farm owner-operators should be the policy choice for the structure of Iowa agriculture. This goal requires open and competitive markets to minimize the excessive market power of dominant agribusinesses that raise input prices too high, and drive commodity prices too low. Strong support for new and beginning and transitioning farmers, as well as rural entrepreneurs, is needed to successfully bring young farmers into agriculture. We can also stem the loss of established farmers.

2. Environmental Stewardship: All rural and urban Iowans want clean air and clean water. They want their land values and quality of life preserved. Hog farmers want the spread of disease minimized or eliminated. We can grow the livestock economy, including reclamation of lost hog farrowing facilities, with smart environmental choices. The hog siting and manure spreading issues have gone on too long. They should be resolved. Local citizens should be empowered with land use authority, and allowed to control their own lives. Science-based state rules should set minimum standards on health and safety grounds. Urban and rural Iowans support this approach.

3. Energy Self Sufficiency: Iowa has tapped the potential of corn based ethanol. This should continue, but be supplemented by cellulosic ethanol, bio-diesel, wind and solar power. All utilities should pay retail rates to individual power generators. State investment and policy should continue supporting our withdrawal from foreign oil.

4. An Opportunity Society: Food generally travels more than 1,000 miles before consumption. Iowans import over 80% of their food, at a value of $6 billion annually. We can recapture some of this value for the state, with tremendous economic benefits. Support for direct farmer marketing to consumers and institutions should be strengthened. Organic food is a major part of this opportunity, because it is the fastest growing sector of the food production industry – growing 20% per year. Indeed, organic meat consumption is growing 50% annually. Iowa farmers can save on energy, and provide consumers safe, healthy and nutritious food.

5. Institutionalizing Change: The Iowa Food Policy Council should have a closer relationship with the legislature to promote producer and consumer progress. The
Department of Economic Development should include more rural entrepreneurship opportunities, such as developing value added marketing chains. Research and development in our public university system should be focused more on issues and problems for owner-operator agriculture promotion, rather than working with or for corporate-controlled agriculture. We wish to work with you to achieve and preserve this legacy. Iowa’s agricultural heritage is in danger of being lost, or taken over by out-of-state corporations. The urban support for agriculture and good food is tremendous. Rural Iowa economic development cannot be serious without including owner-operator agriculture.

Respectfully,
Organization for Competitive Markets
Women’s Food and Agriculture Network
Iowa Farmers Union
Center for Rural Affairs
National Catholic Rural Life Conference
Iowa Network for Local Control
Iowa Network for Community Agriculture
Buy Fresh, Buy Local
Iowa Citizen’s Action Network
Iowa Human Needs Advocates
What Iowa Needs Done
Concerned Citizens of Clemons
Iowans for Local Control
Environment Iowa
Iowa Public Interest Research Group

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Farmers Guide to Agricultural Credit

2006-12-20T10:39:00.000-06:00

Farmer’s Guide to Agricultural Credit

John Bonitz, Rural Advancement Foundation International – USA, john@rafiusa.org

The Rural Advancement Foundation International - USA recently released "The Farmer's Guide to Agricultural Credit." The guide provides step-by-step advice on financing non-traditional farm-based enterprises.

The Farmer's Guide grew out of the Farmer & Lender Project, a partnership between RAFI-USA and the Self-Help Credit Union, supported by the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.

Creative ideas, from growing organic produce to grinding corn into grits, offer farms a way to stay afloat in financially challenging times. However, these ideas can be difficult to explain to lenders who are used to dealing with traditional commodity crops. Farmers have experience with getting annual operating loans, but are often unprepared for the amount of documentation lenders expect for a new enterprise. Agricultural lenders know how to assess risks and benefits of familiar crops, but few of them are prepared to evaluate a new kind of project.

The Farmer's Guide helps close this gap. It outlines how lenders evaluate loan applications, how to communicate ideas to lenders, and what resources are available to help along the way. A steering committee of farmers, commercial and agricultural lenders, representatives of state government and other experts helped produce the Farmer's Guide.

The Farmer's Guide is available on-line at www.rafiusa.org/pubs/puboverview.html

A limited number of printed copies are available by mail: North Carolina farmers may request a free copy by calling 919-542-1396.

Out-of-state shipping requires $10 to cover the costs of printing and postage.

RAFI-USA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to community, equity, and diversity in agriculture.

Post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Mapmaker Erases Small Towns in Georgia

2006-12-19T17:28:00.000-06:00

This story was originally reported by the Associated Press

A total of 488 communities have been erased from the latest version of Georgia's official map, victims of too few people and too many letters of type. Small rural communities like Poetry Tulip, Due West, Po Biddy Crossroads, Cloudland and Roosterville have been erased from the map, but not from reality.

Georgia's official mapmaker, the Department of Transportation, stated that their goal was to make the map clearer and less cluttered and that many of the dropped communities were mere "placeholders," generally with fewer than 2,500 people. "We are under no obligation to show every single community," said Department of Transportation spokesperson Karlene Barron. "While we want to, there's a balancing act. And the map was getting illegible," Barron added.

The state began handing out the new map at rest stops and welcome centers over the summer.
Chattoogaville, a small northwestern Georgia farm community
That doesn't ease the snub to the people who live in those places.

"This gets back to respect for rural areas," said Dennis Holt, who is leading a community group that wants to restore the good name of western Georgia's Hickory Level Community, population 1,000, which was founded in 1828 and recently put up five new welcome signs. "I'm not sure we're going to accomplish anything, but I would have felt bad about myself if I didn't say something about it."

Mapmaking criteria vary by state, and it is not unusual for a little housecleaning over time, often to get rid of place names now considered racially offensive. But other states said it is almost unheard of to see hundreds of communities given the boot in a single year.
In Texas, few of the 2,076 cities and towns are ever deleted because of strict standards that weigh whether a spot is along a state highway, has a post office or boasts a population of 50 or more.

Rand McNally, which as North America's biggest commercial mapmaker sells its maps at gas stations and bookstores, is not going to follow Georgia's example. It said a change of even just a dozen place names on its state maps is rare.

"Our criteria for keeping towns on the map is not just population," said Joel Minster, the company's chief cartographer. "We won't take a town off the map if we can confirm there's still a landmark -- even if there's no people there."

The mapmaker generally deals with clutter by varying the size and style of its print.
Because of the complaints, Georgia transportation officials said they will take another look at their guidelines for what constitutes a "community."

"It's going to take a little bit of work and time, but I think maybe we can get it resolved," said state Rep. Tim Bearden, who represents a western Georgia county that includes Hickory Level Community and eight other towns removed from the map.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

International Microentprize Holds Leason

2006-12-18T13:04:00.000-06:00

International Microenterprise Holds Lessons for Rural Development

by Jon Bailey, Center for Rural Affairs, jonb@cfra.org

As long-time readers know, the Center is an advocate of microenterprise and microcredit as key components to a rural development agenda centered on entrepreneurship and asset-building.

As we have witnessed, microenterprise development can lift people out of poverty and help build strong and sustainable households and communities.

We were, therefore, interested in two recent international developments in the wide ranging field of microenterprise development.

First, Muhammad Yumas was named the new Nobel Peace Prize honoree. Mr. Yumas was the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and is considered the father of microcredit and microenterprise. The Grameen Bank was the model of many microenterprise development initiatives throughout the world, including the Center’s REAP program.

The honor bestowed upon Mr. Yumas is significant because it recognizes the importance of economic social justice to peace. Yumas’ central theory – and the central theory of REAP and microenterprise development and asset-building initiatives in general – is that lending to low-income people to build business enterprises and assets builds self-sufficiency. In the long run, building businesses and assets is the most effective and efficient anti-poverty strategy around.

A recent article in the Micro Enterprise Journal stated that Yumas’ vision taught that microenterprise development is about an “understanding that just because a man (or woman) is poor, that doesn’t mean he (or she) is unworthy of the American Dream.” Making the opportunity for the American Dream available to all in rural America should be the central goal of rural development policy in the 2007 farm bill.

The second international development comes from the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” department. On July 27, 2006, Jacqueline Shafer, Assistant Administrator of the Bureau of Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) testified before the U.S. House of Representatives.

The subject of her speech was USAID’s implementation of international microenterprise legislation and appropriations. At a time when domestic microenterprise and small business development funding was being cut or proposed for elimination, the United States obligated over $200 million for microenterprise development in 68 other nations.

The reason for this laudable international response: the U.S. government, according to Ms. Shafer’s testimony, believes microenterprise development “Strengthens economic opportunities for poorer households,” enabling families to build assets, cope with risks … and plan for better futures for their children.” In addition, the U.S. government, according to Ms. Shafer, believes that microenterprise development “can contribute to poverty alleviation in a sustainable and commercially viable way.”

While USAID was making those assertions for rural places in other countries, we and others have found them to be as true for rural America. As we begin debate on a new rural policy, U.S. policymakers should listen to the lessons of the world.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

MarketPlace: Opening Doors to Success

2006-12-15T00:22:00.000-06:00

MarketPlace: Opening Doors to Success

The First of Its Kind in Nebraska

By Marie Powell, mariep@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

Nebraskans have an incredible opportunity to learn new skills, network with successful entrepreneurs and discover new ideas for their small businesses and communities.

The Center for Rural Affairs is sponsoring the first of its kind in the state: MarketPlace: Opening Doors to Success, a new one-day event. The conference will occur on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at the Ramada Inn in Kearney, Nebraska.

This event is modeled after the highly successful Marketplace of Entrepreneurs held annually in North Dakota and credited with bringing new jobs and employment there.

The Nebraska event will have teach-ins arranged in six different tracks. Tracks include financing, marketing, business development, community capacity, agriculture, and policy and trends.

The program is filled with a wide variety of enticing sessions. Teach-ins will be offered on how the new farm bill affects rural development and conservation and beginning farmers. Rural tourism opportunities and the latest efforts in direct marketing will be looked at as well.

Experts on subjects such as taxes, accounting, legal issues, and technology will be available to answer questions one-on-one.

Terry Whipple, an energetic, inspirational entrepreneur will give a presentation and Chuck Hassebrook, the Center’s Executive Director, will share an inspirational address on rural America.

This is a great event to have in Nebraska. And for those interested in rural entrepreneurship, family farms and ranches, and rural communities this is a great opportunity, and they should strive to attend.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Organic Livestock Marketing

2006-12-12T09:47:00.000-06:00

Organic and Natural Livestock Marketing Information Meeting Offered in Columbus

Producers interested in learning more about the growing demand for organic and natural meat products can attend an Organic and Natural Livestock Marketing Information Meeting from 1-4:30 p.m. Jan. 13 in Columbus.

The meeting, sponsored by University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension and the Nebraska Chapter of the Organic Crop Improvement Association, will be in Room 205 at Central Community College, 4500 63rd Street. To register, call (402) 584-3837.

"Opportunities exist right now for livestock producers to profit from the rapidly growing demand for organic and natural meat products," said Liz Sarno, UNL Extension educator and organic project coordinator. "This meeting will help answer your questions."

Topics include: increasing livestock market value, how to sell livestock to natural or organic markets, how to diversify an operation, what it takes to transition a herd and the cost of organic certification and new opportunities for a son or daughter to stay on the farm.

Participants also will meet with other organic farmers and find out about their market strategies.

Panel presenters include: Allen Moody, beef and pork coordinator of CROPP Organic Valley Cooperative/Organic Prairie of La Farge, Wis., one of the largest organic market distributers in the U.S.; Klint Stewart, field agent for the Niman Ranch Pork Co., which buys hogs from more than 400 family farmers; Paul Rorbaugh, a leader in the direct marketing of meat to consumers in Nebraska, also a grass-finished beef and pastured poultry producer and director of the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society; Randy Wattermann, a driving force behind the start of Nebraska Food Cooperative, which is a year-round, online farmer's market; and Lori Tatreau, local liaison for Whole Foods Market in Omaha and part-time UNO instructor, who will provide more details on Whole Foods' quality meat standards, approval process and new animal compassion program.

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Renewal Rural Iowa Program Grows

2006-12-11T07:50:00.000-06:00

CIPCO provides $2.5 million to Renew Rural Iowa

from the Iowa Farm Bureau - and thanks to Brian Depew of the Rural Populist Blog - http://ruralpopulist.org/index.php - for his coverage of Renewal Rural Iowa

The Central Iowa Power Cooperative (CIPCO) and its member system have agreed to provide $2.5 million to Iowa Farm Bureau Federation’s Renew Rural Iowa program designed to provide mentoring and education with development funding to encourage business expansion and wealth development.

Farm Bureau launched Renew Rural Iowa in September to encourage the growth of new and existing businesses in Iowa communities with a population of less than 30,000. The program is targeted at rural Iowa businesses involved in selling products and services on an interstate basis that want to develop or expand.

Dr. Jan Schuiteman, Chief Executive Officer of Trans Ova Genetics in Sioux Center, Iowa, said the Renew Rural Iowa is an ideal initiative for IIowa businesses that are working to expand and move to the next level.

"When you are starting out, you have a small team by necessity. That means you don’t have the expertise and background you need to grow your company," said Schuiteman, whose livestock embryo transfer and genetics company started in a garage in tiny Ireton, Iowa.

Renew Rural Iowa will also help to create a "culture of entrepreneurship in Iowa," Schuiteman said. "We really haven’t had that in Iowa. There haven’t been a lot of role models and mentors for people here who want to start and grow their own businesses."

Renew Rural Iowa will conduct six two-day seminars across the state to begin the mentoring process for businesses. The seminars will include sessions on writing a business plan, determining appropriate financing, analyzing market research and locating funding sources. On the second day of the seminars, pre-qualified participants will receive hands-on mentoring to accelerate the growth of their existing businesses or to jump start new ones.

The first seminar was held at Buena Vista University in Storm Lake Nov. 30 and Dec. 1.
After the entrepreneurs successfully complete the seminars they will be eligible for funding from the investment fund.

The fund now totals $12.5 million. Farm Bureau founded the fund with a $5 million contribution. That was followed by a $5 million contribution from Wellmark, Inc. and the $2.5 million from CIPCO.

For more information or to register for a Renew Rural Iowa seminar, go to Iowa Farm Bureau’s website at http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/renewruraliowa/default.aspx

Post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Do Not Forget About Rural America

2006-12-07T16:11:00.000-06:00

Do Not Forget About Rural America

by John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org

November’s election caused a shift in leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture committees, just as the farm bill debate begins in earnest.

Rural voters from across the nation helped put Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN) at the helm of American farm and rural policy. But no one in rural America believes that is sufficient to bring about the fundamental reforms necessary for the future of rural America.

Agricultural and rural policy is more regional than partisan. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) are leading proponents of the most pivotal issue in the farm bill debate, federal farm payment limitations. Senators Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) lead the opposition.

Rural polls, from across America, have shown decisive support for limiting farm program payments that mega-farms use to bid up land costs and drive smaller neighbors out. Family farmers, beginning farmers, rural communities… all suffer under a farm program that subsidizes consolidation and diverts financial resources away from investment in practical strategies that can revitalize rural America.

Congress can develop a farm bill that works for everyone. Payment limitations could affect cotton and rice farms at fewer acres than other commodities. Calibrating payment limitations to make them regionally equitable should be pursued.

Congressional supporters of reform must show resolve, however, and refuse to support any farm bill that destroys family farming and undermines rural communities. Rural people must stand up and speak out to ensure that Congress does not forget about rural America.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Iraq War Hits Hard in the Heartland

2006-12-06T09:02:00.000-06:00

Iraq War Hits Hard in the Heartland ...by Nick Stump

Reading Jim Webb's powerful piece on economic fairness in the Wall Street Journal last week left me thinking about my old hometown of Booneville, Kentucky.

Booneville is one of those small, centered around the courthouse towns in Eastern Kentucky. The town would be familiar to you, in the sense you know the kids drive around the town square on weekends and there's more churches than grocery stores.

Booneville is in Owsley County, one of the poorest counties in the country. But there's plenty of poor to go around in the rural areas all over the country. These days, the long shadow of economic inequity is cast over all of rural America.

We have watched our jobs disappear though outsourcing. Coal mining, family farms, and the timber industry provide fewer rural jobs every year.

What's left is are fast food jobs, or jobs hours away from our homes. One thing we all know, hard economic times are always a boom times for military recruiters. This is especially true for rural America.

Rural Americans have no shortage of patriotism. We're proud of our service, but in this war it's the failing rural economy sending our sons and daughters to fight. Joining the Army is not just a patriotic move, but a way to get money for college, and in many cases, a way to feed some hungry kids.

The recently released Carsey Report tells us the death rate for rural soldiers in Afganistan and Iraq is 60% higher than the rate of their urban counterparts. You can find the Carsey Report at the Center for Rural Strategies' website (PDF).

Dee Davis, President of Rural Strategies in Whitesburg, Kentucky told writer Aaron Glanz in a Oneworld article, "This year we did polling and what we found out was that 75 percent of rural voters knew somebody who had been to Iraq."

I live in a good-sized city. I know there are soldiers from here and I belong to our local VVAW group, but I don't know my city's solders like I did when I lived in Booneville. Most of my friends here don't really know anyone serving in this war either. The people I know serving are friends and children of friends from rural Kentucky, Eastern Tennessee and Southwest Virgina.

There is a fine war memorial in Booneville. My best friend from those days, Ronald McIntosh, has his name on the plaque. He was a young Marine killed outside Danang in 1969. When I heard of his death, it hit me in the gut like a baseball bat. My Uncle Ned died in World War II, but I never knew him as anything but a picture on the wall. I received my draft notice a couple of months after Ronnie was killed, and believe me, at that point, the war was no longer something that happened to other people.

As I grow older, I think more of Ronnie and other brothers who never made it home. I think about all the war memorials in all the small towns of this country, all those names and memories and tears and I wonder--how many more names will there be before we bring our children home from this war?

For rural Americans the war in Iraq is not just the war on TV. When we watch CNN, we are looking for family members and friends. Every knock on the door could be bad news. It is not a just cause. Our sons, daughters, fathers and mothers are dying over there at an alarming rate and they're dying for tuition money and their little piece of this American dream.

I hope you will all visit the Rural Strategies site, read the Carsey Report, see the video report on this issue, and read the full Aaron Glanz article. This is a story the whole country needs to hear.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Aspen Puts Heat on EPA over Climate Change

2006-12-05T23:11:00.000-06:00

Aspen Puts Heat on EPA over Climate Change

reported by Eric Mack, Colorado News Connection

Ski areas are feeling the heat from global warming, and now Aspen Skiing Company has joined the chorus calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to address the problem.

Colorado ski areas have begun to feel the heat from climate change in recent years... Warmer days and shrinking seasons have prompted Aspen Skiing Company to add its voice to the chorus of states and environmental groups calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to address the problem in a case currently before the Supreme Court. Ed Ramey is an attorney who authored a "friend of the court" brief detailing the concerns of the ski industry...

Ed Ramey, an attorney representing the Aspen Skiing Company points out that current climate models show that Aspen's very existence as a ski destination is in jeopardy. “Over the last 15 years we have been experiencing increasing temperatures on the order of two to three plus degrees on an annual basis,” said Ramey

The case before the court asks the EPA to regulate auto emissions that contribute to global warming. The EPA claims it does not have the authority to make such rules. Oral arguments were presented last week; a decision is not expected for a month or more.

Ramey is concerned that current climate models show that Aspen's very existence as a ski destination is in jeopardy. “Sometime between 2030 and 2100, we could be put in the position where the ski area is no longer economically viable – that doesn't just mean Aspen,” explained Ramey.

Ramey added that Aspen has already had to shoulder the cost of increased snowmaking because of an increase in the number of “frost-free” days.

Focus on Critical Ethanol Issues Now

2006-11-25T18:35:00.000-06:00

Focus on Critical Ethanol Issues Now: Profit, Conservation, Hunger

by Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

Now is the time to ask critical questions and set farsighted strategies to develop ethanol production in a way that serves the common good. High oil prices are driving a dramatic increase in ethanol production that will reshape agriculture and rural economies (see article front page). We need to steer it in the right direction.

>> PROFIT – We should help beginning farmers, family farmers, and workers in ethanol plants become the owners. Keeping the profits in rural America in many hands will increase the benefit to rural communities.

Ethanol production is capital intensive. Small and beginning farmers struggle to come up with the capital to share in the ownership. Meanwhile, potential profits are attracting capital from large investment funds.

One solution would be to provide the 51 cent per gallon ethanol tax credit only to plants that are majority locally owned and provide assistance to workers and small farmers to buy in.

>> CONSERVATION – If land is removed from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to feed ethanol plants, will the conservation benefits be maintained? There should be incentives to leave parts of fields in contour grass strips, grass windbreaks, grass waterways, and buffer strips.

Ethanol production will eventually come from biomass – grasses, crop residues, etc. That could encourage stripping land of crop residue and widespread destruction of wildlife habitat. But with forward thinking public policies, it could enhance the environment.

We should focus some research on producing ethanol from alfalfa, to give farmers a market for a resource conserving rotation crop. We should condition tax credits on leaving sufficient crop residue to maintain organic matter and prevent erosion. And we should develop new approaches to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that allow grass to be harvested for ethanol production only if timed to maintain wildlife and erosion control benefits.

>> LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION – Ethanol production has already contributed positively to the reemergence of farmer cattle feeding in states like Iowa, prompted by availability of feed byproducts.

However, one proposed model for ethanol production would do just the opposite. Some propose co-locating ethanol plants with big feedlots and using the manure to power the ethanol plant while feeding the byproducts on site. Publicly funded research institutions should focus on developing models that integrate ethanol production with dispersed family farm based livestock production.

>> FOOD SECURITY – There is no direct tradeoff between hunger and ethanol production. Hunger is largely not the result of insufficient grain supplies. Nonetheless, extreme shortages prompted by increased ethanol production could contribute to world hunger. USDA projects much more volatile markets in which a severe drought could prompt severe shortages.

Congress should consider reestablishing farmer-owned grain reserves and other policies to hold grain off the market for use at times of severe shortages.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Seniors Increasing in Rural Communities

2006-11-21T18:07:00.000-06:00

Number of Senior Citizens Increasing in Our Rural Communities

The elderly often end up segregated from the community – instead we should embrace their experience and desire to contribute

by Michael Holton, michaellh@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

Last month we looked at the assets seniors bring to small rural communities and how we don’t use their skills and experience in meaningful ways to help our communities grow. Let’s look at some demographic trends to bring the picture into clearer focus.

Currently, over 70 percent of the nation’s counties are considered non-metropolitan. While the definition of rural includes towns of 2,500 or less, remember we have over 15,000 communities in our country this size. And over 25 percent of all older people in the United States live in or around them. More than a quarter of elderly Americans reside in rural areas.

The Midwest is home to a good portion of settled seniors. Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska have upwards of 20 percent or more senior residents. Another factor to consider, the population base of senior citizens continues to grow and does not appear to be anywhere close to stabilizing yet.

What does this mean in terms of how we work in community development? With rural areas suffering depopulation of all ages, health care becomes an issue for seniors. When economically the community begins to lose health care facilities, pharmacies, doctors, dentists, and other providers, the real victims become the increasing population force of senior citizens.

Much like youth, we often fall into the trap of trying to figure out what we can do for the senior population. What we really need instead is open dialogue. Rather than building senior citizen housing, assisted living facilities, hospice care, and more senior citizen centers to segregate our most prized assets, why don’t we ask them what they would like to see done?

More often than not, the biggest request from the elderly is a wish to contribute to the community in a meaningful way rather than to be segregated. Through years of experience, they have answers to all sorts of community problems. As we advocate for our communities and their survival for the future, let’s ask the people who live in the communities what that survival may look like!

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Top 10 Reasons Small Schools Work Better

2006-11-20T21:05:00.000-06:00

Top 10 Reasons Small Schools Work Better

Participation, belonging, personalization just a few of the findings from a new Rural Schools and Community Trust report

from the Center for Rural Affairs newsletter regarding a report from the Rural Schools and Community Trust authored by Lorna Jimerson

With the start of each new legislative session, small school supporters across the nation wonder what attempt will be thrown at them to cease their existence. Whether it is through some “tweaking” in a state aid formula to tighten and restrict their funding or outright disassembly, small schools know how to educate their students and can do it with greater results than their larger counterparts.

A report recently released by the Rural School and Community Trust reiterated what the Center for Rural Affairs and many other small school advocates have been saying for some time. Lorna Jimerson, Ed.D, author of the report The Hobbit Effect: Why Small Works in Public Schools offers her top 10 research-based reasons why small works for schools.
1. There is greater participation in extracurricular activities, and that is linked to academic success.
2. Small schools are safer.
3. Kids feel they belong.
4. Small class size allows more individualized instruction.
5. Good teaching methods are easier to implement.
6. Teachers feel better about their work.
7. Mixed-ability classes avoid condemning some students to low expectations.
8. Multi-age classes promote personalized learning and encourage positive social interactions.
9. Smaller districts mean less bureaucracy.
10. More grads in one school alleviate many problems of transitions to new schools.

The report goes into detail about each of these 10 reasons and can be found on the Rural School and Community Trust’s website, www.ruraledu.org/hobbiteffect . Contact Lorna Jimerson, Ed.D (author) at 802.425.2497 or Marty Strange, Center for Rural Affairs co-founder, at 802.728.4383 for more information regarding this report.

Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Rural Maine Publication Highlights Rural Entrepreneurs

2006-11-15T19:45:00.000-06:00

Publication from Rural Maine Highlights Rural Entrepreneurs

Report illustrates that unique culture and character, combined with creativity and talent, can lead to a successful business venture

by Jon Bailey, Center for Rural Affairs, jonb@cfra.org

Readers of this newsletter know that the Center for Rural Affairs has long advocated for rural policy based on entrepreneurship and small business development. We have witnessed in Nebraska how rural policy based on entrepreneurship can transform individuals, families, and communities through our REAP program.

We have witnessed the strength of the rural entrepreneurial spirit in our studies of the economy of the Great Plains and the Midwest. Now, another example of the entrepreneurial spirit in rural America has come our way, and we are honored to recommend it to our readers and anyone interested in how rural policy should look.

Telling Their Stories: Women Business Owners in Western Maine is a new publication of the Western Mountain Alliance, Coastal Enterprises, Inc., and the University of Maine at Farmington’s Women’s Studies Program. Telling Their Stories looks at 14 different rural entrepreneurs, their businesses, their motivations, and the risk-taking and perseverance required to make a success of each venture. Just as important, the publication also discusses the community, culture, and character of rural western Maine and how that influenced the success of each business.

While Telling Their Stories focuses on entrepreneurs in and the character of rural western Maine, it is a symbol of all of rural America. All rural areas have unique cultures and characters that can inspire entrepreneurs. And all rural communities have creative and talented residents who – often with a little assistance – can transform those ideas and talents into their own successful business ventures.

What is needed is a realization in rural communities that the kinds of businesses highlighted in Telling Their Stories are important and a vital part of the future of those communities. What is needed is a new rural policy that allows that realization to become reality by focusing resources on approaches to take advantage of rural character, culture, creativity, and talents.

Telling Their Stories is an important addition to pointing us down the path of that realization and a new rural policy. As debate begins on the 2007 farm bill and the kind of rural policy and the kind of rural communities we want to create, anyone interested in the future of rural America should read the inspiring stories in Telling Their Stories.

You can download a copy at the Western Mountain Alliance website, www.westernmountainsalliance.org , or contact them at 207.778.3885 to request a copy.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

North Dakota Study Places Price Tag on Outmigration

2006-11-09T18:29:00.000-06:00

Study Places a Price Tag on Outmigration

Research estimates a loss of nearly $1 billion in North Dakota’s net taxable income.

by Jon Bailey, Center for Rural Affairs, jonb@cfra.org

A new report from North Dakota shows that outmigration is not only bad for rural communities and their social and civic institutions, but it costs money. According to the North Dakota State Center, outmigration cost North Dakota nearly $1 billion in net taxable income from 1993 to 2005.

The report shows that people moving into North Dakota during the 13-year period brought about $1 billion less in net taxable income than the people leaving the state took to their new states of residence. During the period in question, North Dakota had a net outmigration of 44,000 people (people leaving the state minus people who moved into the state).

The income levels of people moving into the state also contributed to the decline in taxable income. In some of North Dakota’s largest population centers, an increase in population was accompanied with a loss in net taxable income, suggesting that those moving in had lower income levels than those moving out.

Only two of North Dakota’s 53 counties had increases in net taxable income during the 13-year period – one a small, rural county and the other the home of Bismarck, the state capitol.

This report not only places a price tag on outmigration that could be useful in demonstrating impacts on rural communities, but it also suggests that public policies and initiatives that seek to address outmigration in rural communities could have a net financial benefit to the community and to taxpayers. Significant outmigration in rural areas is eventually a cost to the society – infrastructure stills needs to be maintained and upgraded, institutions like schools still need funding, and the population left in many rural communities – often the very young, the very old, and the poor – need more services.

Rural outmigration renders communities less economically self-sufficient and places a greater burden on the rest of society to maintain the community. Investing in programs like the New Homestead Act and community development initiatives like HomeTown Competitiveness that have addressed rural outmigration as a goal may eventually prove to be a cost-effective response.

Rural communities are in need of public policy and local initiatives that work together to address the issues of outmigration and youth attraction. Society and taxpayers also need efficient responses to enhance the economic self-sufficiency of rural communities.

Solutions to these issues and needs exist – will and action are necessary to push them forward.

The coming 2007 Farm Bill debate provides an opportunity to demonstrate both. As rural issues are pushed to the forefront of legislative action during the 2007 Farm Bill debate, we will all have opportunities to reveal costs of the past and display potential rewards of the future.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org for more information.

Disagree? Agree? Contact Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org for more information, post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org. Sign our Strengthening Rural America petition and join the National Rural Action Network, tens of thousands of rural voices standing up for rural America.

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Democrats Can Thank Rural Voters

2006-11-08T11:52:00.000-06:00

Democrats, on verge of Senate control, can thank rural voters

from the University of Kentucky Rural Blog (see link under title)

If Democrats regain control of the U.S. Senate, part of the reason will be better appeals to rural voters. That paid off for the victor in Missouri, a state with demographics and a voting history that closely reflect those of the nation -- and was a key element of the Democratic campaign in Montana, where challenger Jon Tester led Republican Sen. Conrad Burns by 1,729 votes with 99 percent of precincts reporting and at least one recount under way. Democrats could regain the Senate with a Tester victory.

In Missouri, Republican Sen. Jim Talent lost to, Democrat Claire McCaskill, "who narrowly lost a race for governor in 2004 because of weak support in rural areas, traveled in an recreational vehicle through small towns, reminding voters that she was 'a daughter of rural Missouri,' born in Rolla, Mo., and raised, for part of her childhood, near her family’s feed mill," writes Susan Saulny of The New York Times. (Read more)

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch cited McCaskill's rural efforts: "Credit for McCaskill’s victory goes in part to her success in garnering more votes from Republican-rich rural turf. For example, in southwest Missouri’s Greene County, which includes Springfield, she captured more than 40 percent of the vote — a strong performance for a Democrat in such solid Republican country. McCaskill had campaigned for months in rural communities, in an attempt to chip away at the traditional Republican edge that has been dooming many Democratic statewide candidates in recent elections," writes Deirdre Shesgreen.

An election recap from the News-Leader in Springfield ran the headline "McCaskill's rural strategy works in Greene County." Tracy Swartz reports, "After her loss in 2004, McCaskill vowed to spend more time in southwest Missouri. She made dozens of trips to the area, including a last-minute campaign stop Tuesday afternoon at Delaware Elementary School in Springfield." (Read more)

The Missouri race first gained national notoriety when Republican radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, a native of Cape Girardeau, Mo., criticized an ad McCaskill ran last month featuring actor Michael J. Fox, who offered an endorsement because of her pro-stem cell research stance. "The Missouri race also was seen by some as a reflection of the nation’s political leanings. That’s based on Missouri’s unmatched record of voting with the presidential victor in all but one election since 1900," reports Shesgreen. (Read more)

Agree? Disagree? post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Impacts of Increased Ethanol Production

2006-11-07T15:21:00.000-06:00

Impacts of Increased Ethanol Production

Tripling of corn for ethanol and more reliance on yield enhancing seeds and chemicals

by Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs

USDA Chief Economist Keith Collins recently presented analysis projecting some dramatic impacts from future growth in ethanol production. Below are some highlights, summarized in our words.

- The share of the US corn crop committed to ethanol will have tripled, from 6 percent in 2000 to nearly 20 percent for the 2006 crop.
- Corn ethanol alone cannot greatly reduce US dependence on crude oil imports. In 2006, it will account for the equivalent of just 1.5 percent of US crude oil imports.
- Oil prices have a greater effect on the profitability of ethanol production than corn prices. Crude oil prices would need to fall by more than half from their current $70 per barrel for ethanol to no longer be competitive with gasoline. With continued relatively high oil prices, ethanol plants can make money at much higher corn prices. Higher corn prices will not likely halt the ethanol expansion.
- Corn prices could set new record highs over the next 5 to 6 years in response to growing ethanol production. Corn usage will likely shift from exports to domestic ethanol production. Brazil and Argentina will produce more corn to take up the reduction in US exports.
- Corn acreage will increase in response to growing ethanol production. Higher corn prices may bring some land back into production from expiring Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts. Higher corn prices may also prompt Congress to reduce CRP enrollments in the next farm bill.
- Corn stocks will be tight and markets volatile. A drought or increased demand by a major player like China could cause dramatic corn price increases.
- Cellulosic ethanol production appears to be the best renewable alternative for reducing crude oil imports, but it will be some years into the future before the technology is developed and its impact is felt.
- Recent analyses by Citigroup of New York City mirror USDA projections. Citigroup projects ethanol profit margins of over 20 percent for the next 10 years and a tripling of production. Increased ethanol production is projected to use 31 percent of US corn supplies, raising corn prices to $2.90 a bushel or higher. Growing demand for corn will likely cause shifts from soybean acreage to corn and lead to big increases in use of yield enhancing seeds and chemicals.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

47% of Rural Voters Still Persuadable

2006-11-06T15:11:00.000-06:00

An Associated Press-AOL News poll conducted Oct. 20-25 found that 38 percent of voters consider themselves persuadable (as reported on Friday, November 3, 2006)

Almost half of rural voters _ 47 percent _ said they were persuadable, the largest group of persuadable voters among demographic groups tested - suburbanites ranked second with 40% considering themselves persuadable.

Among persuadable voters, 91 percent say that economic issues are the top concern, labeling economic issues as either extremely or very important. 88 percent of persuadable voters said the war in Iraq is extremely or very important.

As mentioned in previous posts, rural voters continue to figure prominently in the outcome of this midterm election. Post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

The Rural Vote and the Future of Rural America

2006-11-05T15:00:00.000-06:00

The Rural Vote and the Future of Rural America

by John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

As Election Day approaches and campaign advertising thickens, interesting developments are appearing on the horizon. Despite the divisive, hyper-partisan tenor of this election and the vitriol of many congressional races, there is a growing interest in participating in this midterm election, especially among rural voters.

Rural Americans will decide the outcome of a number of highly competitive congressional races. And rural voters may, in the end, determine which political party will be handed the reigns of Congressional leadership – at least for the next two years.

Rural voters in this election have a tremendous responsibility and opportunity, on Election Day and beyond. Congress is scheduled to rewrite the farm bill next year. The 2007 farm bill must not continue the status quo in farm and rural policy. Not if we hope to revitalize family farms, ranches and rural communities.

We must stop subsidizing farm consolidation by limiting farm program payments that mega farms use to drive smaller operations out of business and bar beginning farmers from getting started. And the farm bill must be refocused on real solutions to the challenges faced by rural Americans – conservation on working lands, support for beginning farmers and ranchers, and investment in entrepreneurship on farms, ranches, and rural main-streets.

Rural Americans can and should make their voices heard on every Election Day. But the farm debate and the future of rural America will hinge on whether they continue to stand up for rural America during all the other days, from this election to the next.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Center Releases Analysis of Initiative 423's Impact on Education

2006-11-04T12:45:00.000-06:00

Center for Rural Affairs Releases Analysis of Initiative 423 Impact on Education

Lyons, NE – The Center for Rural Affairs released a report today, entitled False Choices and Bad Choices: Initiative 423 and Public Education in Nebraska, which analyzes the effects of Initiative 423, a proposed initiative to the Nebraska Constitution that will be voted upon at the November 7th general election.

“Initiative 423 has the potential to place school districts, communities, Nebraska families, and Nebraska children in a public financing box from which there appears to be limited escape routes - ask taxpayers to increase school property taxes, adjust school property tax limits upward, or accept some of the more poorly funded public schools in the nation,” said Jon Bailey, Center for Rural Affairs Program Director and author of the report.

The Center’s report estimated that had Initiative 423 existed for the 2006-07 school year alone, Frontier, Red Willow and Hitchcock County school districts would have lost state aid as follows:
Maywood Public Schools - $16,594 loss
Eustis-Farnam Public Schools - $29,712 loss
Medicine Valley Public Schools - $62,896 loss
McCook Public Schools - $274,573 loss
Southwest Public Schools - $78,725 loss
Hitchcock County Unified School System - $21,578 loss

“Residents of school districts and local officials can, of course, accept their fate and take a significant decrease in state aid and make the best of it. This is precisely the choice Initiative 423 will force all school districts to consider: poorly funded schools or higher property taxes,” added Bailey.

Independent analyses (Center for Rural Affairs and Legislative Fiscal Office) reached the conclusion that if Initiative 423 had existed since 1996 General Fund appropriations in FY2006-07 would have been from $542 million less to $643 million less. The Center’s further analysis shows that such a reduction would likely have meant reductions in state aid to local school districts – with expenditures per student dropping from 8% to as much as 25% below current levels, which consequently would have dropped Nebraska’s ranking among other states from 21st in per student expenditures to 30th under the best case scenario to as low as 48th. Likewise, the percentage of local school funding received from state aid would have dropped to 35% under the best case scenario to as low as 20%, driving Nebraska’s ranking among other states to as low as 47th or 50th.

“It is important for Nebraskans to realize that Initiative 423 will be part of the Nebraska Constitution and will have real, long-term, cumulative effects. Over time, no matter the scenario, Initiative 423 would place Nebraska at or near the bottom of states in terms of state government support of K-12 public education,” Bailey explained.

“Adoption of Initiative 423 will start the slow, steady march of declining state investment in K-12 education that could land Nebraska at or near the bottom of national rankings,” Bailey asserted.

According to the Center’s report, negative impacts on public policy would likely include: increased school property taxes up to allowable levy limits; increased requests for school property tax override attempts; pressure to consolidate schools; downward pressure on academic performance; and pressure to reduce academic offerings, academic programs and extracurricular activities.

The appendix to the Center for Rural Affairs’ report includes the dollar value of the estimated 5.7% state aid reduction for the 2006-07 school year in each school district in Nebraska if Initiative 423 had been implemented in 2006. To view a full copy or determine what your school could stand to lose, go to http://www.cfra.org/ or contact Kim Preston at the Center for Rural Affairs (kimp@cfra.org or 402-687-2100).

Based on the report’s predicted spending lid of 3.8% growth (3.2% inflation and 0.6% population) that would exist if Initiative 423 became law as well as projected General Fund appropriations for the next two years, Initiative 423 would require that the General Fund budget be reduced by $60.4 million for FY07-08 (from FY06-07) and by another $115.7 million for FY08-09. That means adoption of Initiative 423 would require General Fund budget cuts totaling over $175 million over the next two years.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Global Free Trade Talks Risk Total Failure

2006-11-03T19:56:00.000-06:00

WTO Chief Warns of Risks to Global Free Trade

Global free trade talks risk total failure and their collapse would erode faith in the multilateral system on which international commerce depends, warned Pascal Lamy head of the World Trade Organization in an editorial published Friday in The Wall Street Journal.

The WTO's Doha round was suspended in July after nearly five years of negotiations because of seemingly insurmountable differences over agriculture and that suspension could become permanent without progress by early next year, added Lamy.

"There comes a time in every negotiation where the prospect of failure looms. For the Doha round of global trade negotiations, that time has nearly arrived".

Although accounting for less then 8% of world trade, agriculture remained the 'Gordian Knot' that had to be cut for a deal to be reached across the talks, which range from industrial goods to services and new rules on the environment and dumping.

The United States must offer further cuts in farm subsidies, while the European Union and Japan and leading developing countries such as Brazil, India and China would have to make trade concessions too, according to Lamy, who is currently in Washington to meet top U.S. trade and agriculture officials.

Reforming agriculture was always politically difficult but what separated them was not that much, just a few billion dollars of farm subsidies and a few percentage point cuts in average farm and industrial tariffs. "Compare that to what we all stand to gain," Lamy said.

What had already been agreed since the WTO talks were launched in Qatar in 2001, in agricultural and industrial reform, services, cuts to environmentally harmful fishing subsidies and slashing red tape and corruption was already more than achieved in any previous trade round, he said.

The successful conclusion of the round offered an "insurance policy" against protectionism and economic nationalism of the sort that helped trigger World War Two, he added.

"Like a progressive malady, a failure in the global trade talks will erode the multilateral trading system that has underpinned the global economy for nearly 60 years. Time is short and the stakes are high"

But the WTO had only a "few months left" to rescue the talks before the U.S. Congress turns its attention to two pieces of legislation that -- depending on which way they go -- could sound the death knell for the global negotiations.

The U.S. legislature must review farm budget spending. It must also decide whether to extend special powers allowing President George W. Bush to reach trade deals.

Without those powers, it becomes almost impossible for the United States to negotiate international trade pacts because Congress can demand to be consulted every step of the way.

However US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns admitted differences in world trade talks are so great it is doubtful World Trade Organization Director General Pascal Lamy could come up with a draft plan to bring parties together.

"There's some pretty fundamental differences here" said Johanns said before meeting with Lamy. " Just in agriculture, there's a big difference. I just think it would be very, very difficult for Lamy to put together a text to bridge that kind of gap," he added.

Johanns conceded that while "talks are on life support" the United States remained committed to Doha and restarting trade negotiations.

Vote on November 7th

2006-11-02T13:08:00.000-06:00

Vote on November Seventh
By Elisha Greeley Smith, elishas@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

Voting is the most cherished right of American citizenship and a crucial responsibility for rural Nebraskans. You have a chance on November 7th to help create a future for rural Nebraska with thriving family farms and ranches and vibrant rural communities

Here are three votes you can cast for the future of rural Nebraska.

Vote “No” on Initiative 423. Initiative 423 will increase property taxes for farmers, ranchers and other rural business and property owners. Initiative 423 will force rural schools to choose between higher taxes or drastic budget cuts that will harm education and limit our children’s futures. Initiative 423 will force rural communities to cut police, fire and rescue services; and reduce investment in economic development and critical infrastructure.

Vote “Repeal” on Initiative 422 (repeal of LB 126). LB 126 mandates the assimilation of all Class I districts (elementary only schools) into K-12 districts. School consolidation should be a local decision based on local circumstances. Given the economic and social importance of schools to rural communities, citizens deserve a voice in the future of such a vital institution.

Vote “Yes” on Amendment 5. Amendment 5 would allow the use of the school lands trust fund, already dedicated to public schools, for early childhood education programs. Amendment 5 will give children from vulnerable families a better opportunity to do their best in school – without increasing taxes. Investing in early childhood education helps children in school and throughout their lives and increases the likelihood they will attend college.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Wellstone: "The future belongs..."

2006-11-01T23:00:00.000-06:00

“The future will not belong to those who sit on the sidelines. The future will not belong to the cynics. The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” Senator Paul Wellstone

Paul Wellstone was a friend of mine. I was fortunate to have met him, worked with him and spent time with him. Paul Wellstone cared deeply about rural America, and more importantly, he cared deeply about rural Americans.

If Senator Wellstone were alive today, he would be challenging all of us to stand up, to prepare for the long battle ahead for the future of rural America. He would tell us that the next farm bill needs to be about more than farms. He would tell us that the next farm bill must create a future for all of rural America, for family farmers and ranchers; for the next generation of farmers and ranchers; for rural communities; rural mainstreets; rural small business owners; rural working families; and everyone who calls rural America home.

And he would be right once again.

I am writing to ask you to avoid waiting for our first 2007 appeal letter and help us save mailing costs by making an online contribution at – http://www.cfra.org/ – just click on the Donate Now button and make your contribution, quickly, easily and securely.

$500, $250, $100, $50 – or whatever you can afford – it has never been more important to stand up for the future of rural America.

If we are to break the stranglehold that the some of the most powerful political and economic forces in America have over Congress, the farm bill and rural policy, then we must work together, and we must start now.

Donate Now – http://www.cfra.org/ – for rural America, for your future…our children’s future.

Beginning farmers and ranchers, small business owners, rural entrepreneurs and rural communities – these are the people that we stood up for last year. We stood up to preserve what is best about rural America – family farming and ranching, yes, but also rural schools and the quality of life in rural communities.

For 33 years, the Center for Rural Affairs have stood steadfast in defense of rural America, not just when it was easy, not just when it was popular, but more importantly when it was difficult, unpopular, even controversial – and when powerful political and economic forces aligned against us, because that is what rural America needs most.

We will stand up for rural America again this year. But we cannot do it alone.

Donate Now – http://www.cfra.org/ – by joining with thousands of other rural Americans, every gift – be it $500 or $25 – speaks louder than any of us could alone.

Rural America faces stern challenges. We need your support so that, together, we can rise to meet those challenges and continue the fight for rural people and places that you have been reading about in our newsletter and elsewhere.

If you prefer to send a contribution directly, instead of online, please send a check to:

Center for Rural Affairs 145 Main St PO Box 136Lyons, NE 68038

Sincerely,

John Crabtree
Center for Rural Affairs
www.cfra.org

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Dorgan and Grassley Letter to Johanns - Where is the Farm Payment Database?

2006-10-31T11:52:00.000-06:00

The Honorable Michael Johanns
Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave
Washington, DC 20250

Dear Secretary Johanns:

As you know, Section 1614 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 requires USDA to “establish procedures to track benefits provided, directly or indirectly, to individuals or entities under titles I and II of the 2002 Farm Bill.” We are becoming increasingly troubled at the continuing delay in creating the Section 1614 farm program payment database.

We wrote to you in November 2005 on this subject and received a response from then-Under Secretary J.B. Penn on January 3, 2006 indicating that the database required by the 2002 Farm Bill was completed. In subsequent discussions, however, it became clear that the project was not in fact complete, but still in progress.

In response to a question submitted to Undersecretary Penn by Senator Dorgan at a hearing of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in March, Undersecretary Penn responded that, “The database required by Section 1614 of the 2002 Farm Bill will be made available by the Farm Service Agency…in August 2006.” We are now well past August, and the database is still, evidently, not completed. Although there are undoubtedly technical complexities in finishing this database, we are troubled at the delay and the lack of explanation as to its cause.

We appreciate the effort you have put into seeing that the language of Section 1614 is complied with. In order for Congress to make sound policy decisions about the farm payments, access to the best available information is crucial. We urge you to finish work on the database immediately, and we would appreciate an explanation of any outstanding issues that have yet to be resolved.

Sincerely,

Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Chuck Grassley

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon Should Intervene in Smithfield - PSF Merger

2006-10-30T16:16:00.000-06:00

AG Nixon should intervene in Smithfield's purchase of PSF

By Russ Kremer, Missouri Farmers Union President and Osage County farmer

JEFFERSON CITY, MO - Industrial livestock development by meatpacking corporations raising pork has been a controversial issue in rural America for more than a decade. During that time, the vast majority of hog production has moved away from thousands of diversified small-scale family farms and concentrated into the hands of a few corporate owners. This development has been divisive in rural communities, and has devastated independent family farmers who are dependent upon hog production as one of their key income-producing areas of farming.

Here in Missouri, this story began with the rise of Premium Standard Farms (PSF) and its ambitious growth in the Northern part of the state. Bolstered by a last-minute move in the state legislature that allowed it to get around Missouri's anti-corporate farming law, PSF bought land and developed the largest industrial livestock production facilities in the Midwest. Their model of owning the land, the livestock and the meat processing facility completely locked existing farmers out of the system. Their high volume of manure brought serious environmental and public health risks to the surface. Their business operations brought serious bitterness to the communities where PSF operates.

New chapters are added to this sad story every year. Additional industrial hog facilities were built under contract for other meatpackers or their procurement partners in Western and Northeastern Missouri. State laws were passed to provide safeguards and community-based protections over the negative impacts of industrial livestock development. PSF struggled under constant financial turmoil, even declaring bankruptcy. In recent years, state-level safeguards have been under steady assault from industrial livestock promoters at the State Capital in order to spur industrial livestock expansion efforts.

Last week, an entirely new chapter opened in the industrial livestock tale as the world's largest pork producer and pork packer, Smithfield Foods, agreed to purchase the second largest, PSF. If this deal is allowed to proceed, Smithfield will wield a huge amount of marketshare. With PSF's assets in place, Smithfield will own 1.1 million sows out of the approximately 6 million sows in the nation. In addition, Smithfield will move from owning 26% of national pork processing capacity to over 31%.

These figures are shocking to most independent family farmers, and reveal the need for federal action that will mandate fair and competitive markets in agriculture. Poultry is already locked up by Tyson. Cargill controls grain. ADM controls ethanol. Now Smithfield is really the only major player in the pork industry, and they reap large advantages with this kind of market power. Federal policy that bans corporate meatpackers from owning livestock is the surest and simplest way to accomplish fair markets. This issue will certainly come up as we re-write the next federal farm bill over the coming two or three years, and family farmers hope that the Congress will do the right thing and pass the packer ban to restore competitive markets.

But in Missouri, there is also hope for local action that can stop some of the detrimental impacts of the proposed PSF buyout by Smithfield. Way back in the 1970s, in what seems like lifetimes ago in the rapidly changing agricultural marketplace, Missouri legislators had the foresight to outlaw corporate agribusiness from owning and farming land in the state. In 1993, PSF was able to play a political game and get three counties exempted from this state statute. Putnam, Mercer and Sullivan Counties became the home of PSF's production and processing facilities. At the time, this was described as a PSF-only deal designed to improve the economy of these three impoverished rural counties.

It is now time to revisit the three-county exemption from the Missouri corporate farming law. After almost 15 years of this experiment in industrial livestock development, we can see that much of the marketing pitch for this type of agriculture has shown to be full of false promises. Missouri's agricultural future should be based upon the strength of its vast majority of diversified independent family farmers; not a handful of corporate factories where profits flow to corporate boardrooms.

Attorney General Jay Nixon could provide the important backstop needed to slow this deal down and allow a thoughtful, democratic process to play out over such an important issue. Smithfield's approach of gobbling up most of their competitors should concern us all. Let's put them on notice that Missouri is going to stand up to their way of doing business from the very beginning. Smithfield shouldn't have the advantage of skirting Missouri's corporate farming law. Attorney General Nixon could intervene and help to shed some light on this important debate.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Winds of Life: Windmills across Nebraska

2006-10-29T22:17:00.000-06:00

Winds of Life: Windmills across Nebraska

By Rhea Landholm, Center for Rural Affairs, rheal@cfra.org

The Center for Rural Affairs recently launched Nebraska’s first ever statewide arts and tourism project. Winds of Life: Windmills across Nebraska invites artists statewide who specialize in any medium to shape their version of a windmill. Prototypes of outdoor windmills will be juried in November, with the best designs gaining a sponsor. Artists will have until May to complete and display the sculptures throughout the state. All pieces will be auctioned off in September 2007.

Outdoor windmill sculptures will be displayed in communities throughout Nebraska from May 2007 through August 2007. Indoor works will be displayed throughout the state at locations that will be announced at a later date. Maps of these displays will be available on the official Winds of Life: Windmills across Nebraska website and at local tourism information sites.

All Nebraska communities, businesses and individuals are invited to participate by financially supporting an artist or by planning their own events around the windmill theme.

Auction proceeds will support rural communities and the work of the artists. Proceeds invested in rural development will be shared by the Center for Rural Affairs and participating communities for activities such as the Women’s Project for Rural America. The goal of the Women’s Project for Rural America is to increase activism and advocacy for rural issues, focusing on rural women, engaging them in a revitalization of rural America.

Windmills were essential to the sustainability of early Nebraska settlement and today remain a symbol of the life and culture they enabled. Today’s new wind turbines towering above those historic monuments capture new winds of life for rural Nebraska.

“Winds of Life is an excellent opportunity for communities to unite through individual projects and fundraisers,” Barbara Chamness, project organizer, said. “I am especially excited about what rural women can do to revitalize life in Nebraska.”

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Child Poverty in Rural U.S.

2006-10-28T17:01:00.000-05:00

Child Poverty in Rural United States

The Carsey Institute

On August 29th, the U.S. Census Bureau released new data on child poverty that show a disturbing increase in rural child poverty rates in many states. The child poverty rate is the most widely used indicator of child well-being because poverty is closely linked to undesirable outcomes in areas such as health, education, emotional welfare, and delinquency. Changes in child poverty signal important changes in children’s quality of life and life chances.

Key results include:
• Rural child poverty rates increased between 2000 and 2005 in 41 of the 50 states (data were not available in four states).
• In 18 states, the increase in the rural child poverty rate was higher than the increase in the overall U.S. rural child poverty rates between 2000 and 2005.
• The state with the biggest percentage point increase in rural child poverty between 2000 and 2005 was Maine (+ 7.4 percentage points), followed by North Carolina (+ 6.7 percentage points), and Mississippi (+ 6.1 percentage points).
• Only six states showed a decrease in the rural child poverty rate, lead by Wyoming with a 4.2 percentage point decrease.
• Five states (Maine, North Carolina, Mississippi, Ohio and Indiana) experienced increases of five percentage points or more in the rural child poverty rate between 2000 and 2005.
• The rural child poverty rate in 2005 ranges from a low of just over six percent in Connecticut to a high of nearly 37 percent in Mississippi.
• Five states (Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arizona, and Alabama) all had rural child poverty rates above 30 percent in 2005, which reflects the pervasive child poverty in the rural South.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

My Town, My Home

2006-10-27T15:55:00.000-05:00

My town. My home.

By Rhea Landholm, rheal@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

“Small town trap with dreams of breaking out.”

These words are sung by the popular band, Eve 6 in their 1998 song, “Small Town Trap.” I agreed completely with this song as the first line is “suffocate from lack of stimulation.”

As a senior in high school, all I could think about was getting out. Small towns definitely were a trap. If I stayed, I was stuck here forever.

Four years later, I am beginning to rethink. There are a lot of benefits to small towns. I would much rather raise kids in an environment where the whole community nurtures your children. I don’t want to worry about a lot of traffic, or a lot of strangers coming through town.

I would much rather start a business in my hometown than in a city. The citizens of my hometown have watched me grow. They know me, they know my work ethic and they would welcome me with open arms.

I also don’t want to see my hometown fail as I’m looking in from the outside. Sure, I could commerce here, but I would love to start a business in one of the empty storefronts that line Main Street.

As Montgomery Gentry says in his 2002 song “My Town,” “Where I was born, where I was raised/Where I keep all my yesterdays… This is my town.”

My town. Where I grew up, where I will settle, where I will raise my kids. My town. Where I know everyone at the grocery store, bank, and post office. My town. My home.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Brother Can You Spare a Dime?

2006-10-26T13:11:00.000-05:00

Brother Can You Spare a Dime?

By John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Throughout the summer, there were over 20 congressional farm-bill field hearings. And not one hearing included a substantive discussion of rural development, not one.

Testimony from farmers about farm programs that impact their lives directly is crucial. However, providing no opportunity to discuss rural development provisions of the farm bill means that other rural citizens who have much to offer and much at stake in this debate are not being heard.

Rural development programs have been sidelined in the farm policy debates too often, making rural development programs the last to be funded and first to be cut.

We can do better than this. The Center for Rural Affairs has proposed quadrupling rural entrepreneurial development in the 2007 farm bill – including efforts to foster farm and ranch entrepreneurship and innovation as well as the next generation of family farmers and ranchers. Payment limits that reduce the cost of farm programs by just ten percent would free up in excess of $1 billion to invest in the long term future of rural America.

Moreover, limiting farm-program payments that mega farms use to drive smaller operations out of business would be the single most effective thing Congress could do to strengthen family farms.

Limits that trim just a nickel from the farm program dollar could fund the Center’s rural development proposals and still provide an additional $250 million for investment in bio-energy and broadband telecommunications.

Is a nickel from every farm-program dollar too much to ask for the future of rural America?

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Center for Rural Affairs Offers Testimony on Farm Bill

2006-10-25T17:00:00.000-05:00

Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs, chuckh@cfra.org

The next farm bill offers America a choice. We can continue the misplaced federal priorities destroying rural communities, or we can invest in creating a future in rural America.

That was the central message in written testimony submitted by the Center to the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee. We wrote:

“All Americans have a stake in the outcome. America is strongest when all of its communities are strong and all of its people have access to genuine opportunity. Rural America is a valuable part of America. But rural communities are not sharing in the nation’s prosperity. That hurts all of America.

We can create a better future for rural America and with that enhance the rural contribution to a stronger America. There are proven, practical, local strategies working to revitalize 21st century rural communities. But local initiative must be matched by federal policies that support rural revitalization rather than hinder it.”

Full text of the Center's Testimony to the Senate Ag Committee

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Rural Pharmacies and the New Medicare Plan

2006-10-24T14:40:00.000-05:00

One-third of rural pharmacists consider closing under new Medicare plan

from the Rural Blog at the University of Kentucky Institute for Rural Journalism
Rural Blog - http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/IRJCI/blog.htm

A survey of more than 500 community pharmacists revealed that nearly nine out of 10 (89 percent) are getting less money and a third are considering shutting down since the new Medicare Part D prescription drug plan went into effect January 1st.

"The survey found that more than half (55 percent) of respondents said they have had to obtain outside loans or financing to supplement their pharmacy’s cash flow because of slow reimbursement by health care plans," according to the National Community Pharmacists Association. "

More than two-thirds (67 percent) of those surveyed said their pharmacy was located in an area with a population of less than 50,000 persons, and most (68 percent) said they had been in business for at least 20 years."

“Community pharmacists have been the backbone of the Part D program and are frequently the most accessible—and sometimes the only—health care provider in the community,” said NCPA Executive Vice President and CEO Bruce Roberts. “We need to address the serious problems of low and slow reimbursement in the Medicare Part D program to ensure that these communities will continue to be served by their pharmacists.” (Read more)

A study by the Center for Rural Health Policy Analysis of the Rural Policy Research Institute reported that average monthly premiums for Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans vary from $6 in urban New Hampshire to $53 in rural Hawaii, click here for the study.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Center and GenerationEngage Host Rural Youth iChat

2006-10-21T18:12:00.000-05:00

Center for Rural Affairs and GenerationEngage Co-Host Rural iChat

Former Senator Tom Daschle featured in Internet-based video conference

by Dan Owens, dano@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

As many communities across rural America look for strategies to keep their youth from leaving their hometowns and heading for the big city, they have realized the significant role public policy can and should play. Yet the youth who would be most affected by those policies – the very ones we are trying to keep at home – are often not involved in these policy and political debates.

Stereotypes portray rural young adults as unconcerned with political or policy debates, with little to offer. Consequently, they are frequently not engaged on the issues most important to the survival of our rural communities.

But this stereotype is false. Many young adults in rural communities are concerned with remaining in their hometowns and have good, creative ideas on how they can do so. The current political system, though, ignores young adults in rural America.

If politics today focuses on young adults at all, it looks to college students at big schools in big cities or students at expensive private schools. The hardworking student at the local community college or small four-year state college is bypassed, not to mention young adults who are not in school and are already making vital contributions to the rural American economy.

To help fix this problem, the Center for Rural Affairs partnered with Generation Engage, http://www.generationengage.org/, to discuss rural issues with young adults on October 30 at Alexandria Technical College in Alexandria, Minnesota. Utilizing internet-based videoconferencing technology, young adults from around the country were poised to discuss their role in politics and the many issues that affect all of rural America.

At this writing, former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota will answer questions during the event, and we expect an interesting and lively discussion. The Center hopes to create more opportunities to engage the young adult population of rural America. We think they will make a valuable contribution to policies that will shape the future of our communities.

Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

What Iowa Farmers Think about the Farm Bill?

2006-10-17T15:44:00.000-05:00

by Dick Layman, Iowa News Service

Des Moines, IA – What’s the leading concern of Iowa farmers regarding the 2007 farm bill…that small operations will be gobbled up by mega-farms unless changes are made to the 2007 farm bill.

As Congress considers reauthorization of the farm bill next year, what Iowa farmers want is for lawmakers to care more for the survival of smaller operations and less about the mega-farms. That is the result of a new survey released by the Farm Foundation’s National Public Policy Education Committee. Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs says farmers want the government to close loopholes in the farm bill for mega-farm corporations to get aid meant for small family farmers.

“Farmers felt even more strongly about the need to close those loopholes than their support for farm programs in the first place,” said Hassebrook

Hassebrook says the farm bill was originally conceived to help struggling family farms but that is not the case anymore, profitable mega-farms now get the lion’s share of the funds.

“We now have a farm program that effectively does at least as much to subsidize mega-farms to drive their neighbors out of business as it does to keep the little guys out there,” Hassebrook added.

Iowa farmers rank closing loopholes for mega-farms is the highest priority of all the issues that need to be addressed in the new Farm Bill.

Post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Strong Support for Farm Payment Limits among Farmers

2006-10-16T12:08:00.000-05:00

Strong Support for Farm Program Payment Limits among Farmers

Lyons, NE – This morning, the Farm Foundation’s National Public Policy Education Committee (NPPEC), released a survey of 15,000 farmers and ranchers in 27 states regarding policy preferences for the 2007 farm bill. The survey – which can be viewed at http://www.farmfoundation.org/projects/06-02ProducerSurvey.htm – shows clear support among farmers in every region surveyed across the nation for targeting of farm programs to small and mid sized farms and for specific farm program payment limit reforms.

“This survey once again demonstrates that farmers, across the nation, are ahead of their elected representatives on this issue and the organizations that ostensibly represent them. That’s not surprising, since it is family farmers that bear the brunt of federal programs that subsidize mega farms to drive their neighbors out of business. It’s time for elected officials and agricultural organizations to catch up with the farmers they are supposed to represent,” said Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director of the Center for Rural Affairs.

Among proposals for tightening farm commodity program payment limits, farmers’ strongest support was for eliminating the three-entity rule that allows the creation of multiple legal entities within a larger single farming operation to secure multiple farm program payments; followed closely by farmers’ support for eliminating unlimited commodity loan gains.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Tell Your Congressman - Fix the Farm Bill & Invest in Rural America

2006-10-10T17:00:00.000-05:00

Tell Your Congressman: Fix the Farm Bill & Invest in Rural America

August Congressional recess may be the last chance to directly communicate with your representatives before the 2007 farm bill

by Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org, Center for Rural Affairs

Take the opportunity this month to tell your congressman to fix the farm bill and invest in the future of rural America.

The August Congressional recess will likely bring your congressman to your area to hear from constituents. It may be your last chance to share your views directly prior to the 2007 farm bill.

The future of family farming is at stake. Tell your representative we cannot afford one more farm bill that subsidizes mega farms to drive smaller operations out of business. It is destroying family farming and closing the door to beginning farmers. It is driving land rents and prices to levels that leave little margin, making it hard for even established family farmers to make a living.

Ask your representative to stand firm against any farm bill that continues the destruction of family farming through mega payments to mega farms. Say that delivering more dollars to farmers is not the solution. Done wrong, it contributes to the problem. The most effective thing Congress can do to strengthen family farms is to stop subsidizing mega farms to drive their neighbors out of business by capping payments.

The future of our rural communities is at stake. Tell your representative it’s time to invest in the future of rural communities. Practical strategies work in rural America – investing in small scale entrepreneurship and micro enterprise, beginning farmers, value added agriculture, leadership development, and youth engagement enable small communities to determine their destiny. But they are not free.

Don’t fall for the statement that there is no new money for anything. Common sense reforms would make farm programs work better and save money. It starts with more effective payment limitations. Ending direct payments on farmland converted to housing developments would yield additional savings.

Reforms that reduce farm program costs by just 5 percent could fund a half billion dollar per year increase in funding for entrepreneurial rural development – a quadrupling of current funding levels – plus provide a quarter billion dollars to invest in bio energy, high-speed Internet service, and other rural priorities.

The future of the land is at stake. Tell your representative to reward farmers who practice good stewardship through the Conservation Security Program. For too long, many of the best stewards have been penalized by federal farm policy.

These practical reforms are possible with determined leadership. Each of us must fulfill our responsibilities as citizens to engage with elected officials in fixing what is broken. Our elected officials must have some backbone. Tell those who would represent you that it’s time to stand up. The future of rural America is at stake. It’s not time to look for the easy and safest path.It is time to take control of our destiny.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

USDA Programs Lack Benefit for Small Farms and Ranches

2006-10-09T23:02:00.000-05:00

USDA Research and Grant Programs Lack Benefit for Small and Mid Sized Farms and Ranches

The Center for Rural Affairs released a report today, entitled The Impact and Benefits of USDA Research and Grant Programs to Enhance Mid-size Farm Profitability and Rural Community Success. The report analyzes the benefits to small and mid sized farms and ranches of four mainstay USDA research and rural development grant programs – the Value Added Producer Grant program (VAPG); Rural Business and Enterprise Grant program (RBEG); National Research Initiative (NRI); and Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS).

“Our analysis revealed that, in total, of nearly $500 million dedicated to these four programs, only five percent went to projects determined to be beneficial to small and mid sized farmers and ranchers or beginning farmers and ranchers,” reported Kim Leval of the Center for Rural Affairs.

The Center for Rural Affairs’ report identified the Value Added Producer Grants (VAPG) and IFAFS as the two programs, among the four analyzed, that offered the most benefits to small and mid sized producers as well as beginning farmers and ranchers. “Which is understandable, because value added grants and IFAFS came into being shortly after the National Commission on Small Farms recommended the creation of such programs to assist small and mid sized farmers and ranchers in creating new markets and economic opportunities,” added Leval.

Consequently, the Center for Rural Affairs recommends in the report that the Value Added Producer Grant program be reauthorized in the 2007 farm bill and provided with $50 million annually in mandatory funding.

The report goes on, however, to state that “despite recommendations and challenges of the National Commission on Small Farms and the rhetorical commitment of USDA to small agricultural operations, we found that the vast amount of funded projects and program funds do not benefit small and mid sized and beginning farmers and ranchers and are not relevant to their needs.”

For a full copy of the report and recommendations see http://www.cfra.org/pdf/Leopold_Report_Final.pdf

“The NRI, intended to foster research to address national food, fiber and natural resource challenges, has failed to invest in research that helps develop economic opportunities that will keep families on the land,” said Leval. “And RBEG, aimed at rural small and emerging business development, also failed to make the grade.”

The Center for Rural Affairs’ report also points out that all four projects were generally lacking in projects benefiting beginning farmers and ranchers. “Given the demographics of agriculture in America – with only 70,000 farmers and ranchers under the age of 35 as opposed to 350,000 just 25 years ago – the inability of major USDA research and grant programs to address the topic of beginning farmers and ranchers is disappointing,” Leval concluded.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Center to Discuss Rural Development in Minnesota

2006-10-08T16:23:00.000-05:00

Center for Rural Affairs to Discuss Rural Development in the 2007 Farm Bill

Kathie Starkweather and Dan Owens, Policy Organizers for the Center for Rural Affairs, will be featured at roundtable discussions on rural development in the 2007 farm bill October 10-12 in Marshall, Bertha and Bemidji, Minnesota. The meetings are hosted by the Minnesota Rural Partners, Northern Great Plains, Inc., and the Center for Rural Affairs.

Starkweather and Owens will discuss the Center for Rural Affairs’ 2007 farm bill proposals which will increase investment in and provide strong support for the development of genuine and sustainable rural economic opportunity in America. The Center’s rural development proposals for the 2007 farm bill focus on entrepreneurial development in rural areas; strategies to build assets and wealth for rural people and in rural communities; beginning farmers and ranchers; and entrepreneurial opportunities for farmer and ranchers through producer owned value added enterprises.

The Center for Rural Affairs is asking for input from local organizations and individuals so that the 2007 farm bill will ensure that all rural Americans have access to genuine economic opportunity and the chance to contribute to their rural communities.

Media packets, including copies of the Center for Rural Affairs’ rural development proposals for the 2007 farm bill will be available at each event. For background information on the Center for Rural Affairs go to – http://www.cfra.org/.

Location – Marshall-Lyon County Library, 301 W Lyon St., Marshall, MN
Date - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10 a.m.--2 p.m.

Location – Bertha Community Center, Main Street
Date – Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10 a.m.—2 p.m.

Location – Beltrami Electric Company, 4111 Technology Drive NW
Date – Thursday, October 12, 2006 10 a.m.--2 p.m.

To arrange interviews or other media needs, contact John Crabtree, 402-687-2103 ext. 1010

USDA's Perspective on Rural Development in Farm Bill

2006-10-07T12:47:00.000-05:00

USDA Gives its Perspective on Rural Development in the Farm Bill

by Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org, Executive Director

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has released a briefing paper on rural development issues in the farm bill. It sets the context and raises some important issues, though it glosses over the importance of small scale entrepreneurship in revitalizing rural communities.

USDA data tells a story. Rural incomes are less than three-fourths of metropolitan incomes. One in five rural counties continues to rely heavily on farming, most in the Great Plains. Just over one-fifth of these counties grew in population since 2000. Rural manufacturing employment declined, though it appears to have stabilized in the last few years.

Among all rural areas, population has grown since 2000. Over half of the rural growth came from a 15 percent increase among Hispanics. In addition, rural recreation counties located near mountains, lakes, beaches, and other natural amenities had rapid growth in employment, income levels, earnings, and other measures of socioeconomic well-being.

USDA’s briefing paper presents three options for the farm bill debate.
1. Target rural development programs to areas of greatest need and areas that won’t gain critical services without assistance. For example, Rural Utility Service loans do not always go to rural areas and are not targeted according to need. Likewise, the low interest loan program for rural high speed Internet has shifted away from those communities that won’t get high speed service without government assistance. And USDA has allowed it to be used in suburban areas, contrary to law.
2. Focus on new non-farm business formation with rural private investment. While small business and micro lending would continue to have a role under this option, USDA would focus on getting equity capital to entrepreneurs – identifying, aggregating, and assisting many small individual investors to finance critical investments. Entrepreneurs would be brought together with rural communities, banks, potential individual rural investors, and non rural investors to create mechanisms to use rural wealth to create more wealth.
3. Move toward regionalized assistance. Federal policy has already moved in this direction. The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) was created in 2001 to fund projects in the lower Mississippi Delta region based on priorities set by the governors. Assistance goes to local multi-county development organizations which plan and implement the projects. The 2002 farm bill authorized three new regional initiatives, including the Northern Plains Regional Authority, but funding was never released.

We urge USDA to place greater emphasis on supporting small and microbusiness development, assisting small communities in developing their capacity to determine their own destiny, and helping ordinary rural people build assets.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Study Says Rural Nebraska Continues to Lose Population

2006-10-06T23:36:00.000-05:00

LINCOLN (Associate Press) - A new report from The Center for Public Affairs confirms that many of Nebraska's towns are shrinking and the rural population is aging. Population analysts based at the University of Nebraska at Omaha produced the report.

The study found about half of all counties in the state now have higher death rates than birth rates, and in the state's most rural counties, 21 percent of the population is older than 65. The combined population of three counties - Lancaster, Douglas and Sarpy - now exceeds the population in the rest of the state, the analysts said.

Jerry Deichert, director of the research center, said the growing elderly population combined with the lower birth rates will "be putting a lot of pressure on some of those areas." The problem is the younger population isn't there to support the older population, Deichert said.

Richardson County had a net loss of 448 people between April 2000 and July 2005. Valerie Buckminster, administrator of the 119-bed Falls City Care Center, isnt surprised. "I think the population of Falls City itself over the last five to 10 years has taken a decline," Buckminster said. "We just recently lost a couple of factories that have closed down and moved elsewhere. Its rough times for us."

As of Tuesday, 66 jobs will be moving to India by Ames True Temper, maker of hammers and other striking tools. Falls City residents Bart Keller and Gail Gerlt remain upbeat. Keller, owner-manager of Farm and City Supply, is involved in the Greater Falls City Economic Development and Growth Enterprise. He points to a new library, new aquatic park and school renovations as reasons for optimism. "I think we really do have some good times ahead of us," Keller said.

Gerlt, a member of the Falls City High School class of 1958 who recently moved from California, has joined a Come On Home Campaign that uses the power of persuasion to reach other people who ready to retire. "I feel retirement people who are coming back here have made their money. We're not taking anybody's jobs," Gerlt said. "So we're paying full taxes and we're able to pick up on some of the houses and stuff that are available here."

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Assets vs Needs in Rural Development

2006-10-05T13:28:00.000-05:00

Assets versus Needs in Rural Economic and Community Development

Uncover talents and skills within and build interdependencies or identify what is weak or missing and look outside for the solutions

by Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org

Much of traditional economic and community development in small rural communities has been based on needs rather than assets. Understanding the difference plays a pivotal role.

Needs assessment looks at what we have and what it should be. There’s nothing wrong with this, except it might be putting the cart before the horse. Starting with a needs assessment says to a community and its residents that they are fundamentally lacking and deficient. It makes us look for resources to address the need, making us consumers. This can create a sense of dependency.

Asset-based development relies on uncovering talents and skills found in the community right now. It is an internal model that focuses on effectiveness and builds interdependencies rather than dependencies. Asset-based development seeks to empower people rather than create a second class of citizens who seek answers through agencies outside of the community.

The question I am asked most often is why needs assessments are bad. They aren’t. We all have needs to address. People and communities do have deficiencies, but people and communities also have skills and untapped talent.

Community decisions are often made through a pyramid-shaped process that allows a top person or persons to make decisions and disseminate them to the general population. No interdependencies exist in this way of thinking. A preferred shape is that of intertwined circles, where relationships with each other are used in decision making.

We are involved with a community development project in Knox County, Nebraska. The strategy is to first identify the assets of the nine communities in the county. Once the identification of assets has been secured, both internally and externally, then the mapping process can begin. By developing an inventory of the assets, we will then be able to create a database of skills and talents that had previously gone untapped.

Is there a place for outside resources? Absolutely! Once assets have been identified, it is possible to then address needs in a productive manner. In this way we are hooking the cart to the horse to begin mobilizing rural communities for their future.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Hispanic Rural Business Center Finishes Second Year

2006-10-04T13:29:00.000-05:00

Hispanic-Rural Business Center Finishes Second Year of Operation

Outreach to Nebraska’s rural Hispanic entrepreneurs increased four-fold in the Center’s small business development program

The Center’s Rural Enterprise Assistance Project recently completed its second year operating the REAP Hispanic-Rural Business Center. The Hispanic business center focused on four Nebraska communities during phase two: Schuyler, South Sioux City, Crete, and Madison. We anticipated phase two would impact 25 Hispanic startup and existing entrepreneurs, but the impact was actually much greater.

Highlights of the year included:
Over 100 Hispanic entrepreneurs received substantial technical assistance or training from REAP staff during the project year.
All of the pilot communities formed REAP Rural Business Roundtable groups that will provide a vehicle for continued training and networking.

All of the communities completed the five-session REAP Basic Business Training course in Spanish.

Business owners expressed gratitude for having access to services in their own language. Martha Martinez of South Sioux City said, “It meant a lot to have a program with a reputation as good as REAP’s supporting you within your needs in my own language.”

REAP Business Specialist Adriana Dungan implemented the Hispanic work in northeast Nebraska. Adriana noted, “It was nice getting a lot of response from business owners and the public in general; it speaks volumes of the need to have Spanish services.”

The pilot communities were chosen due to their high population rate of Hispanics. According to the 2000 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Schuyler (located in Colfax County) has a population of 5,371, with an Hispanic population of 2,464 or 45.9 percent of Schuyler’s overall population base. Crete (located in Saline County) has a population of 5,989, with an Hispanic population of 828 or 13.7 percent of Crete’s overall population base.

South Sioux City (located in Dakota County) has a population of 11,925, with an Hispanic population of 2,976 or 25 percent of South Sioux City’s overall population base. Madison (located in Madison County) has a population of 2,369, with an Hispanic population of 825 or 34.8 percent of Madison’s overall population base.

REAP has applied for funding to further expand outreach to Hispanic entrepreneurs. If approved, phase three will include piloting the REAP Hispanic-Rural Business Center approach on a regional basis in northeast Nebraska. At the same time, we will continue to research, develop, and build strategic partners to provide comprehensive New American services across all of rural Nebraska.

Funding for our work on phase two was provided by a Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) from USDA, the Mammel Foundation, the Nebraska Microenterprise Partnership Fund through the Nebraska Microenterprise Development Act, the Small Business Administration Microloan Program, and the Community Development Block Grant program through the Nebraska Department of Economic Development.

Jeff Reynolds, Center for Rural Affairs, jeffr@alltel.net or 402.656.3091

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Universal Health Care Recommended

2006-10-03T13:24:00.000-05:00

Universal Health Care Recommended

by John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

The Citizens’ Health Care Working Group, an independent committee established by Congress in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, recently released “Health Care that Works for All Americans.” The report and its recommendations are based on months of meetings across the nation, data and policy recommendations from health care experts, and 5,000 individual commentaries on health care related issues.

Members of the committee were appointed by the Comptroller of the United States and represent a cross-section of heath care providers, consumers, and benefit providers.
The committee found a health care system it describes as “unintelligible to most people” and that is “disconnected from the mission of providing people with humane, respectful, and technically excellent health care” and as a result made the following recommendations:

>> All Americans should have affordable health care, with access to a “set of core health care services” and financial assistance to those who need it.>> Defining a “core benefit package” for all Americans.

>> Guaranteed financial protection against very high health care costs through a national program that ensures universal health care coverage and financial protection for low-income Americans and against very high out-of-pocket costs.

>> Support of community health provider networks for health care services in underserved areas and for vulnerable populations, including rural areas and rural residents.

>> Promote efforts to improve quality of care and efficiency to lower costs.

The public has until August 31, 2006, to comment on the report. The President then has an opportunity to review and add his comments. Five committees in Congress will subsequently hold hearings. This report and its recommendations have the potential to profoundly reform and shape the American health care system. That makes public comment vital.

Review entire report and submit comments online at http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/ or by mail at Citizens’ Health Care Working Group, Interim Recommendations, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 575, Bethesda, MD 20814.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Smithfield Merger: Enough is Enough

2006-10-02T08:15:00.000-05:00

.
Enough is Enough

by John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org

Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest pork producer and packer, recently announced that they intend to acquire Premium Standard Farms, the nation’s number two pork producer and number six packer.

According to Successful Farming, Smithfield owns 800,000 sows and Premium Standard owns 221,000, bringing Smithfield’s holdings to over one million sows, at least 20% of U.S. hog production, and 31% of U.S. pork packing. And they will own over 50% of all the hogs they slaughter each year. In a world where packers own all the pigs and cattle, what need is there for farmers and ranchers, or, for that matter, rural communities?

Smithfield wants to own the sows, the pigs, the processing and the label. Smithfield wants farmers to borrow money to build the confinements, accept all the risk, spread the manure, and that’s all.

The regulators at the Justice Department and Packers and Stockyards Administration should put down their invitations to the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new Smithfield sign at Premium Standard Farms and reject this merger. That’s harsh, I suppose, but remember, this is the same Packers and Stockyards Administration that lied to farmers, ranchers and Congress by claiming to have conducted 1,739 investigations into potential violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act, investigations later revealed as a sham intended to convince everyone that they were doing their jobs.

Congress should prohibit packer ownership of livestock and price discrimination against small and mid sized farmers and ranchers. Enough is enough, and Smithfield has taken too much.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Smithfield Foods Acquires Premium Standard Farms

2006-10-01T22:30:00.000-05:00

Smithfield merges with PSF

By Randy Mudgett, Managing Editor, Farm News – Fort Dodge Messenger

Total vertical integration has long been the goal and business structure that Smithfield Foods has followed, and now, Smithfield owns more than 1.2 million sows, clearly solidifying the company’s hold on the pork industry.

On Monday, Smithfield announced plans to merge with Premium Standard Farms Inc., the nation’s second largest pork producer and sixth largest pork processor. Smithfield, who is No. 1 in both categories, said the deal will cost the company $674 million in stock plus assuming $117 million of Premium Standard Farms debt load.

John Crabtree, a spokesman for the Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, Neb., said Monday this is the most significant move by Smithfield in recent years. After an attempt to purchase IBP failed in 2001, Smithfield has since acquired several processors including Farmland Foods and John Morrell plus acquiring a good portion of ConAgra Foods branded meat business and overseas investments including the Sara Lee Corporation European meats business.

“Smithfield has been clear on this from the beginning,” Crabtree said of the packing giant. “They want to own the sows, the baby pigs, the feeders, the processing and the label,” Crabtree said. “They’ve done it and this should be a red flag to our leaders.”

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin said Monday the merger should be closely scrutinized by the U.S. Department of Justice. “The merger involves a very substantial change in the structure, vertical integration and degree of consolidation in the U.S. pork industry,” Harkin said. “It obviously will have significant impacts on both independent hog producers and those who raise hogs under contract.”

In the last round of farm policy talks, the Senate pushed for a packer ban on ownership of livestock and while the language did not make it into the final 2002 farm bill, Crabtree said it was a significant first step in getting hogs, chickens and cattle back into the hands of America’s livestock producers.

"The only real solution to getting livestock ownership back into the hands of producers is to pass meaningful packer ownership laws,” Crabtree said. “Pork production has often been viewed as the mortgage lifter and a huge part of the family farm system. Now, corporations like Smithfield own the sows and the only role for the farmer is to build a building, accept the risk and spread the manure for the packers.”

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley told ag reporters Tuesday he was concerned about the proposed merger. “We have to maintain plenty of competition, particularly for the small independent producers and family farmers for them to survive. This is of great concern to Iowa,” Grassley said. “I cannot fathom how Smithfield, the largest and fastest growing integrator, can continue to be allowed to purchase hog operations all across the country. They have made it clear that they intended to purchase its competitors to assert dominance in the pork industry. The attitude is alarming so we should ban packer ownership of livestock and eliminate mandatory arbitration.”

The Wal-Mart effect

If the merger is approved by the Department of Justice, Smithfield will own more sows than the remaining other eight top pork producers in the nation. According to Successful Farming’s Pork Powerhouses 2006 list, Smithfield would own 1.2 million sows after acquiring Premium Standard with nearly one-half of PSF’s sows located in Missouri.

Besides playing the role of the largest pork producer and processor in the world, Smithfield has also made inroads into the beef and turkey industries in recent years. The company is now the fifth largest beef packer and third largest turkey processor.

Roger McEowen, Iowa State University Extension economist, said much of the problem that is leading to companies desiring a vertical integration system is related to the race to the bottom for food prices.

“Looking long term, a vertically integrated system in the livestock sector relates to a loss of independence for the family farmer,” McEowen said. “Producers lose their portion of the open market system because corporations are experiencing the Wal-Mart effect.”

McEowen said the “Wal-Mart Effect” or a system that requires buyers to buy ever-increasing numbers in order to maintain efficiency, is forcing companies like Smithfield to become more and more efficient. In turn, companies like Wal-Mart desire to purchase products in bulk at cheap prices with a quick turnover and quick profit.

“You have to be big to get your product in stores like Albertsons or Wal-Mart,” McEowen said. “These big retailers charge slotting fees just to allow a processor to sell the product at their store. They have such buying power strength, the system forces companies to cut costs and vertical integration helps cut those costs.”

McEowen said the current political structure does not lend itself to pushing for a ban on packers owning livestock. “If our society desires a change and wants to see small farming return, then it could happen,” McEowen said. “But, right now, and even if the Democrats took control of Congress, I still do not foresee a change in thinking when it comes to ending the vertically integrated systems that are now commonplace.”

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Congress' October Homecoming

2006-10-01T21:54:00.000-05:00

Congress’ October Homecoming

By John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org

As September came to a close, so did the 109th session of Congress. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives will meet again until after the November 7th election. During October, most Senators and Representatives, and their opponents, will travel their states and districts meeting with voters and discussing past, present and future issues.

This presents an opportunity for farmers, ranchers and rural people to discuss the future of our rural communities, face to face, with the men and women that will make many decisions in the next two years that directly impact our lives and our communities.

If we expect our elected officials to remember us and our communities, then we need to tell them our stories. And we need to discuss not only the challenges that our communities face, but real solutions as well.

Take the time to meet with your Senators, Representative and challengers. Let them know that there are solutions to the stern challenges faced by our rural communities. Ask Congress to focus the 2007 farm bill on real solutions – beginning farmers and ranchers; conservation on working lands; value added agricultural development; and rural entrepreneurship.

And let them know that they can revitalize family farming by limiting the subsidies that mega farms use to bid up land costs and drive their smaller neighbors out of business. Moreover, farm payment limits will save money that can be invested in the future of rural America.

Read the Center for Rural Affairs’ 2007 farm bill proposals at http://www.cfra.org/.

Neil Harl Letter Regarding Estate Tax

2006-09-30T08:52:00.000-05:00

Goehring’s mistaken on his points regarding estate tax

Neil E. Harl

The Jamestown Sun
Published Thursday, July 27, 2006

Doug Goehring’s letter to the editor on the estate tax has come to my attention. The article is misleading with several untrue statements. It is a myth that farms are adversely impacted by the federal estate tax. That has been an artfully-spun tale by a group of very wealthy families over the past decade and it is untrue. A few years ago, I was quoted in the New York Times (April 8, 2001) as saying I had never seen a farm that had to be sold to pay federal estate tax. And that is still the case. My observations range over more than 45 years with more than 3,200 seminars in 43 states for farmers, bankers, attorneys, CPAs and others, including many all-day seminars in North Dakota.

The American Farm Bureau Federation was quoted, in the same article, as saying that “... it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.” A few days after that front page article ran in the Times, the AFBF put out a notice to its offices asking for a search for farms lost to pay federal estate tax. It was my understanding, from informed individuals, that they never located one.

There are very good reasons why that is the case. First, each decedent presently can pass $2 million in asset value without paying federal estate tax. That is $4 million for a husband and wife. Second, Congress has been very generous over the years and allows a substantial reduction in valuation of farm land (under special use valuation) at death with the discount now totaling as much as $900,000. Also, there are various other discounts that can be claimed including a co-ownership discount (usually around 20 percent) and an entity discount (often 35 percent, sometimes higher).

My research indicates that less than 1 percent of farm estates have to file a federal estate tax return and even fewer have to pay any federal estate tax. Interestingly, decedents with estates more than $20 million have the largest average amount of farm property $992,738 in 2004. That group includes very few bona fide family farmers. If there is anyone who might complain, it is the Ted Turners of the world who have been buying up large land tracts throughout the Plains states. In 2004, the top 808 estates (those with estates exceeding $20 million in taxable estate – that’s above the exclusion amount) paid an average of $3.99 million in federal estate tax. That is the measure of tax benefit had the federal estate tax been repealed in 2004.

Contrary to Goehring’s assertion that repeal of the federal estate tax would not take one cent out of the federal coffers, more than $21.51 billion was paid in federal estate tax in 2004 and the figure is expected to be higher in 2006 because of the rapid run-up in estate values. At a time when the federal budget deficit is running at an alarming level, throwing more than $20 billion out of the federal revenue stream should be of concern to anyone worried about fiscal responsibility. Unless spending is cut, every dollar lost from federal estate tax repeal must necessarily be made up with another source of revenue. Is a hike in income tax more palatable?
The top rate for deaths in 2006 is 46 percent, not 55 percent as Goehring said, a rate paid by a tiny, tiny fraction of the estates.

I might add that North Dakota has ranked at or near the bottom for years in the average amount of federal estate tax paid per estate. The big run-up in wealth in recent years has largely bypassed the states that are heavily agricultural.

Finally, the big worry for farms and ranches should be the possible loss of the new income tax basis at death. The repeal provision passed in 2001 would, after 2009, drop the concept of a completely new basis for assets held at death. That is of concern to everyone who inherits property, up and down the income and asset scale.

Neil E. Harl
Ames, Iowa
(Harl is the Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor in Agriculture and emeritus professor of economics at Iowa State University, Ames)

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.