Showing posts with label farm bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label farm bill. Show all posts

July 24, 2023

Some shameless punning on the Farm Bill

 

(You've goat to read this)


As someone who has dabbled in farming, I find it difficult to write about an important topic like the federal Farm Bill without indulging in at least a few agricultural puns—even though punning has a baad reputation.

The 17th century English poet John Dryden, for example, referred to punning as “the lowest and most groveling kind of wit.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes Senior, 19th century American physician and poet, said “A pun does not commonly justify a blow in return. But if a blow were given for such cause, and death ensued, the jury would be judges both of the facts and of the pun, and might, if the latter were of an aggravated character, return a verdict of justifiable homicide.”

Mark Twain, whose pen name was itself a pun (the pen pun was unintentional by the way), wrote that “no circumstances, however dismal, will ever be considered a sufficient excuse for the admission of that last and saddest evidence of intellectual poverty, the Pun.”

 I have no beef with such writers or their sage advice, but at the risk of being corny it’s still chard not to.

The Farm Bill is a huge piece of legislation that comes up every hive years and Congress has goat to pass this year. It’s an omnibus bill, meaning that it combines several distinct acts that clover everything from hunger to flood control. But it helps to take it one bite at a time.

Here are some things that ordinary people all over the US and especially in West Virginia need to bee in the bill and that we need to count on Senators Capito and Manchin and Congresswoman Miller to support:

*Food assistance. Let’s face it. Millions of Americans barley get enough to eat--as in 33 million nationwide and over 200,000 here. That situation has gotten worse with the ex-pear-ation of COVID-era safety net provisions and recently passed federal legislation. Last time around, in 2018, our senators carroted enough to support a clean Farm Bill without more restrictions for food insecure people even though they were going against the grain. Let’s hope they do that again.

*Flood control. Irrigation is berry important to farming, but I think most of us would prefer that it not happen to our roads, homes, businesses, and towns. And that it should water our fields without washing them away. A good Farm Bill would help farmers recover from disasters, pre-pear for future ones, and support conservation practices that can reduce flooding.

*Support small farms and farmers. Millions of taxpayer dollars go to subsidize large scale corporate and industrial operations that are inhumane to animals, farmworkers and unsustainable for the environment. You don’t need a fertile imagination to realize that the money would be beet-er spent supporting smaller family farms and local food systems.

*Address climate change. You don’t have to be a farmer to realize that the weather is getting weirder and weirder, but you cane’t help but notice it if you are. A good Farm Bill should provide encourage-mint for regenerative agricultural measures that would conserve soil, prevent erosion, regrow forests, encourage cover crops, store carbon, and reduce emissions.

*Support creative approaches. It wood be win all around if the Farm Bill put more resources into school and community garden projects, urban agriculture, and small scale local projects that fight hunger and keep resources in the local economy. Also, it would be good to take steps to open farming opportunities to people who have been discriminated against in the past.

*Be kinder to our four-legged and feathered friends. Industrial livestock production crowds cattle, hogs, chickens, and other critters into Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations known as CAFOs. Aside from causing unnecessary misery, these create a-maize-ing amounts of animal waste and pollution and encourage the overuse of antibiotics that weaken their effect. They’re nothing to crow about and taxpayers shouldn’t relish the chance to subsidize them.

*Local processing. If the Strengthening Local Processing Act was part of the package, this would be an alternative to CAFOs by supporting local processing of animal products. Surely a meating of the minds is possible here.

*A missing piece. One thing that’s been lacking from previous Farm Bills is protections for the people who dew the work. Lettuce not forget that farm work is difficult and hazardous and much of it is done by children. Nothing against emergency responders, but risks are even higher in this field. Farming is routinely considered to be among the most dangerous occupations. Also, some farmworkers experience wage theft but are too intimidated to pursue redress, which drives down wages for everyone.

*Child care. And how can we forget the kids? Senator Brown from Ohio has rounded up bipartisan support for including the Expanding Childcare in Rural America Act, which would provide more child care in rural communities. Farm work can eat up some long hours in places where there often aren’t good child care providers. It would be great if every child barn in a farming community could enjoy good care when the adults are fending off possums and such.

I realize that this is quite a grocery list, but this is a REALLY big bill and there’s no time for stalling. If we want a decent bill for everyone, we need to turnip the noise and kale our representatives this summer. It’s time to broc and roll.

(This ran as an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.)

January 02, 2020

Forget Christmas-the real war is on food assistance

According to the ancient Chinese classic the Tao Te Ching, which can be translated as The Way and Its Power,

The Tao of heaven is like the bending of a bow.
The high is lowered, and the low is raised.
If the string is too long, it is shortened;
If there is not enough, it is made longer.  
The Tao of heaven is to take from those who have too much
and give to those who do not have enough.
Man's way is different.
He takes from those who do not have enough
to give to those who already have too much. 

For a contemporary example of the latter, you can find a pretty good—or bad—example in the Trump administration’s serial assaults on food assistance, particularly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps.

Earlier this month, the administration announced a policy that make it harder for adults without dependents to get SNAP, imposing work reporting requirements and limits on the length of time they can receive food assistance. It would also make it harder for states to get a federal waiver to avoid these harsh policies.

This measure could cut off benefits for an estimated 700,000 destitute Americans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Those affected by the change are among the poorest in the U.S., with an average income at just 18 percent of the poverty line, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture,

“Most of these individuals are ineligible for any other form of government financial assistance because they aren’t elderly, severely disabled, or raising minor children,” notes Robert Greenstein of CBPP. “For many of them, SNAP is the only assistance they can receive to help make ends meet.”

Not only is the administration’s decision to take food off people’s tables morally reprehensible, it will do nothing to encourage employment among SNAP participants. In fact, the measure is a replay of a failed policy that was tried in West Virginia in 2017, when the state imposed similar requirements as a pilot in the nine counties that had the lowest unemployment rate and presumably the best economic opportunities.

When the results were tabulated, it turned out that this measure resulted in cutting over 5,400 people from the program … and it had no impact on increasing employment. By taking away SNAP benefits from low-income people, it actually took money from grocery stores and the local economy—and placed greater burdens on already stressed charities that had to scramble to meet increased need.

The Trump administration’s latest attack on food security comes in the wake of two other proposed changes that would change the way eligibility for SNAP is calculated, resulting in even more cuts to the program and threatening eligibility for other key food assistance programs, including those that provide free school breakfasts and lunches to children.

All these measures are an attempted end run around Congress, which protected SNAP from devastating cuts in the 2018 bipartisan Farm Bill.

The time limits for SNAP are set to take effect on April 1, 2020, unless Congress or the courts takes action to stop it, according to the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). “The final rule would cause serious harm to individuals, communities, and the nation while doing nothing to improve the health and employment of those impacted by the rule. In addition, the rule would harm the economy, grocery retailers, agricultural producers, and communities by reducing the amount of SNAP dollars available to spur local economic activity.”

One thing that people around the country could do is talk to their representatives in Congress and urge them to speak out against these cruel changes. Whatever happens next, our goal in West Virginia can be summed up in the saying “food for all.” To state the obvious, the problem isn’t that too many people in the U.S. receive SNAP benefits—the problem is that so many need them.

(This first appeared in a blog post for the AFSC.)

December 12, 2018

A disaster averted

In case you missed it, Congress actually got something right this week. For real. After an epic months-long back and forth between the House and Senate, a compromise was reached that leaves the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program basically intact.

The version initially considered by the House include requirements and restrictions that would have cut off many low income Americans. As Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote back in May,

It would have reversed years of progress under Presidents of both parties by making SNAP less effective in reducing food insecurity and supporting families. It would have taken food assistance away from more than 1 million households including 2 million people and would have harmed children, people with serious health conditions, older workers, veterans, caregivers, and parents.
Fortunately, and thanks to a lot of work by a lot of people across the country, that didn't happen. Here's Greenstein on the latest version.  The latest and apparently final version of the bill reflects a rare bipartisan approach.

(For WV folks, this happened no thanks to our House delegation but with the support of Senators Manchin and Capito.)
 

June 26, 2018

Today’s SNAP Challenge (in three simple steps)



Amazingly there is good news on the Farm Bill but now is not the time to rest on our laurels.  Is it ever these days?  The Farm Bill is likely up for a vote on passage Thursday afternoon and believe it or not, the one that emerged from the Senate Agriculture committee is a decent, bi-partisan bill that protects and strengthens SNAP.  No joke!  But with the debate happening this week, and the ongoing threats to SNAP and the social safety net, here are three things you can do:

1) Pile on to the national call-in day today and tell Senators Manchin and Capito:

Bi-partisan Senate Farm Bill good
House Farm Bill cuts to SNAP bad (as we said last week)

Joe Manchin-(202) 224-3954
Shelly Moore Capito- (202) 224-6472

2) Share this video that our friends at the Food Justice Lab at WVU created about SNAP and the Farm Bill. 

3) Take the #WVSNAPChallenge Mountaineers for Progress are issuing (i.e. try living off $4.20 a day especially if think SNAP benefits have people living too high on the hog). And if you’re in the Morgantown area, check out their kick-off event. 

While we are talking SNAP, if you want a really good read (or listen), WV Public Broadcasting did a great story about SNAP benefits being denied to people with drug felonies, despite the trend in most other states to no longer subject drug felons to a lifetime ban from SNAP.  Stay tuned on that.  

Finally, say a prayer to the internet gods on behalf of our pal El Cabrero who is still experiencing technical difficulties at Goat Rope Farm.  


June 22, 2018

Farm bill facts

Allow me to start with a personal rant. We're entering week 3 of no internet at Goat Rope Farm. It appears that Frontier Communications is out of the customer service business. Anyhow, there is some news about a vital issue in play, to wit the Farm Bill, which will have a huge impact on food security for millions of Americans.

Here's some info from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in DC:

We’ve still got the dueling House and Senate farm bills that propose dramatically different visions for SNAP, which helps 1 in 8 Americans put food on the table. Yesterday afternoon, the House just barely passed their version of the farm bill (H.R. 2), which would cut SNAP by nearly $19 billion and take away food assistance from 2 million people. The narrow and partisan margin of support for the bill — 213 votes in favor, all Republican, and 211 votes against the bill from some Republicans and all Democrats, largely because of the SNAP cuts and harmful changes — strengthens our argument that the House farm bill SNAP title is the wrong approach. It’s also a huge testament to your relentless efforts to drive a narrative about the House farm bill and encourage members to vote no, so thank you for all you’ve done and continue to do!

Meanwhile, the Senate is gearing up to vote next week (starting Tuesday) on a bipartisan farm bill that protects and strengthens SNAP. The bill represents the right path forward and gives us an opportunity to reiterate just how misguided and harmful the House farm bill is. But we can’t take things for granted in the Senate: As we’ve shared before, we remain deeply concerned that amendments could be offered during the floor debate to cut SNAP or make harmful changes that would restrict access or take away food assistance from struggling families who need help.

They urge folks to message senators ASAP opposing any amendments to the bill which would reduce or restrict basic food assistance.

June 04, 2018

If they think it's so easy they should try it

Potter Stewart served as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1958 to 1981. He had some interesting things to say about checks and balances, the importance of a free press and the need for an enlightened citizenry.

However, he’s probably best remembered for his statement on how to identify obscenity. While acknowledging that it’s difficult to define in exact terms, he said “I know it when I see it ... .”

One place I’ve seen it lately has been in Washington, where the same House of Representatives majority that passed $1.5 trillion in tax cuts aimed mostly at rich people and corporations advanced a version of the Farm Bill that would cut basic food aid to 1.2 million Americans and slash benefits by around $17 billion.

The proposed cuts would come from restrictions on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that would affect families, children, low-wage workers, veterans, as well as people recovering from addictions.

Fortunately, the Farm Bill failed by a margin of 213 to 198, no thanks to West Virginia’s delegation. Unfortunately, it’s not over and we can anticipate further attacks on basic food security for vulnerable Americans.

Some of these attacks have already taken place at the state level. House Bill 4001, which passed the Legislature and was signed by the governor earlier this year, is likely to increase hunger without promoting employment. The bill takes a policy of time limits that failed in the nine counties with the best employment and spreads the misery statewide.

Apparently, the people who voted for it think living on a $4-a-day food budget is too high on the hog.

Just to put things into perspective, I thought a little social math might be in order here. Excuse me while I whip out the calculator:

*According to the West Virginia Code, legislators are eligible for a per diem of $131 per day during the regular session. Someone trying to survive on SNAP benefits would have to try to eat for over a month on that.

*Another good contrast is to consider how long someone on SNAP would have to live for the cost of one fancy meal. Let’s say it’s The Greenbrier. Thanks to the power of the interwebs, I found a menu and did the math: one bottle red wine, mid-range, $48; first course bisque, $9; lamb shank entrĂ©e, $49; chocolate soufflĂ© dessert, $14; dessert wine, $17; cappuccino, $5. That comes to $157. If you throw in a 20 percent tip of $31.40, the total is 188.40. People getting by on SNAP would have to feed themselves for 47 days on that.

That’s a week longer than the time Jesus fasted in the wilderness at the beginning of his ministry. Come to think of it, I believe he had a thing or two to say about feeding the hungry.

(For the record, I don’t have anything against good food or the finer things in life. I just wish they were a bit more broadly shared. And I don’t mind people who can afford a feast — as long as they don’t try to take food away from those who can’t.)

*Here’s one more. The richest 1 percent of West Virginians are going to get a $25,000 tax cut due to recent federal legislation. That’s an annual food budget for 17 people on SNAP. Or, at current benefit levels, someone on SNAP would have to try to eat for a little over 17 years on that. As in from now until the year 2035.

Those lucky ducks on SNAP.

I only wish that those who want to take away food from people getting by on less than the cost of a fancy cup of coffee would actually try living on that much. It might be good medicine.

As Shakespeare put it in “King Lear,” “Take physic, pomp; Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel, That thou mayst shake the superflux to them, And show the heavens more just.”

(This appeared as an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette Mail.)

May 18, 2018

A little good news...for now

A little crowing might be in order.

The (very nasty) House version of the Farm Bill failed by a vote of 198-213, no thanks to WV's congressional delegation. It's not over yet, though since House mis-leaders will keep trying to push something through.

Here's a statement about the latest developments by Bob Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities about the need for a bipartisan bill that doesn't take away food from millions of Americans.

Thanks to everyone who worked to derail this train. By way of follow-through, a call to your representatives offices either to thank or (metaphorically) spank might be in order. Here are the numbers for the DC offices of the WV guys:

McKinley 202.225.4172

Jenkins 202.225.3452

Mooney 202.225.2711

For those outside of WV, and who probably have a better delegation, you can put in your zip here to find out the contact information.

May 17, 2018

And still everybody's gotta eat


The U.S. House has been debating the monstrosity of a Farm Bill today and it might be worth two or three minutes of your time giving your representatives a call to ask him to vote no.  As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, H.R. 2 would effectively remove nearly 2 million people from SNAP by imposing harsher work requirements.  Never mind that a lot of these people are already working.  And far be it from me to point out the evidence supporting any claim that work requirements boost employment remains at zilch, zero, nada. 

What we do know about policies like this is that they increase food insecurity, especially among women, people with disabilities, and seniors. 

We might be wise to look at programs that actually boost employment, like Montana's HELP-Link program which was started when the state expanded Medicaid.  The program provides Medicaid enrollees with employment services through their Department of Labor and Industry, including employment training and education.  When it comes to the proof in the pudding, 82 percent of the people who participated are now employed, and 80 percent have obtained higher wage jobs.

The Daily Mail editorial today slams the farm bill for other reasons, saying that it entails huge giveaways to "big ag" at the expense of small farmers. I reckon they're right. 

In short, there is not much to like about this thing.  Let's light up those phones! 

Here are the D.C. #'s

McKinley 202.225.4172

Jenkins 202.225.3452

Mooney 202.225.2711








April 24, 2018

Hungry days ahead

Gov. Justice declared in his State of the State back in January, "We don't need to quit until every single person is not standing on the side of the bridge saying, 'Mister, you have no idea how bad I'm hurting.'"

Actions speak louder than words. A case in point is that despite our governor's noble pronouncement, he recently signed House Bill 4001, a law that once enacted will do more to increase hunger than increase full-time employment.

HB 4001 mandates that the state no longer apply for a waiver from the federal government to exempt able-bodied adults without dependents from a 20-hour-a-week work requirement to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as SNAP or food stamps, but more importantly should be understood as food).

The law will add at least eight additional counties to the nine-county pilot that began in early 2016 when our Department of Health and Human Resources removed roughly 5,417 so-called "able-bodied adults without dependents" from the SNAP rolls.

Work requirements sound good, and they especially sound good when applied to "able-bodied adults without dependents," but be careful not to generalize who these thousands of individuals might be.

Perhaps it is a person on the difficult journey toward recovery from opioid addiction, and the food security that SNAP provides is the linchpin.

Perhaps it is one of the thousands of grandparents raising grandkids due to the ongoing opioid crisis. Make no mistake then, more children will go hungry, too.

Is taking food away from a person the answer to helping them find a job that offers enough hours to satisfy the work requirement, and (gasp) a job that offers a decent wage and health benefits?

Because in reality a lot of these individuals are working but they are in extremely low-paying, part-time jobs that are volatile and do not always provide enough hours to meet the 20-hour-a-week minimum.

While people often say that any good policy should be evidence-based, too often we instead hear anecdotes and sweeping charges of "laziness" used to justify policy.

Sociologist Herbert Gans said of this trend in his essay "The War Against the Poor" that "judgments are based on imagined knowledge, which may come from stories and preconceived ideas."

When looking at the evidence of the nine-county pilot where stricter work requirements were enacted and 5,417 individuals lost their food stamps, "imagined knowledge" is about all we have.

Did we succeed in the professed goal of getting people into more full-time employment, paying taxes and therefore no longer needing $118 a month to help pay for the bare necessity of food?

According to the Department of Health and Human Resources' own report, the answer is no. Of the 13,984 referrals to the SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) program, 259 gained employment - a less than 2 per cent success rate.

By contrast to HB 4001, the bill number alone indicating it was their top priority, the same legislative body could not find the political will to pass a bill that would have had a real impact on workforce participation.

HB 2727 sought to address the fact that people leave prison every day without any form of state-issued identification card, which means they face difficulty obtaining a job, much less keeping one if they don't have a driver's license. This bill, which would have helped thousands of West Virginians become gainfully employed taxpayers, died in House Finance.

Illustrating how HB 2727 would have boosted employment, a 2015 study conducted in Franklin County, Ohio, of "able-bodied adults without dependents" found that a whopping 60 percent of the 5,000 individuals surveyed said that not having a driver's license was a significant barrier to employment. Other major barriers cited were felony convictions, lack of transportation and being non-custodial parents.

HB 4001 becoming law will not create a single good-paying job. But it will for certain take food away from people, and federal dollars away from local economies.

The people who support legislation like this believe that food is a privilege, not a basic human right. It is probably safe to say then that our billionaire governor, and both the Republicans and Democrats who voted for this bill, are not worried about how they will pay for their next meal.

I am left to conclude that the governor's avowal in his State of the State was not true aspiration, but that really he has no idea how bad people are hurting.

(This op-ed by Lida Shepherd of the American Friends Service Committee appeared in the Huntington WV Herald-Dispatch this week.)

November 17, 2013

Plague days

I've been re-reading Albert Camus' novel The Plague for the umpteenth time, about an outbreak of the pestilence in the Algerian town of Oran in the 1940s. I think Camus saw it as a metaphor for the grip of fascism on Europe.

At times, I  feel like I've lived through wave after wave of outbreaks of the plague, not, thank God, in the form of 20th century fascism but of a mean-spirited, all-American robber baron mentality of bloodless greed, often backed up by bigotry, fanaticism and xenophobia.

The first wave hit with the Reagan ascendancy in the 1980s, followed by the Gingrich "revolution" in 1994, the era Bush II, and lately the Tea Party. it's hard for me to tell most days whether to count that as separate waves of plague or one long outbreak the wanes and waxes.

I think that's also why the image of zombies shows up so much in this blog, as the dead (or in this case ideas that should have long been dead) come back to devour the living. In the image of Camus' novel, the dead rats keep appearing in intervals, signifying another outbreak.

SPEAKING OF WHICH, here's American food policy on plague.

AND HERE'S ANOTHER CRITIQUE of the ideology of the plague.