NAIS- M ID is Government by Proxy

[Anonymous]

It is the government granting governing power to a private organization.

Well they did it for the Check-off, won't even let others that have a lower bid get the bid.

rancher-I sent a letter to our Senators and Congressman outlining my disapproval in USDA's move to give the Mandatory ID to a Political Lobbying Group. I mentioned the split NCBA has created in the cattle industry with their domination of and questionable management of the Beef Checkoff and my fear that we will lose the Checkoff because of it....Since neither NCBA or the Beef Board wants to come public with this "little bidding snafu" or the reasoning behind it that caused cattle producers to lose $850,000 of their free speach tax dollars, I asked them if they would look into it...See if I get any response....

 

[mrj]

IMO, threats of Fascism, and claims of it, often are thrown about by those who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum.......wanting more government involvement....and fearing private enterprise and competition in business....seeming to prefer Socialism, or at least something very close to it.......MRJ}

Interesting how you are the one wanting to expand the power of government here. Just because somebody decided to call it "privatization" doesn't mean it is. Where is the "free enterprise and competition" in this proposal? That's the point of the article. It is the government granting governing power to a private organization. It would be the same if they did it for R-CALF or for the AFL-CIO. You seem willing to give such authority to "good" organizations but not "bad" ones. NO private entity should have governing power. This is government by proxy.

It, more accurately, is the government contracting out work. They do it frequently. Look at the contract workers on military bases. Look at the SDSGA contract to do the Brand Inspections in SD. (Which, BTW, requires "forced association" with R-CALF by those who do not support that organization, but must use the Brand Inspection program) Look at clean-up and rebuilding efforts on the Gulf Coast. Goverment contracts for work abound. Some accomplish the work more efficiently and economically, while others are probably worse than what the bureaucracy itself would do, IMO.

MRJ

 

[Murgen]

NIAI survey
In examining respondents that categorize his or her self as a producer or producer/farm/commodity association executive, 62 percent disagree or strongly disagree with the move to propagate a privately managed database

Maybe I don't fully understand!

Producers are upset that any National ID program is privately run, but then turn around and call the organization that is contracted for the program "Government by Proxy"

Wouldn't they want this? An organization that they believe to be influenced by government, independently responsible for expenses. But still under the "proxy" thumb of government control?

 

[Anonymous]

Hello, my name is R-CALF clone. Last year I insisted on proving where the beef sold in America was born raised and slaughtered. After forgetting about that thought for a moment, I also claimed that USDA does not care about food safety. Just last month I voted against a mandatory ID program to prove where beef is born, raised and slaughtered. Today I want the USDA to run the program and to run the flawed "M"COOL program as well even though yesterday I said they didn't care about food safety.

You don't see any contradictions in my position do you? Hahaha!

USDA does not care about food safety.
Consumers have a right to know where their beef comes from.
Don't burden me with traceback.
I vote against Mandatory ID.
I want USDA to enforce "M"ID, not the free enterprise system.

Black, no white, no black, no white.
Striped, no spotted, no striped, no spotted.

R-CALF: "Don't remind me today of what I said yesterday".



~SH~

 

[mrj]

It is the government granting governing power to a private organization.

Well they did it for the Check-off, won't even let others that have a lower bid get the bid.

rancher-I sent a letter to our Senators and Congressman outlining my disapproval in USDA's move to give the Mandatory ID to a Political Lobbying Group. I mentioned the split NCBA has created in the cattle industry with their domination of and questionable management of the Beef Checkoff and my fear that we will lose the Checkoff because of it....Since neither NCBA or the Beef Board wants to come public with this "little bidding snafu" or the reasoning behind it that caused cattle producers to lose $850,000 of their free speach tax dollars, I asked them if they would look into it...See if I get any response....

OT, if your Senators and Congressmen have any integrity, they will understand that NCBA did NOT create any split in the cattle industry. NCBA's cattle producer members were tending to business when they were ATTACKED by a group of LMA leaders via "informational" meetings held in several states where false information about Checkoff money and NCBA was fed to unsuspecting stay at home ranchers.

BTW, OT, would you share with us a copy of an NCBA letter that was "lobbying politicians to get USDA to kill the petition"? I do not believe you can find one. There certainly were some members dong our best to correct the lies and mis-information being disseminated by the LMA side of that effort, but we really couldn't keep up with them! USDA did NOT kill the petitions. LMA did that themselves by using fraudulent practices in conning people into signing the petitions. Like names on the petition of people who did NOT own cattle, but thought they were signing up to win a free pair of boots or something else. And by convincing ranchers of the lies about NCBA and/or the Beef checkoff. CBB was even prevented by USDA from publishing information to correct lies and mis-information told to ranchers about the checkoff by LMA in their zeal for more signatures on their petitions. The independent auditing company verifying signatures on those petitions found that there clearly were not signatures of people owning cattle as little as one day of the year they signed it.

Porker, what makes you believe that NCBA has any plans to run that program, thus necessitating having "people that can program and do that"? Who from NCBA has said that they will, or even WANT to, have ANY control of the proposed program? They are working for the good of the cattle industry for a workable program that will do us the least harm while maximizing possible benefits for those ranchers who wish to avail themselves of such.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Porker, what makes you believe that NCBA has any plans to run that program, thus necessitating having "people that can program and do that"? Who from NCBA has said that they will, or even WANT to, have ANY control of the proposed program? They are working for the good of the cattle industry for a workable program that will do us the least harm while maximizing possible benefits for those ranchers who wish to avail themselves of such.

MRJ

MRJ- NCBA historically thru the Check Off has already shown that they want to control and gain from anything they "contract"..Please explain to us this $850,000 discrepency in a a bid that according to the Checkoff Board members explanation to Sandhusker was awarded because of what sounds to me like the "they are our good old boys" policy...

Now I know to Bank owners like you, or people working out of Penthouse offices, $850,000 isn't much- but to an old cowboy thats a little more than pocket change....Rather than donating it to NCBA to use for their next open waterhole at convention or for their next recruitment dog and pony show, those $850,000 that could have been saved by going to the lower bidder could go a long way in promoting beef--And if NCBA hadn't been bought out by the Big Business, promoting U.S. BEEF.....

 

[Murgen]

And if NCBA hadn't been bought out by the Big Business, promoting U.S. BEEF.....

Promoting US beef, that's a bad thing, right?

 

[Anonymous]

Promoting US beef, that's a bad thing, right?

I guess if you live in Australia it is......

 

[Sandhusker]

And if NCBA hadn't been bought out by the Big Business, promoting U.S. BEEF.....

Promoting US beef, that's a bad thing, right?

You're half right, Murgen, it's a bad thing to do here, but a good thing to do abroad.

 

[ocm]

IMO, threats of Fascism, and claims of it, often are thrown about by those who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum.......wanting more government involvement....and fearing private enterprise and competition in business....seeming to prefer Socialism, or at least something very close to it.......MRJ}

Interesting how you are the one wanting to expand the power of government here. Just because somebody decided to call it "privatization" doesn't mean it is. Where is the "free enterprise and competition" in this proposal? That's the point of the article. It is the government granting governing power to a private organization. It would be the same if they did it for R-CALF or for the AFL-CIO. You seem willing to give such authority to "good" organizations but not "bad" ones. NO private entity should have governing power. This is government by proxy.

It, more accurately, is the government contracting out work. They do it frequently. Look at the contract workers on military bases. Look at the SDSGA contract to do the Brand Inspections in SD. (Which, BTW, requires "forced association" with R-CALF by those who do not support that organization, but must use the Brand Inspection program) Look at clean-up and rebuilding efforts on the Gulf Coast. Goverment contracts for work abound. Some accomplish the work more efficiently and economically, while others are probably worse than what the bureaucracy itself would do, IMO.

MRJ

Government contracting out work????? That's a joke. Yes, the government does it all the time. There is absolutely no contract here. The elements of a contract are missing.
No meeting of the minds.
No "consideration" (money or something of value changing hands.)
Further there was no process that normally should take place in government contracting. No published specifications. No bidding process. And the "consortium" this "contract" as you call is supposedly with does not even exist yet.

No, the USDA just anointed someone to do the program. By the way, just how are the operators going to get paid? By collecting fees (taxes-since it is government mandated). Fees not specifically authorized by any representative body. No referendum (like the checkoff). No accountability.


If this were a case of a competitively bid contract, you might have an argument--but it isn't.

 

[ocm]

NIAI survey
In examining respondents that categorize his or her self as a producer or producer/farm/commodity association executive, 62 percent disagree or strongly disagree with the move to propagate a privately managed database

Maybe I don't fully understand!

Producers are upset that any National ID program is privately run, but then turn around and call the organization that is contracted for the program "Government by Proxy"

Wouldn't they want this? An organization that they believe to be influenced by government, independently responsible for expenses. But still under the "proxy" thumb of government control?

First off there is no government contract in the normal sense of it. The organization anointed to run the program would do so as if it were a government agency. Also the organization would not only be responsible for expenses, but also for revenue. That is a sanctioned monopoly. That is a private entity functioning as a governmental entity, not as a governmental contractor.

The poll question was asked to a different group. And the context and concern are different. The issue covered by the question is the concern about the privacy of the data if a private entity runs the program.

 

[PORKER]

MRJ QUOTE;Porker,
what makes you believe that NCBA has any plans to run that program,
GEE,every press release says SO.

thus necessitating having "people that can program and do that"?
What does Bearing Point DO,make paper airplanes?

Who from NCBA has said that they will,
GEE,every NCBA press release says SO.

or even WANT to,
have ANY control of the proposed program?
Does NCBA know the CHICKEN business?

One other thing is the engineers that run the ID database should all be sworn to sercery by the feds and have a FBI clearence and be a disinterested party to any specises group including CATTLE....

I don't think they(NCBA) could but maybe you could prove them otherwise!

 

[mrj]

MRJ QUOTE;Porker,
what makes you believe that NCBA has any plans to run that program,
GEE,every press release says SO.

thus necessitating having "people that can program and do that"?
What does Bearing Point DO,make paper airplanes?

Who from NCBA has said that they will,
GEE,every NCBA press release says SO.

or even WANT to,
have ANY control of the proposed program?
Does NCBA know the CHICKEN business?

One other thing is the engineers that run the ID database should all be sworn to sercery by the feds and have a FBI clearence and be a disinterested party to any specises group including CATTLE....

I don't think they(NCBA) could but maybe you could prove them otherwise!

You will have to cut and paste one of those "NCBA press releases" because I read many of them and have NEVER seen ONE that says they have any intention of "running" the NAIS program.

I have read many press releases indicating NCBA believes there should be a consortium of groups or organizations of people producing all the affected species involved in NAIS that will run the program.

MRJ

 

[PORKER]

I will do just That!

 

[mrj]

Interesting how you are the one wanting to expand the power of government here. Just because somebody decided to call it "privatization" doesn't mean it is. Where is the "free enterprise and competition" in this proposal? That's the point of the article. It is the government granting governing power to a private organization. It would be the same if they did it for R-CALF or for the AFL-CIO. You seem willing to give such authority to "good" organizations but not "bad" ones. NO private entity should have governing power. This is government by proxy.[/quote

It, more accurately, is the government contracting out work. They do it frequently. Look at the contract workers on military bases. Look at the SDSGA contract to do the Brand Inspections in SD. (Which, BTW, requires "forced association" with R-CALF by those who do not support that organization, but must use the Brand Inspection program) Look at clean-up and rebuilding efforts on the Gulf Coast. Goverment contracts for work abound. Some accomplish the work more efficiently and economically, while others are probably worse than what the bureaucracy itself would do, IMO.

MRJ

Government contracting out work????? That's a joke. Yes, the government does it all the time. There is absolutely no contract here. The elements of a contract are missing.
No meeting of the minds.
No "consideration" (money or something of value changing hands.)
Further there was no process that normally should take place in government contracting. No published specifications. No bidding process. And the "consortium" this "contract" as you call is supposedly with does not even exist yet.

No, the USDA just anointed someone to do the program. By the way, just how are the operators going to get paid? By collecting fees (taxes-since it is government mandated). Fees not specifically authorized by any representative body. No referendum (like the checkoff). No accountability.


If this were a case of a competitively bid contract, you might have an argument--but it isn't.

I believe you have the cart before the horse here. Where did you read that USDA has "anointed" anyone, much less NCBA (as I believe you imply)?

Possibly, I mis-lead you a bit in stating "it is the gov't contracting out work". What I meant, since no contract has been awarded, is that, should this consortium carrying out NAIS requirements happen, it WOULD BE contracting, IN EFFECT, to do the work for the government. Nothing like that has happened as yet, and my mistake was in thinking everyone knew that.

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that NCBA is working to present a model, or pilot project, WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. With the objective of demonstrating that it can be done. BTW, my understanding is that there are other organizations involved in that, not just NCBA.

The NCBA goal, I believe, is NOT for NCBA to run, manage, or operate the program, should the pilot project be successful, but that a NEW group comprised of REPRESENTATIVES from ALL species requiring identification under NAIS. That group and or government would determine who would pay and how. It would operate as a non-profit organization to keep costs as low as possible.

MRJ

 

[mrj]

Porker, what makes you believe that NCBA has any plans to run that program, thus necessitating having "people that can program and do that"? Who from NCBA has said that they will, or even WANT to, have ANY control of the proposed program? They are working for the good of the cattle industry for a workable program that will do us the least harm while maximizing possible benefits for those ranchers who wish to avail themselves of such.

MRJ

MRJ- NCBA historically thru the Check Off has already shown that they want to control and gain from anything they "contract"..Please explain to us this $850,000 discrepency in a a bid that according to the Checkoff Board members explanation to Sandhusker was awarded because of what sounds to me like the "they are our good old boys" policy...

Now I know to Bank owners like you, or people working out of Penthouse offices, $850,000 isn't much- but to an old cowboy thats a little more than pocket change....Rather than donating it to NCBA to use for their next open waterhole at convention or for their next recruitment dog and pony show, those $850,000 that could have been saved by going to the lower bidder could go a long way in promoting beef--And if NCBA hadn't been bought out by the Big Business, promoting U.S. BEEF.....

None of you who are claiming there is an $850,000.00 "discrepancy" in a bid has offered anything as proof of such. I know that people in the CBB office have tried to figure out what you are talking about, and the numbers and the tale do not add up to anything they have knowledge of. Unless your friend providing the inside information making that claim wants to give some specifics, how can any malfeasance, IF IT EXISTS, be addressed?

Topping that, however, is the fact that there is clearly NO WAY for NCBA to profit on those contracts. You are blaming NCBA. You do not say whether you refer to the Dues/Policy division, or to the Federation of State Beef Councils division, which, FINANCIALLY, is NOT connected to the Dues/Policy division. It is the Federation of State Beef Councils that gets the contracts, NOT the Dues/Policy division. Even if it was the Dues/Policy division, how would they benefit from a contract that allows ONLY the recovery of ACTUAL COSTS of work for the contracted project?

Your personal attack on me is ridiculous. You apparently have been told I own a bank. Were you also told that there are more than a hundred people having ownership in that same bank? Big deal, huh! And bank ownership is rather like ranching.......the payoff is when you sell out......and we don't have any plans for doing that to the people who depend on a local bank.

I most certainly do appreciate the value of $850,000.00.......however I am beginning to think that is a complete fabrication........until someone shows some facts that can be checked out. Actually, any bar at conventions are either sponsored by those agribusinesses you love to hate, or are cash bars. NO checkoff dollars there! BTW, is it ALWAYS good business to go with the lowest bidder? I don't think so! Not without checking it out, to assure they are for comparable achievement.

Isn't it really time to put up, or shut up, on this subject? State what the project was, who the "low bidder" was, etc.? That is the only way to truly find the truth of the matter.

MRJ

 

[ocm]

Government contracting out work????? That's a joke. Yes, the government does it all the time. There is absolutely no contract here. The elements of a contract are missing.
No meeting of the minds.
No "consideration" (money or something of value changing hands.)
Further there was no process that normally should take place in government contracting. No published specifications. No bidding process. And the "consortium" this "contract" as you call is supposedly with does not even exist yet.

No, the USDA just anointed someone to do the program. By the way, just how are the operators going to get paid? By collecting fees (taxes-since it is government mandated). Fees not specifically authorized by any representative body. No referendum (like the checkoff). No accountability.


If this were a case of a competitively bid contract, you might have an argument--but it isn't.

I believe you have the cart before the horse here. Where did you read that USDA has "anointed" anyone, much less NCBA (as I believe you imply)?

Possibly, I mis-lead you a bit in stating "it is the gov't contracting out work". What I meant, since no contract has been awarded, is that, should this consortium carrying out NAIS requirements happen, it WOULD BE contracting, IN EFFECT, to do the work for the government. Nothing like that has happened as yet, and my mistake was in thinking everyone knew that.

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that NCBA is working to present a model, or pilot project, WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. With the objective of demonstrating that it can be done. BTW, my understanding is that there are other organizations involved in that, not just NCBA.

The NCBA goal, I believe, is NOT for NCBA to run, manage, or operate the program, should the pilot project be successful, but that a NEW group comprised of REPRESENTATIVES from ALL species requiring identification under NAIS. That group and or government would determine who would pay and how. It would operate as a non-profit organization to keep costs as low as possible.

MRJ

No matter how you cut it, there will be a problem of freedom of association. That is guaranteed to be challenged in court, if not in the discussion beforehand. NCBA was the ONLY organization promoting a single private database. USDA went for it. So far the Holstein people have joined. Consortium? Hardly.

Why is NCBA spending money on this? Out of the goodness of their heart? What will they get for their investment?

You should also know that the claim (that I have seen elsewhere) that NCBA is working with breed organizations and with states to make sure the plan is compatible, is a bogus claim. I know states that know nothing about this, states where the broad plan that has been announced contradicts existing state law. How will they get around that kind of thing?

 

[PORKER]

NCBA was the ONLY organization promoting a single private database. WRONG

Just one minute here.

NCBA asked the leading National ID companies back in MAY for their proposals to run a RFID database for cattle for them.Everyone knows those databases have a few million cattle here in the US and some are everday companies.Alan Bright of NCBA was the lead person of the tech group and now after they have looked at all the RFP's of those companys they want to be the lead company to build some database they probably copyed from those companys. I doubt their true intentions .

 

[ocm]

NCBA was the ONLY organization promoting a single private database. WRONG

Just one minute here.

NCBA asked the leading National ID companies back in MAY for their proposals to run a RFID database for cattle for them.Everyone knows those databases have a few million cattle here in the US and some are everday companies.Alan Bright of NCBA was the lead person of the tech group and now after they have looked at all the RFP's of those companys they want to be the lead company to build some database they probably copyed from those companys. I doubt their true intentions .

Please clarify for me. I'm not sure we are disagreeing. I said NCBA is the only ORGANIZATION--not corporation. By that I mean it was the only LIVESTOCK organization promoting the idea of a single government sanctioned database. Several tag manufacturers (not in the category I call organizations) had similar ideas but they were not backed by a livestock organization. Are we on the same page?

 

[PORKER]

OCM Quote;By that I mean it was the only LIVESTOCK organization promoting the idea of a single government sanctioned database.

********Alot of the smaller species groups didn't have a database and had promoted a single database without gov. intervention and had worked with other companies that done all the species including fowl.


Several tag manufacturers (not in the category I call organizations) had similar ideas but they were not backed by a livestock organization.

******Backing or NOT ,Did they even have the qualified personal to build a database that handles data in real time and most databases from the orgs. clash when you try to hook them together,just ask DHIA or the Canadians as they each use the wrong computer codes as I have been Told.


Are we on the same page?******PLEASE REREAD the COMMENT BELOW

NCBA asked the leading National ID companies back in MAY for their proposals to run a RFID database for cattle for them.Everyone knows those databases have a few million cattle here in the US and some are everday companies.Alan Bright of NCBA was the lead person of the tech group and now after they have looked at all the RFP's of those companys they want to be the lead company to build some database they probably copyed from those companys. I still doubt their true intentions .