Cap & Trade - Food Production vs. Forestry

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, already passed by the House of Representatives creates a number of concerns for agriculture as well as rural citizens. This bill, which includes cap and trade provisions, will increase energy costs across the nation. The Obama administration estimates that this legislation could cost households an additional $1761.00 per year. An additional study conducted by the Heritage Foundation indicates that energy costs will increase by more than $1500.00 per year by 2035.

In terms of agriculture, an analysis produced by the USDA indicates that farming will benefit from this legislation. However, we are seeing evidence that this may not be the case. Input costs for farmers will increase, along with energy costs. Granted, some producers may actually benefit from cap and trade, but it is quite possible that the majority will not.

The offsets that will be offered through cap and trade legislation will favor forestry, and this incentive could lead to the removal of millions of acres from food production as farmland is converted to forests. This creates a dilemma for us because the Grange very much supports Forestry as an agricultural enterprise. However, if large numbers of acres are converted to forests, it will lead to less food being produced in the United States. This loss of available acreage combined with the losses that are already occuring as land is being converted to development, will impact all of us in a very undesirable way in the years ahead. Less land means lower production, which will lead to higher food prices, lower exports, and higher imports. Our ability to feed ourselves will diminish. We will be come more dependent upon foreign countries for food. Farmers are already competing for land, and with less land available in the future for production, rental rates will increase. It will become more difficult for agricultural producers to remain in business, which will also impact the supporting agribusiness industry.

Based on the information we have gathered, it appears that this legislation will be detrimental to agriculture. In addition, households will suffer from higher costs. The State Grange is opposing this legislation, and we encourage our members to contact our two Senators and express your opposition to this bill.

Will The Health Care Negotiations Be Democratic?

A major concern that I have for the negotiations between the House and Senate on Health Care reform is how the process is conducted. Because the legislation to this point has been dominated by one party, there is concern that the continued negotiations will be a one party process. One would usually expect a conference committee to work out an agreement. However, there is already discussion about avoiding the use of a conference committee composed of members from both parties, and instead having the leadership of the Democratic party to work out the differences. If this happens, it will exclude any possibility of the health legislation becoming a bi-partisan effort. Closed door meetings are already being held, and it appears that there will be no transparency as work continues on the legislation. The rush also continues in an effort to piece together a bill in time for the President to announce it during his State of the Union Address.

This is unfortunate! We know that taking the time to carefully consider all facets of the bill rather than rushing it through will provide America with better legislation. Additionally, there is no doubt that a bi-partisan effort will also lead to a higher quality bill. Republicans are complaining, and Democrats are even admitting that the legislation is not perfect, yet they push onward.

We elected our members of congress to represent us! We did not elect them to represent only Democrats nor only Republicans. They were elected to represent everyone, and to do the best job possible. If they possess the leadership abilities that were portrayed to us during their campaigns, then one would expect them to possess the knowledge and skills necessary to work out the differences in a bi-partisan effort, and make the legislation the best that it can be. This will not happen in closed door meetings with a few members of one party. High quality health care reform is important for all of us, but unfortunately, the process for achieving this is going to let us down!

What Kind of Health Care Revisions Will We See?

Now that both the House and Senate have rushed through their versions of health care reform, we wonder what the final result will be if the two legislative bodies reach an agreement. There continue to be more negatives associated with the legislation than positives. It appears that more people will be able to get coverage, but neither bill provides coverage for all who may need the protection. The House bill calls for a public option, but the Senate version does not. We will have to wait and see if this becomes a contentious issue as they negotiate. Both versions require employers to provide health insurance or pay a penalty if they refuse. Furthermore, individuals not covered under employee plans will be required to purchase health insurance or face a penalty. The details of these mandates will have to be worked out.

Another contentious issue will be the question of government funded abortions. The House version does not allow for taxpayer funding of abortions but the Senate plan allows this to happen.

Further concerns include the fact that Tort Reform was left out of both bills. We also remain very skeptical in regards to Federal control over state based health insurance companies.

It is extremely disappointing that we watched ethical standards erode as negotiations took place, especially in the Senate. In order to reach the required 60 votes needed to pass the legislation, certain states were promised benefits that no other states will receive. An example was the state of Nebraska being offered an exemption from this state's share of Medicaid expansion, which is equivalent to $100 million. While some Senators were okay with this, others referred to it as corruption. The lesson to be learned from all of this is that Senators have a chance of getting something extra for their state if they will hold out on their vote!