Oldtimer said:
Its long been known that the GIPSA rules needed to be strengthened and brought up to date to meet this much faster paced trading world- including issues like the amount of bonding for buyers, brokers, and salesbarns...And that the GIPSA folks needed to be given some bigger "teeth" for oversight and enforcement...
I guess I'm different from you in that I don't want to see any more growth in a federal bureaucracy that doesn't even do their job now. They already have enough "teeth" to require appropriate bonds. They just failed to to it. And you can bet your ass that the smaller operators will be disproportionately affected by any new power grabs. That's the way it always seems to work when big government gets even more power.
Oldtimer said:
I think that is the reason Congress in the Farm Bill asked USDA for a strengthening of GIPSA--which Secretary Vilsack is trying to do-- but that has been fought and opposed at every step by some in the industry...
I know you're content to let the Obama Administration run your business and take care of you cradle-to-grave, but many of us aren't. Many of us don't feel that they can be trusted and would prefer that we have LESS government instead of more.
And it's not just Republicans that feel that way. A
bipartisan group of Congressmen asked the Secretary to hold off because they felt that the USDA was overreaching. The Congressmen were worried that it might be burdensome to producers - NOT just to big agribusiness.
Here's some excerpts from their letter (with my emphasis):
“In the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress directed the Department (USDA) to promulgate a discrete set of regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act. However, in doing so, GIPSA also included additional proposed regulations that greatly exceed the mandate of the Farm Bill.”
“Such a broad rule that extends so far beyond Congress’ direction in the Farm Bill and that would precipitate major changes in livestock and poultry marketing requires a vigorous economic analysis. The analysis contained in the proposed rule fails to demonstrate the need for the rule, assess the impact of its implementation on the marketplace, or establish how the implementation of the rule would address the demonstrated need.”
I'm sure we don't disagree completely, however. The PSA has become somewhat like the Internal Revenue Code in that it has been molded into a one-size-fits-all piece of junk that really fits nobody. It's really inexcusable that livestock producers are trying to conform to a set of regulations written in 1921. There's also no reason that poultry growers shouldn't have a clear set of regulations written specifically for their industry instead of having to use the current PSA to try to find relief from the **** they have to put up with.
So, I'm sure that we could both probably agree that the best thing to do with the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 is to throw it away and start over with something that addresses the business practices of the current times. Of course, the way the federal government works - no matter which party is in power - they would probably have somebody at Tyson write the damn thing.