A
Anonymous
Guest
Commstocks take on the PSA:
The Picket Versus IBP suit essentially charged that USDA failed to enforce Packers and Stockyards Act statutes. The jury agreed. The judge changed the rules, instructing the jury to find under the more demanding standards of the Sherman and Clayton Act antitrust laws. When they did, the judge set aside the verdict, rendering jury trial pointless. The USDA's office of Inspector General recently released a scathing investigation of GIPSA enforcement of the P & S Act, confirming charges made in the Pickett suit, confirming the jury finding. Dr. Robert Taylor, who testified for the plaintiffs in the Pickett trial, quoted Thurman Arnold, who said, "The competitive struggle without effective antitrust enforcement is like a fight without a referee." He concluded, "It sure looks like cattlemen are in a fight without referees, judges are ignoring the plain language of the law, and overstepping their authority, and GIPSA is not enforcing the Packers & Stockyards Act."
It would appear that we have a choice: Either strike the P & S Act, eliminating the illusion now confirmed by the Inspector General of the agency's remiss livestock market oversight, or enforce the act as intended. The government has been paying current GIPSA referees to do nothing, at the behest of special interest groups within the industry, which abhor all regulatory oversight, seeing it as interference into the game they now control. In their interest, "owning the referee" was better than not having one, because of the way it looks to those on the outside of the industry. The referees were intended to level the playing field for all players, but the USDA Inspector General reported they were not only not watching the game, but making up phony reports they'd attended. GIPSA, as is currently being operated, is a total waste of taxpayer money. They should at least make the packing industry pay the referees, as they are making all calls one sided in their favor. In this fight, independent producers can be pummeled below the belt by unfair packer trade practices with punches approved by GIPSA. Any GIPSA referee wanting to call a fair fight was often "promoted" or "relieved of duty" by the industry captured agency.
Having failed in the courts, with the referee playing on the packer's team, cattlemen have one other recourse to force GIPSA P & S Act enforcement; that is new legislation. Senator's Tom Harkin, Mike Enzi, and Craig Thomas introduced the "competitive and fair agricultural markets act of 2006 co-sponsored by Chuck Grassley. "The act proposes several changes at USDA in response to a USDA Inspector General's report last month that said USDA officials were not enforcing the Packers & Stockyard's Act." Specifically, the legislation would "Establish a USDA Office of Special Council, whose responsibility will be to investigate and prosecute violations on competition matters; Strengthen producer protections by making it easier for producers to prove unfair actions by packers, without additional burdens of having to prove adverse affects on competition; Strengthen USDA's authority in enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act over the poultry industry, and making it more in line with livestock; Prohibit unfair or deceptive practices by a person that affects the marketing, receiving, purchasing, sale or contracting of agricultural commodities; Provide contract protections to ensure that the contract clearly spells out what is required of the producer. Producers would be given at least three days to review or cancel the contract. The legislation would prevent confidentiality clauses, so that producers are free to share the contract with family members or a lawyer to help them decide whether or not they should sign it. Producers would be protected from having their contracts prematurely terminated if they have made a sizeable capital investment. The legislation also prevents mandatory arbitration, so that companies do not prevent producers from going to the courts to speak out against unfair actions; Prevent discrimination against producers belonging to an organization or cooperative by removing a disclaimer clause allowing processors, handlers, or contractors to refuse to do business with producers just because they belong to such organizations."
"The proposed legislation would remove language in the PSA, making it easier for producers to prove unfair and deceptive market practices by packers. Recent actions by courts across the country have put producers on the defensive. They've been forced to carry an unfair burden by being required to show the competitive harm to themselves, as well as to everyone in the industry. This is an almost impossible situation. This bill would put fairness into the system by making it so producers only have to prove competitive harm to themselves, or for the particular case in question."
Chances of passage? None. The same special interests which have effectively taken control of the GIPSA referees have also invested in key Congressman, who will see that the measure never comes up for a vote in Congress. They own GIPSA, they own the USDA, they own Congress. All that bull about how U.S. government works taught in civics class to children is illusion. School lessons on how government is supposed to work and how government actually works "are different things." The USDA Inspector General's reports, citing the failings of GIPSA, will change nothing. The USDA will review it and take whatever action is necessary to create the appearance of compliance without effecting any. GIPSA serves their purposes, creating illusions, providing them cover they can operate under. I commend the U.S. Senate for trying. Captive Supply of livestock will increase, not decrease, as it's value during tightened supply periods of livestock production cycles was impressed deeply into packer's wallets over recent months. They don't like competitive livestock's markets, and will do whatever is within their means to retain control of the referee, if there has to be one, so that competition is diminished or even suffocated, leaving them in control of price discovery.
The Picket Versus IBP suit essentially charged that USDA failed to enforce Packers and Stockyards Act statutes. The jury agreed. The judge changed the rules, instructing the jury to find under the more demanding standards of the Sherman and Clayton Act antitrust laws. When they did, the judge set aside the verdict, rendering jury trial pointless. The USDA's office of Inspector General recently released a scathing investigation of GIPSA enforcement of the P & S Act, confirming charges made in the Pickett suit, confirming the jury finding. Dr. Robert Taylor, who testified for the plaintiffs in the Pickett trial, quoted Thurman Arnold, who said, "The competitive struggle without effective antitrust enforcement is like a fight without a referee." He concluded, "It sure looks like cattlemen are in a fight without referees, judges are ignoring the plain language of the law, and overstepping their authority, and GIPSA is not enforcing the Packers & Stockyards Act."
It would appear that we have a choice: Either strike the P & S Act, eliminating the illusion now confirmed by the Inspector General of the agency's remiss livestock market oversight, or enforce the act as intended. The government has been paying current GIPSA referees to do nothing, at the behest of special interest groups within the industry, which abhor all regulatory oversight, seeing it as interference into the game they now control. In their interest, "owning the referee" was better than not having one, because of the way it looks to those on the outside of the industry. The referees were intended to level the playing field for all players, but the USDA Inspector General reported they were not only not watching the game, but making up phony reports they'd attended. GIPSA, as is currently being operated, is a total waste of taxpayer money. They should at least make the packing industry pay the referees, as they are making all calls one sided in their favor. In this fight, independent producers can be pummeled below the belt by unfair packer trade practices with punches approved by GIPSA. Any GIPSA referee wanting to call a fair fight was often "promoted" or "relieved of duty" by the industry captured agency.
Having failed in the courts, with the referee playing on the packer's team, cattlemen have one other recourse to force GIPSA P & S Act enforcement; that is new legislation. Senator's Tom Harkin, Mike Enzi, and Craig Thomas introduced the "competitive and fair agricultural markets act of 2006 co-sponsored by Chuck Grassley. "The act proposes several changes at USDA in response to a USDA Inspector General's report last month that said USDA officials were not enforcing the Packers & Stockyard's Act." Specifically, the legislation would "Establish a USDA Office of Special Council, whose responsibility will be to investigate and prosecute violations on competition matters; Strengthen producer protections by making it easier for producers to prove unfair actions by packers, without additional burdens of having to prove adverse affects on competition; Strengthen USDA's authority in enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act over the poultry industry, and making it more in line with livestock; Prohibit unfair or deceptive practices by a person that affects the marketing, receiving, purchasing, sale or contracting of agricultural commodities; Provide contract protections to ensure that the contract clearly spells out what is required of the producer. Producers would be given at least three days to review or cancel the contract. The legislation would prevent confidentiality clauses, so that producers are free to share the contract with family members or a lawyer to help them decide whether or not they should sign it. Producers would be protected from having their contracts prematurely terminated if they have made a sizeable capital investment. The legislation also prevents mandatory arbitration, so that companies do not prevent producers from going to the courts to speak out against unfair actions; Prevent discrimination against producers belonging to an organization or cooperative by removing a disclaimer clause allowing processors, handlers, or contractors to refuse to do business with producers just because they belong to such organizations."
"The proposed legislation would remove language in the PSA, making it easier for producers to prove unfair and deceptive market practices by packers. Recent actions by courts across the country have put producers on the defensive. They've been forced to carry an unfair burden by being required to show the competitive harm to themselves, as well as to everyone in the industry. This is an almost impossible situation. This bill would put fairness into the system by making it so producers only have to prove competitive harm to themselves, or for the particular case in question."
Chances of passage? None. The same special interests which have effectively taken control of the GIPSA referees have also invested in key Congressman, who will see that the measure never comes up for a vote in Congress. They own GIPSA, they own the USDA, they own Congress. All that bull about how U.S. government works taught in civics class to children is illusion. School lessons on how government is supposed to work and how government actually works "are different things." The USDA Inspector General's reports, citing the failings of GIPSA, will change nothing. The USDA will review it and take whatever action is necessary to create the appearance of compliance without effecting any. GIPSA serves their purposes, creating illusions, providing them cover they can operate under. I commend the U.S. Senate for trying. Captive Supply of livestock will increase, not decrease, as it's value during tightened supply periods of livestock production cycles was impressed deeply into packer's wallets over recent months. They don't like competitive livestock's markets, and will do whatever is within their means to retain control of the referee, if there has to be one, so that competition is diminished or even suffocated, leaving them in control of price discovery.
Thanks for answering the question for me. :roll: :roll: 