Government Bail Out Via Catfish

This past week, the USDA announced that the federal government is essentially going to bail out the drought-striken farmers:  the government is buying their meat.  I find it curious that these farmers, which generally live in staunchly conservative states (link here) and believe in smaller federal government (meaning, the government lets them have more freedom to do whatever they want) is now going to benefit substantially from the government coming in and bailing them out.  Without the government doing this, many of these farmers would be in a tight spot and facing financial troubles ("come into my parlor" said the bankruptcy attorney to the farmer).  What is the liklihood that these farmers are going to remember that it was President Obama and the Department of Agriculture who stepped and saved them???

The Announcement:

Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Meat Purchase to Assist Livestock Producers Impacted by Drought; Bolster Federal Nutrition Programs


WASHINGTON, Aug. 13, 2012 – As part of the Obama Administration's commitment to do everything it can to help farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and communities being impacted by the nation's persistent drought, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced USDA's intent to purchase up to $170 million of pork, lamb, chicken, and catfish for federal food nutrition assistance programs, including food banks. The purchase will help relieve pressure on American livestock producers during the drought, while helping to bring the nation's meat supply in line with demand while providing high quality, nutritious food to recipients of USDA's nutrition programs.
"President Obama and I will continue to take swift action to get help to America's farmers and ranchers through this difficult time," said Vilsack. "These purchases will assist pork, catfish, chicken and lamb producers who are currently struggling due to challenging market conditions and the high cost of feed resulting from the widespread drought. The purchases will help mitigate further downward prices, stabilize market conditions, and provide high quality, nutritious food to recipients of USDA's nutrition programs."
Today, USDA announced its intention to purchase up to $100 million of pork products, up to $10 million of catfish products, up to $50 million in chicken products, and up to $10 million of lamb products for federal food nutrition assistance programs, including food banks. Through the Emergency Surplus Removal Program, USDA can use Section 32 funds to purchase meat and poultry products to assist farmers and ranchers who have been affected by natural disasters. The pork, lamb and catfish purchases are based on analyses of current market conditions. A major factor affecting livestock producers is the value of feed, which is currently running high because of the drought.

USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) purchases a variety of high-quality food products each year to support the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. USDA also makes emergency food purchases for distribution to victims of natural disasters. Government food experts work to ensure that all purchased food is healthful and nutritious. Food items are required to be low in fat, sugar and sodium. The commodities must meet specified requirements and be certified to ensure quality. AMS purchases only products of 100 percent domestic origin.

Last week in Washington, President Obama convened his White House Rural Council to review Executive Branch response actions and to develop additional policy initiatives to assist drought-stricken Americans. Following the meeting, the White House announced a number of new measures the Administration is taking, including USDA's assistance for livestock and crop producers, the National Credit Union Administration's increased capacity for lending to customers including farmers, and the U.S. Department of Transportation's emergency waivers for federal truck weight regulations and hours of service requirements to drought-stricken communities. President Obama also stressed the need for the entire Administration to continue to look at further steps it can take to ease the pain of this historic drought.

ObamaCare -- polarization in a name

I recently ran across Wendell Potter's piece for the Center for Public Integrity (read it here:  http://www.natlawreview.com/article/analysis-obamacare-label-sticking).  Even though he wrote the article in Sept. 2011, I believe the principles still apply:  Americans generally have no idea what the Affordable Care Act does, and they have been inundated with false claims and negative publicity about "ObamaCare" that they have become ignorantly polarized.  Now that the Supreme Court has issued its opinion on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate and Medicaid Expansion, and now that the Presidential election is getting closer, it seems that health care has come even more into focus while it still remains out-of-focus with regards to clarity.  To put it another way, with the political race going on, there is a lot of talk about health care, but it is mostly wrong and meant to scare people into voting a certain way.  Heck, I've been reading state governors' responses to whether they will expand Medicaid in their states, and over half of them seem not to have a clue about what the program does for their state.  The Obama Administration needs to get CMS and HHS to put together a massive education campaign about what the Affordable Care Act has done, is doing, and will do.  Fear is a strong motivator, and people are being fed fear right now.  Listening to an NPR broadcast, I heard an interview from an older man who said that he really like the Massachusetts health care plan (he had friends and family there), but he didn't like the Affordable Care Act plan because it was a tax.  It's essentially the same thing!  Moreover, the "tax" classification was merely a constitutionality hook, just as used to uphold Social Security. 

So, to avoid being someone who critiques without taking action to remedy the situation, I am pledging to write President Obama and Secretary Sebilius about the need for education about the Affordable Care Act.  What will you do?