House Could Again Be Big Government Landmark

You may have noticed that our reflection of agriculture’s displeasure with the EPA has become a sentiment shared by enough citizens and businesses that politicians and the media – at least conservative media – have noticed.  Issues and principles that farmers and ranchers have argued for decades have finally become important to much of the rest of America.

 On Monday, Jan. 9, 2012, a case with far reaching implications for all will be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court, the first case this year for which oral arguments will be presented.  Just as a small pink house in Connecticut became the focus of private property rights in the Kelo case in 2005, a house not yet constructed in Idaho will again put the spotlight on property rights in 2012.  The case involves private property rights at a fundamental level and its favorable resolution could significantly bolster Americans’ rights, as they seek to get Constitutional rights back from a big government that has seized them.

 In 2008, an Idaho couple who purchased a lot in a platted subdivision already occupied with houses suddenly found the EPA telling them that not only were they forbidden to build a house on the lot but the substantial amount of gravel they had put on the lot must be removed.  The EPA had declared the lot that the county had given them a permit to build on a “wetlands.”  Michael and Chantell Sackett found out removing the gravel they’d already put on the lot would cost more than the lot itself.  On top of that, the EPA, unless they removed the gravel and returned the lot to its pristine state, would begin fining them $32,000 day.

 To add insult to injury, two levels of courts told the Sacketts they were not allowed to challenge the EPA in court.  Luckily for them – at least short-term – the Supreme Court is allowing them their day in court.  It is to be hoped that the Sacketts get justice much more in line with what Americans think are their rights under the Constituion than Susette Kelo did.

Published in: on January 9, 2012 at 12:07 am  Leave a Comment  

March Holds More Excitement Than Just Calving Time in 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has published its schedule for hearing cases in the next term.  As you may be aware, rather than the customary one-hour allowed for plaintiff and defense to present oral arguments before the Court, the cases regarding Obamacare have been allocated five-and-a-half hours of oral arguments.

 The most interesting and disturbing part of the arrangement is that the first day of argument – for one hour on March 26, 2012 — will be allocated to the question as to whether or not the Court can really examine this law.  There is an old 19th century law that forbids the Court from striking down a tax law before the taxpayer has paid the tax and then demanded a refund (“Supreme Court to hear arguments in March on healthcare law,” Los Angeles Times, 12/20/2011).  However, its applicability would be contingent on whether the penalty a taxpayer without approved health insurance would be assessed in 2014 is a tax or not.  Appellate courts have held various opinions.

It has to be somewhat encouraging the Court agreed to hear the case, as it would have been much easier for them to reject hearing the case at all if they truly believed they had no authority to act until the law went into effect.  We’re guessing they are more interested in laying groundwork for establishing that they do have the authority to hear the case.  We are not lawyers but we’ve got to think the Justices can find in the law somewhere an excuse to consider a law the implementation of which would require billions of dollars, has already caused major upheavals in the health care industry, has huge budget implications for all states and goes to the core of individual’s rights and responsibilities in our society.

 Certainly a potent case can be made that the good of the country – both with respect to proper spending of public funds and to the basic rights of citizens to be free from government compulsion – can be made by a Court that in recent decades has sanctioned judicial involvement in nearly every aspect of an individual American’s life.  The fiscal implications alone have seldom been more monumental outside of time of world war.

 The second day of arguments would devote two hours to the mandate portion of the bill.  The third day would consider both what affect the striking of the mandate would have on the rest of the law and whether the federal government violated states rights in expanding Medicaid and require states to increase funding.

Published in: on December 20, 2011 at 4:46 pm  Leave a Comment  

Our Congress At Work

Like a bunch of college kids putting off what everyone knows they are supposed to do, Congress is just now beginning the serious parrying and thrusting over budget issues with Christmas break looming.  Some folks like the idea of a split Congress, not minding the standoffs that keep things from advancing.  Politicians like Harry Reid don’t like it when he can’t ram through the things he wants to pass.  He rails about “partisanship” and “politics” when it blocks his legislation.  Of course, Harry’s idea of a compromise is typical of the left: compromise is when you give up what you want so that I can have what I want.  That’s why compromise is a dirty word to many conservatives.

 As for me, this year was always likely to be a year in which the best we could hope for – we being those who prefer the free market, limited government and a lower, revised tax structure – was delaying actions, much like a rear guard fighting off an advancing enemy while the rest of the army escaped to regroup.  In this case, the rest of the “army” is our economy, our country and our Constitution.  Much like we talked about in 2009-2010, the Party of No is the best answer to many of the ideas hatched in Congress in recent years.  It is a badge of honor.

 So how is the Christmas fight shaping up?

 As you’re probably aware, the two-percentage point Social Security payroll tax holiday expires at the end of the year.  So also do unemployment benefits for some folks who are reaching the end of their 99-week helping hand.  Congress has never solved its “doc fix” issue, so each year it has to renew a temporary extension or all the doctors providing care under Medicare or their reimbursement drops 27 percent next year.  All of these items are really just temporary pain medications, waiting for the physician to fix the economy and our health care problems.  Most Democrats and most Republicans – although somewhat reluctantly – would go along with these Band-Aids. 

 Of course, the Democrats have proven experts at spending – along with way too many Republicans – but they want to cover their spending by raising taxes on the “rich,” which is shaping up to be anybody who makes anything more than a decent water-treading wage.  The Democrats never talk about paying for any of their spending.  They only bring up paying when it comes to tax cuts they believe we cannot and should not afford.

 The Republicans had found other places to cut spending in order to cover the costs of things like extended unemployment benefits, many of them ideas Obama and the Democrats had advanced in precious discussion.  But as has been the case, when it comes to actually cutting spending, the Democrats refuse.

 The Republicans at least have taken note of the outrageous way the Obama administration has handled the Keystone XL pipeline affair and tied it up in the package to force Obama and the left to fish or cut bait on the pipeline.  It is incredible to what lengths this administration will go to further its environmental religion, no matter what the cost to our country, its economy and jobs.  I’m only surprised Obama didn’t send someone to South Africa to help craft and sign us on to a continuation of the Kyoto treaty.  Copenhagen and the global warming scandals seem to have taught the Obama administration nothing except they have to try harder domestically.

 I know some folks in Nebraska have some concerns about the pipeline route and the Sand Hills.  I understand the importance of the Ogallala aquifer.  I also know it varies in distance from surface to aquifer from hundreds of feet to bubbling out of the ground.  Keystone has offered to alter the route to avoid the Sand Hills and that should be allowed without another year or two of environmental “studies.”  They already have a pipeline through Nebraska that avoids the Sand Hills.

 The Senate has already torpedoed versions of balanced budget bills crafted from each party.  Noises coming out of Washington on Thursday made it sound like they were close to some deal on the “payroll deductions” bill.  Don’t hold your breath.  They also haven’t forged a budget deal to fund the government beyond Friday night – yes, Dec. 16, 2011 and they have had months to work on that.  After all, the Senate – supposedly chock full of the nation’s greatest statesmen – has not passed a budget in over 900 days.  The 1,200-page omnibus spending bill is rumored to arrive on Congressmen’s desks Thursday night for a Friday vote.  Sound familiar?

 A half-dozen government agencies have had their budgets passed and would not have to shut down.  Agriculture, for example, would continue operating.

 If you believe the pipeline will create lots of new jobs and bring oil from our friends in Canada a lot cheaper than floating it from the Middle East, now would be the time to contact your senator.  The enviros have talked about some spills the pipeline company who would be building the Keystone XL has had on other pipelines.  What you have to research is that the oil from all the spills would fit in a couple 5-gallon buckets.  That’s how inane our nation’s energy policy has become.  Forego 5-10,000 construction jobs and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of permanent jobs and a flow of oil to push energy our gas and diesel prices down on the green altar of “sacrifice” and higher costs and a weakened economy.

 At best, Obama’s call to delay the pipeline at least another year is like the Free Trade Agreements in which he willing gave up hundreds of millions of dollars to agriculture and manufacturing, tax revenue to the government and jobs to thousands of Americans on Big Labor’s altar for three years, only to cave in to election pressures later.  The money and the jobs can never be gotten back.  So it is with this pipeline.  So it is with the mCOOL law that everyone knows will have to be repealed or hundreds of millions in penalties paid, after the WTO ruled against the U.S.  But the money to the livestock meat production chain is gone forever.  That’s the best spin.  I can’t even tell you what the worst-case scenario of what Obama is trying to do.  It is horrible to contemplate.

 Don’t forget the final debate before primary voting begins is tonight, Thursday at 9:00 EST on the Fox News Channel.

Published in: on December 15, 2011 at 4:31 pm  Leave a Comment  

Catch Between Water & Dust Regs Eased A Bit

The tidal wave of opposition to federal regulation and, in particular, the EPA’s efforts to derail the economy is chipping away a bit at Lisa Jackson’s famous,  “Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead approach.”  With agriculture caught between Clean Water regulation that classified puddles as navigable waters and proposed dust regulation that would halt pickups and tractors when it was dry, Jackson has threatened the very existence of food production in the United States.

But with reelection pressures on the Obama adminstration added to years of complaints from farm and ranch groups, ridicule in public, pressure from Congressmen and the very real threat of shutting down rural activity, EPA Administrator Jackson is being forced to slow the engines a little. 

NCBA and the Public Lands Council reported Monday that EPA had decided to “retain the current coarse particulate matter (dust) standard,” rather than hold farm and ranch operations to a standard twice as stringent.  They pointed out that farmers and ranchers would have faced the choice to operate and risk enormous fines and insolvency or shutting down.  Simply driving a pickup down a country gravel road would have exceeded proposed dust limits.

NCBA’s Bill Donald complained that farmers and ranchers should not be at risk to some federal dust standard in the first place.  The potential for EPA to ratchet down the standards is always there.

So Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Ne.) and Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) have introduced a bill that would essentially exempt farmers and ranchers from federal dust regulation as long as state and local governments regulate it (H.R. 1633).  Over 125 organizations signed a letter of support for the bill sent to the House Energy and Power Subcomittee.

This issue is not dead as long as EPA can change its mind under federal authority any time in the future.  But this issue reminds everyone that public pressure from producers in an industry, added to Congressional pressure and the threat of retaliation at the polls can have an impact on federal agencies and elected officials.  It is why political interest and activity is important for all involved in food production.

Published in: on October 18, 2011 at 11:16 am  Leave a Comment  

Free Trade Agreements on Cusp?

After five frustrating years of waiting and delays, the White House and Congressional leaders have reportedly worked out an agreement that would have the White House sending the three Free Trade Agreements (FTA) to Congress any day now.

A compromise deal on voting on the three FTAs and the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program one after the other has apparently been thrashed out.  The Wall Street Journal reported House Speaker John Boehner wanted to move the three FTAs and the TAA bill in tandem through the House (“Disputed Trade Pacts Advance,” 10/03/11.)  The Senate has already passed a compromise version of the TAA, with fewer weeks of unemployment compensation and a lower percentage of health care deductability.  Under the deal worked out, the House would vote separately on the three FTAs and the TAA and then send the FTAs to the Senate.

The Democrats want separate votes on each of the three FTAs so that more of them can vote against the deals with Panama and Colombia, as union opposition to those deals is stronger.  Union opposition, of course, is primarily what has stalled the FTAs since the Bush Administration negotiated them five years ago.  The Democratic Senate and House refused to consider the agreements then, and President Obama refused to sign them after his election.  In fact, he insisted on re-negotiating them with the three countries, adding things union backers wanted into the agreements.

The deputy chief of staff at the AFL-CIO Thea Lee called the FTAs even with these changes “bad agreements,” according to the Journal.

But as even President Obama publicly acknowledged that the agreements would generate economic revenue and jobs and his re-election chances dimmed under weak economic growth and high unemployment, movement on the pacts renewed.  In the meantime, new trade pacts between the EU and South Korea and between Canada and Colombia took effect over the summer, further putting American companies at competitive disadvantages.

Once the president actually sends the FTAs to Congress, it has 90 days to vote on them.  But with South Korea’s President Lee Myung-bak coming for a state visit Oct. 13, there is incentive to get a vote accomplished by then.  The House has agreed to hustle up hearings on the bills straight away in order to speed the process up.

The FTAs are estimated to be worth $13 billion in trade annually and generate hundreds of thousands of jobs.  With agricultural commodities, machinery and chemicals as well as financial services, legal and health care industries and the auto industry set to benefit from the FTAs, it is a measure of the labor unions sway in Washington that the Journal reports these deals as “controversial.”  We haven’t seen any projections as to how the voting will go but we hope that the crying need for growth and jobs obvious even to the most hardened Democratic Congressional members, will motivate them to vote for the long-awaited FTAs to increase the chances of saving their own skin.

Published in: on October 3, 2011 at 11:12 am  Leave a Comment  

Dangerous or Fantastic New Trend or Overload?

In a move described differently depending on whose ox is being gored, the EPA announced late last week that it will delay the release of new proposed restrictions on greenhouse gases affecting electicity-generating power plants, restrictions that would drive up the cost of electricity.

Coming on the heels of the “ozone rule” delay noted in our last post, the delay has enviromental zealots seeing a “dangerous trend” and decrying pressure from “antienvironmentalists,” (“EPA Again Delays Greenhouse-Gas Rule,” Wall Street Journal, 09/15/11).

Did you get that?  If you think it is neither wise nor necessary to keep cranking down restrictions regarding clean air and water until they make production, power and breathing neither practical or affordable, you are an “antienvironmentalist.”  Conservatives — cattlemen among them — are often heard reminding people that no one is against clean air and clean water.  But the envirozealots don’t buy it.  Oppose their extreme views and you are an “antienvironmentalist.

We see the delay as evidence that pressure from business and industry, from electrical power generators and purveyors of common sense (voters) is at last having some impact on the White House and government agencies.  Activists claim that “political” pressure is partially responsible and that is a trend that they consider dangerous.  Of course, “political” means having to do with voters and elections  and the activists certainly don’t want that.  Elitist envirozealots — believers in the manmade global warming/climate change religion — want EPA actions limited to their far reaching imaginations, their lawsuits and deals made by courts with them, certainly not with average Joe voters.  Voters might object to paying ruinous prices for electricity or fuel or food caused by overzealous regulations. 

Even the New York Times called the delay a “tacit admission that the regulations pose political, economic and technical challenges that cannot be addressed on the aggressive timetable that the agency set for itself early in the Obama administration,” (“EPA Plans Delay of Rule on Emissions,” 09/13/11).  One wonders exactly what the Times means in its camouflaged language — “economic challenges” — posed by the rules.  Does that mean the rules will cost consumers a bundle and we should ask them first?  Or does it mean — as other rules and legislation have been handled by the Obama administration — that they need to slip these things in before consumers/voters realize what’s going on?

The activists and even some attorneys for the “other side” claim another part of the problem is that EPA has just bit off more than it can chew.  This delay was announced by EPA’s Lisa Jackson, not imposed by the President.  So some say EPA is working on so many regulations it can’t even meet its own deadlines.  Given that various sources point to EPA having nearly 16,000 to 18,000 employees beavering away, that should scare the average producer or taxpayer to death.

One attorney noted that the greenhouse gas rule would only force expensive modifications to existing coal fired power plants.  The upcoming “mercury rule” would likely have a bigger impact, expected to force the shutdown of older coal-fired plants totally, according to Jeffery Holmstead, an attorney at Bracewell & Giuliani and former EPA official (“EPA Delays Its Greenhouse-Gas Rules,” Washington Post, 09/15/11.)  Yes, Washington can contemplate even worse things yet to come.

Whether this is a trend that can be continued or just a couple of lucky breaks remains to be seen.  But it does offer agriculture and business some hope that political pressure can have some impact on the political left and the activists who would prefer no industry and no affordable food to get that last little microparticle of pollution out of everything on, above or below earth.

Published in: on September 19, 2011 at 6:21 pm  Leave a Comment  

A Glimmer of Hope?

Just a glimmer that someone in this administration has a clue  —  but we’ll take it.

 Yes, President Obama made a decision late last week to pull back one – yes, just one – but actually pull back one of the EPA’s proposed clean air rules.  It’s not one of the ones you’re thinking of  —  like “fugitive dust” or power plant regulations that would skyrocket electric costs.  It’s a rule that would have further ratcheted down the levels of ozone permitted in most of the country’s air.

 EPA has taken a lot of flack over the rule from cities and counties that are supposed to “manage” their air quality so that there is no more than 75 ppm (yes, that’s parts per million) of ozone.  But we see this – cynics that we are – as a strategic election campaign decision.  The envirozealots can’t too credibly accuse Obama of serious neglect of our air because they are already enforcing strict limits and everyone knows the air in cities and towns is much cleaner than decades ago.  But the standards to which EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wants to hold counties to now  —  0.60 – 0.70 ppm  —  is, for multiple reasons, not in touch with reality.

 Of course, the Land of Make-Believe is where Jackson permanently presides.  But the facts are even EPA’s own rosy projections show this rule could cost $90 billion, would halt any expansion or job creation in most of the country and, according to the Heritage Foundation, require technology that doesn’t even exist.  The Wall Street Journal reports that the new standard would put 85 percent of the country’s counties out of compliance (628 of 736), which forces utilities, businesses and agricultural operations to shelve expansion plans (“Obama in the Ozone,” 09/02/11).

 In what sounds like a comedy skit by Jay Leno or Dennis Miller, the Journal article notes that the map for the 0.60 standard shows the only states in compliance would be South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Maine.  By Obama’s notorious states-in-the-union reckoning, that would put 56 states out of compliance and surely, even he can figure out that would anger more voters than he can afford to alienate.

 Color me skeptical, as Miller would say, but while important, this does look like a political bone tossed in the direction of nearly non-existent growth and an August jobs report showing zero growth last month.  After all, Obama knows this rule will come up for review again in 2013.  We’re skeptical Obama will propose whacking very many more rules.  According to former Congressman Bob Beuprez, there are only 4,199 more proposed rules and regs for Obama to deep six.  Wonder how many more he’ll propose ditching in his big speech Thursday?

Published in: on September 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm  Leave a Comment  

Hopes for Improved Japanese Access Dashed Again

Hopes for negotiating changes to the beef trading rules with Japan were dealt yet another setback Friday, as the Japanese prime minister indicated he will step down as party leader and, therefore, prime minister.  The U.S. beef industry had hoped that the 20-month rule could soon be negotiated to a near world-standard beef from 30-month-old animals, based on science regarding BSE.

 But political turmoil in Japan has now yielded six prime ministers in five years and even more agricultural ministers.  Even an aggressive effort by U.S. negotiators would have been hard pressed to deal with such constant change, much less an Obama administration that can’t even figure out who’s on first with the free trade agreements (FTA) already negotiated and ready for the President’s signature.  Last week two administration officials blamed the FTA’s delay on Congress, when the documents have languished on the president’s desk since inauguration.

 The Japanese Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) will vote on a new party leader Monday and, most likely, a new prime minister will be confirmed Tuesday by the Japanese parliament, according to the Wall Street Journal (“Japan’s Kan Steps Down as Party Chief,” Sat./Sun 8/27-28/11).  Prime Minister Kan, who has held the office for 14 months, has been attacked on all sides for his handling of the triple disasters of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster and confessed in his final speech that he knew his talents were unequal to the task of leadership during the nuclear crisis.  He got off to a rocky start to his term by proposing an increase in the consumption tax to pare down debt, a politically unpopular move.

 Five different men are expected to declare their candidacy for the prime minister’s post, so prognosticating on beef industry negotiating chances would be difficult now.  Paradoxically, one of the problems that beset Prime Minister Kan is being soft-pedaled by the candidates jockeying for position this weekend, the Journal said.  In a nation with few other means of generating electrical power, many Japanese citizens have turned against nuclear power since the disaster and a number of plants around the country have still not been restarted, starving industry for power.

 While U.S. beef exports to Japan have been steadily growing, they are still far below 2003 levels before the BSE scare and trade is hampered by the 20-month rule.  Packers can only ship beef from 20-month or younger cattle and, therefore, have to source and verify eligible animals for the Japanese trade.  That means many animals cannot be identified as eligible.

 Ironically, this writer thought eligibility for the lucrative Japanese market would be the incentive that would finally push many producers into the extra effort to individually identify and tag animals and keep the necessary records to qualify for Japan.  While some have made some extra money that way, many producers still view individual ID and traceability  — and the connected premiums  —  as something they are too busy to deal with.

 Meanwhile, the political revolving door whirls in Japan.

Published in: on August 27, 2011 at 6:22 pm  Comments (1)  

President Dysfunction

President Obama referred to Washington’s inability to handle the debt limit “crisis” as the government proving “dysfunctional.”

That depends on your perspective.  The conservative and/or disgusted voters who sent a whole raft of lawmakers to, mostly the House, have got to be happy their members are functioning exactly as they were directed  — to not cave in on new taxes and on cutting expenses now.  The main problem becoming evident, even more so than Reid and Pelosi, is President Dysfunction himself.  He has indicated he will veto any bill sent him that doesn’t raise taxes.  Even the left holds a number of Senators and House members who do have to run for re-election next year and they see the “tea leaves” lining up on the side of cutting spending more and more.  Increasingly, the image is of a President on an ice floe drifting away, looking increasingly lonely as he still blames everything on Bush.

Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal and Peter Morici, economist at the University of Maryland and former International Trade Commission chief economist had an interesting conversation about the downgrading of U.S. treasury instruments with Martha McCallum on Fox News Tuesday (7/26/11).  Regarding the U.S. losing its AAA rating, Moore said its going to happen regardless of when or what kind of deal gets done in Washington, given the horrendous spending and debt load.  He and Morici agreed that its hard to tell how important the downgrade will be.  It’s not really the rating services that decide.  It’s the investors through the market who decide how much interest they will demand.  Interest rates on T-bills have actually been going down lately, Moore said.

Morici noted that Standard & Poors has outlined a set of requirements to keep our AAA rating that “it’s clear this President is not willing to accept and Congress will not countenance.”

But the saving grace, at least for now, given the world economic situation a la Greece, Spain and Italy, as Moore expressed it is, “If U.S. Treasuries are not AAA, what is?”  He noted that Japan lost its AAA rating earlier this year and nothing happened.

Morici had some tart words for those blaming the economic situation on President Bush.  In 2007, despite two wars and the prescription drug benefit, the deficit was $161 billion.  Then the Democrat Congress, led by Pelosi and Reid took over, Obama came along to help and now the deficit is 10 times that amount annually.  Pelosi-Obama-Reid created this deficit, Morici said.  By comparison, Bush paid for his policies.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who was Budget Committee chairman when budget battles happened in 1997, warned that the Republicans need to insist on real front end spending cuts to entitlements, not some promise that a committee will do it later.  He wouldn’t take deals like cutting tax rates for everybody while closing some loopholes off the table too easily.

Fox’s Neil Cavuto asked Kasich about the rumors that even while President Obama is telling Americans that America won’t make its debt payments or threatening seniors with the possibility of no checks, White House officials are privately telling Wall Street types that the debt will be serviced.

Kasich replied the American people don’t like a president who demagogues them about debt payments and scares seniors and then tells bond people they’ll get paid.

Published in: on July 26, 2011 at 11:57 pm  Leave a Comment  

Updates on Livestock Marketing Freedom

Recent days have seen two developments regarding livestock producers’ freedom to market livestock the way they feel they can produce the best products for customers and have the best profit potential.

Following up on a letter sent to USDA signed by nearly 150 Congressmen protesting the proposed GIPSA Rule, the House Appropriations Committee and then the full House passed a USDA FY 2012 appropriations bill that specifically denies GIPSA funding for implementing the GIPSA Rule.  The Rule would severely hamper or destroy many branded meat programs and alliances that livestock producers, feeders, packers, retailers and food service operators participate in to deliver products to consumers more specifically tailored to their desires, whether higher quality or “natural” or “organic.”  The Rule would make it much more problematic for packers to pay premiums for higher quality livestock, subject them to more lawsuits and restrict some feedyard companies to selling livestock to only one packer instead of across the market.

The letter from the Congressmen pointed out that GIPSA was trying to impose restrictions that had been voted down by Congress in the last Farm Bill debate.

We see GIPSA doing what seems to be regarded by federal agencies as Standard Operating Procedure today– to go as far beyond the agency’s specific regulatory authority as the agencies activist leadership thinks its lawyers can defend in liberal courts.

Along those lines, Sen. Enzi from Wyoming has re-introduced his bill trying to establish some of the same restrictions everyone is criticizing in the GIPSA Rule into effect by Congressional action.  Enzi has been an opponent of innovation in livestock marketing, preferring to restrict cattlemen and packers to the methods of bygone eras.  Sen. Grassley from Iowa has also signed on to the bill.

Published in: on June 20, 2011 at 2:44 pm  Leave a Comment  
%d bloggers like this: