• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

2007

Bill

Well-known member
Some Economic Questions for 2007
Colorado Springs, CO Jan. 08, 2007

Here are some economic factors for the beef industry to ponder.

Tax rate cuts have lowered the burden of taxes and, therefore, increased economic output and government revenues. Will Democrats be successful with their pledge to “roll back” tax cuts and mandate minimum wage increases? Will President Bush veto tax increases and compromise on the minimum wage? Will the Democrats be successful in increasing regulations, costing businesses money and the economy strength? If tax measures do pass in 2007, they will affect the economy in 2008 or 2009 but the psychological effects will be faster.

Oil: There has been very little progress in supply, with a Republican majority. Congress has allowed little new development in the Gulf, off either U.S. coast or in Alaska. There is less chance now. Oil supplies could tighten, and probably the only thing that will keep prices down long term would be a worldwide recession dampening demand.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, speaking on Fox News Sunday (11/12/06), indicated that while the Democrats didn’t intend to raise taxes on the “middle class,” two of the first targets should be oil companies and HMOs. If they intend to forbid oil companies from expanded drilling and take away their capital to do so anyway, expect higher oil prices. Some special tax on HMOs, which have struggled for profitability, could make health insurance unaffordable for many more millions of Americans – to the delight of Democrats trying to force national health insurance.

Ethanol will have significant plus and minus effects on the livestock industry. Upward pressure on corn prices scoffed at by many only a few months ago has already kicked in. The factor that changed the game, missed by many at the time, was gasoline refiners’ decision to switch additives from MTBE to ethanol to meet environmental regulations. How much will the increased cost of gains be offset by an abundance of distiller’s grain for some feeders? Will grain industry giants figure out an economical way to utilize the distiller’s grain not fed locally? Long-term, how many corn farmers will be saved by an ethanol- supported demand increasing corn prices? Will that factor assure a stronger corn farming base ... something uncertain under the situation of oversupply, low prices and the political uncertainty of subsidies in the near future? Will those prices enable the phase-out of corn subsidies?

Will the Democratic party’s ties to unions and job preservation at all costs lead to trade protectionism? Will we see the protection of a few thousand jobs jeopardize the millions of jobs and billions in capital inflows that have been outsourced to the U.S. by other countries? Will the concept of “trade” (i.e. goods for money and/or money for goods) be endangered? Will fast track authority for the president be renewed? COOL issues are important to Democratic constituents in this context.

Most likely, we will find out if the WTO Doha Round on ag policy is dead or alive in 2007. Agricultural producers around the world have so much at stake, revival is a possibility. But the feeling of strength among developing countries, fear of competition from developed countries and attachment of some farm segments to subsidies are not easily resolved.

Packers have been taking it on the chin regularly the last couple of years, but major shifts in the makeup of major packers have not happened. Will 2007 mark the year some shareholders and management lose patience with the returns from their slaughter operations? How much will labor problems affect packer costs, chain speed and efficiency?

How will the restaurant industry be affected by possible federal minimum wage-induced cost increases Pelosi is promising?

Regarding taxes, the Wall Street Journal explained the game. Democrats are disguising so-called “pay as you go” budgeting as “ethics reform.” Because tax cuts must be offset by less spending, tax cuts will be almost impossible. Entitlement programs with automatic increases built in annually, however, are exempt. Such rules would prohibit extension of the Bush tax cuts set to expire in 2010 (“The 100 Hours Rush,” 01/04/07). It also means Democrats could pass new programs by cutting programs they oppose.

Guaranteed to be an interesting year.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sun, Jan. 07, 2007email thisprint this
New Congress means new look at single food agency
By Alan Guebert Special to the Farm Forum

One hundred years ago this week, the nation's first extensive food safety laws went into effect. Inspired by Upton Sinclair's stomach-churning novel "The Jungle," President Theodore Roosevelt bullied Congress into passing the Food and Drug Act. Its key inventions were federal food inspections and mandatory food labeling.

A century later, consumers, food makers, farmers and ranchers will likely face a major overhaul of Roosevelt's landmark handiwork. Key food safety advocates in Congress, spurred by last year's veggie scares and November's election, promise hearings and legislation on new approaches to food safety.

The push will come from two, newly powerful Democratic members, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin.

Neither is a newcomer in public health or food safety. In 1987, then-Congressman Durbin authored the smoking ban on domestic airlines. DeLauro, a cancer survivor, is co-founder of the Congressional Food Safety Caucus.

In 2005, each introduced identical legislation in their respective chambers to create a national "Food Safety Administration." This new, single office would combine and then direct "the administration and enforcement of food safety laws," from today's tangled alphabet soup of food-watching federal agencies.

According to both, a century of new food-producing technology, rising food imports and new public health woes, has created a hydra of federal food inspection and safety agencies often working at cross-purposes.

For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has at least four sub-departments either conducting or implementing food promotion, safety, research and inspection: FSIS, GIPSA, AMS and APHIS.

Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the EPA, the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Customs Service, the National Maries Fisheries Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have pieces of the food safety pie.

But the 2005 DeLauro-Durbin legislation, like most Democratically-proposed ideas in the then GOP-run Congress, was forwarded to the appropriate Senate and House committees for action and promptly sunk from sight.

DeLauro and Durbin, however, didn't.

Nov. 7's Democratic Capitol Hill takeover placed them and their single Food Safety Administration idea near the top of legislative heap. Durbin is now the Senate's second-in-command; DeLauro is ticketed to become chair of the House Appropriations Ag Subcommittee, the group that controls every penny of federal ag spending.

A single, national food safety agency is neither novel nor unique. A Feb. 2005 U.S. Government Accountability Office report (GAO-05-212) on seven "high-income countries where consumers have high expectations for food safety," noted that each claimed "consolidation of their food safety systems has led to significant improvements in food safety operations that enhance effectiveness and efficiency."

(The nations, which chose a variety of strategies to streamline and improve their food safety agencies, are Canada, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand.)

USDA's reply to the GAO analysis, echoing that of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), however, pointed out the study's obvious - even to GAO - shortcomings: the smaller nations have smaller, less diverse agriculture and food sectors; the newness of their efforts precluded extensive cost-benefit analyses; America's experience and inter-agency communication ensures "the current system is working."

Those Feb. 2005 views, however, stand in stark contrast with the opinion offered by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson in his farewell remarks when he left the Bush Administration just two months before.

"For the life of me," Thompson noted darkly, "I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do."

Easy or not, welcome or not, the D's - Durbin, DeLauro and the Democrats - promise another run at a single food safety agency. And this time they have the clout.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columnist Alan Guebert is the owner of Ag Comm in Delavan, Ill. Guebert's Farm and Food File is published weekly throughout the U.S. and Canada. Contact him at [email protected]
 

Bill

Well-known member
Hey Oldtimer.

How come you didn't highlight this part???????

A single, national food safety agency is neither novel nor unique. A Feb. 2005 U.S. Government Accountability Office report (GAO-05-212) on seven "high-income countries where consumers have high expectations for food safety," noted that each claimed "consolidation of their food safety systems has led to significant improvements in food safety operations that enhance effectiveness and efficiency."

The nations, which chose a variety of strategies to streamline and improve their food safety agencies, are Canada, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand.)

Heck Canada was even at the top of the list!!!!!!!
 
Top