The Daily Skunk

If interested in the farm subsidy database, see http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/ 

The following is an excerpt from http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/whatstheplan.php 

As we near the end of the costliest decade in the 70-year history of government farm subsidies, a new update to the Environmental Working Group’s farm subsidy database finds that taxpayers have spent more than $131 billion on federal farm programs over the past nine years. The total includes $16.4 billion spent during 2003, the fourth highest amount over the nine years and a 27 percent increase over 2002. Surges in disaster payments and commodity subsidies drove the increase, along with a modest expansion in conservation spending (see U.S. subsidy summary).
To put this expenditure in perspective, for the money taxpayers have provided in commodity and disaster subsidies alone over this period (88 percent of the total), not counting $16 billion in conservation payments, we could have bought 25 percent or more of all the farms in 302 counties–land, barns, farmhouses and all. In 47 counties where agriculture exists almost purely by the grace of government, taxpayers could have bought outright half the farms or more for the money we’ve spent in just the past nine years.
It’s not as if the subsidies are ’saving the family farm.’ Of the 2,128,982 farms enumerated by the most recent Census of Agriculture, for 2002, only 33 percent received government payments. Two-thirds of the nation’s farmers get no subsidy payments whatsoever. For the most part they don’t qualify because they grow the ‘wrong’ things. If you want to see what the wrong things are, stroll through the produce aisle or meat department of your local supermarket. The farmers who produce most of America’s food do so without a check from taxpayers.
As the Farm Subsidy Database has documented in the past, the vast majority of the farmers who do receive government subsidy checks get minimal amounts of money. Eighty percent of the recipients between 1995 and 2003 received, on average, $6,918 for the entire period (see table on payment concentration). That comes to $768 a year, just over sixty-five bucks a month. Not much to run a family farm on—though in aggregate, the 2.4 million recipients in this category ended up taking almost $17 billion from taxpayers over 9 years.
Corn subsidies are a good example of the farm subsidy pyramid. In area, corn is the most important crop grown in this country–some 78 million acres have been planted in recent years–and no USDA subsidy program sends taxpayer money to more recipients. Between 1995 and 2003, government records show, 1,438,423 individual farmers, partnerships, corporations, estates and other entities received at least one corn subsidy payment. Yet 80 percent of them collected, on average, just over $4,700 total over the 9 years (see EWG’s payment concentration analysis for corn). That’s about $529 per year. No American family farm–no business, for that matter–is materially assisted by payments of less than $50 a month. Yet because there are 1.15 million subsidy beneficiaries in this category (the bottom-most 20 percent of recipients), taxpayers paid them $5.5 billion, about 15 percent of total corn subsidies.
The real action is at the top of the farm subsidy food chain, where 10 percent of the recipients—just over 305,023 individuals, partnerships, corporations, estates and myriad other entities—took in 72 percent of the total payments taxpayers provided for conservation, commodity and disaster programs over the 9 years. (That’s an upward tick of 1 percent in concentration for the top 10 percent over the eight-year analysis EWG presented last year.) They collected, on average, $309,823 each, roughly $34,000 annually. The elite in this world of government dependency collected even more. The top four percent of recipients, for instance, number just over 122,000. Yet they cost taxpayers about $65 billion over 9 years, which works out to an average of $529,000, or nearly $59,000 per year.
What makes that particular number memorable is that it is almost exactly what the average American household earned in 2003. The average farm household is a different matter. They made significantly more, nearly $10,000 more (16 percent), averaging $68,605. To compound the irony of subsidies as family farm safety net, almost all of the income for the average farm household, 89 percent, came from off-farm sources, the jobs in town or elsewhere that make farm living pencil out for most Americans. It’s not just that government subsidies aren’t saving the family farm. Not even farming is.
The two categories of subsidies that ostensibly are available to all farmers, even if they grow the ‘wrong’ things, are conservation programs and disaster aid. While both categories increased in 2003 compared to 2002—disaster aid most strikingly—a different set of inequities plague these forms of assistance (go here for a subsidy summary by year and category).
The public hears a lot of soothing, bi-partisan talk about the vital importance of conservation and protecting the environment whenever it’s time to move an ungainly farm subsidy bill through the body politic. But once the flow of commodity payments has been locked in, Congress proceeds in the out years to cut funds from the very conservation programs that provide broader, public interest cover when subsidy bills are under fire. As a consequence, far more farmers perennially apply for conservation programs than existing funds can serve. This “conservation backlog,” recently documented by Environmental Defense, is of course made worse when Congress, with the tacit approval of the subsidy lobby, cuts conservation spending instead of commodity programs. In the current fiscal year, for instance, Congress slashed conservation program funds by nearly a half-billion dollars in the omnibus spending measure. Congress also cut $1.9 billion from conservation accounts earlier this fall in order to pay for farm disaster aid.
Disaster Prone. In the case of disaster aid, the inequity arises not from providing too little support to too few farmers, but from providing most of the support to the same farmers year after year.
A farm-by-farm review of $11.3 billion in federal disaster payments over a nine-year period (1995 through 2003) finds that annual emergency measures like the one approved by Congress this fall, have funneled checks from taxpayers to hundreds of thousands of farms on a regular basis. Indeed, it appears that tens of thousands of ‘disaster-prone’ crop and livestock operations, most of them in the arid Great Plains, have become highly dependent on disaster payments. And the more disaster-prone and dependent farmers and ranchers not only received the bulk of the taxpayer aid, they have also averaged the highest disaster payments per year.
The disaster payments, largely to compensate for crop shortfalls, came on top of a record stream of nearly $104 billion in subsidies paid to crop farmers because they produced too much.
For most farms, disaster aid is an occasional, but vital form of government assistance, and one that taxpayers might well consider a fair and important investment in the nation’s family farmers and ranchers. Computer records obtained from USDA under the Freedom of Information Act, and maintained in EWG’s Farm Subsidy Database, show that taxpayers provided farm disaster payments to 1,160,705 individuals, partnerships, corporations and other recipients over the nine years. About half of the recipients (578,198 farm entities) collected aid just one year in the period studied. Moreover, they accounted for only 14 percent of the total disaster money provided by taxpayers ($1.6 billion) and received a modest $2,771 on average. Another 22 percent of recipients were provided aid two years out of nine. They collected 16 percent of farm disaster assistance, about $1.85 billion, averaging $3,663 apiece.
But as disaster aid dependency increases—measured by the number of years out of nine that a farmer or rancher received taxpayer help—USDA data reveal a segment of farm operations chronically dependent on disaster aid collecting the majority of federal assistance.
EWG’s analysis finds that over 28 percent of the recipients — 329,604 individuals, partnerships, corporations or other entities–collected disaster aid from taxpayers at least one year out of three, accounting for 70 percent of total farm disaster aid over the period—some $7.86 billion.
Over 15 percent of the recipients (176,379 farm entities) collected disaster aid at least four years out of nine (44 percent of the time). This group, which we consider chronically dependent on disaster aid, took in just over half of the farm disaster payments provided over the period, $5.7 billion.
About 30 percent of the taxpayer assistance ($3.36 billion) went to an even more dependent group of 76,287 recipients (7 percent of the total for the period) that collected disaster checks every other year (five years out of 9, or 55.5 percent of the time).
At the extreme end of the disaster-dependency spectrum are about 26,000 truly disaster-prone recipients who received disaster money at least six years out of nine; this seven percent of all recipients took in 13 percent of the disaster aid, about $935 million. Among that group are 8,384 who claimed disaster aid for seven years out of nine, 1,686 who got disaster payments eight years out of nine, and 27 recipients who got a disaster check from taxpayers every year for nine straight years.
EWG also found that the more often a subsidy recipient collected disaster aid, the higher their average disaster payments tended to be. The fifty percent of farm operations that received disaster aid just one year out of nine collected just $2,771. But those who got payments for three years collected $4,677 per year, and the 100,092 disaster subsidy recipients who got payments four years out of nine averaged $5,836 annually. Chronically disaster-prone operations that collected aid checks more than half the time routinely received payments averaging $8,000 or more per year.
Disaster payments are concentrated in states with persistent drought conditions where crop failures are relatively common. One third of all disaster payments over the nine years analyzed went to farmers in six states: Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, and South Dakota.
Payments to farmers chronically dependent on disaster payments are concentrated in even fewer states. More than half the farmers who received disaster aid four or more of the nine years analyzed — our definition of chronically dependent — are from just five states: Texas, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, and Georgia.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their land in an environmentally beneficial  manner. CRP reduces soil erosion, protects the Nation’s ability to produce food and fiber, reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes, improves water quality, establishes wildlife habitat, and enhances forest and wetland resources. It encourages farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, such as tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, filterstrips, and riparian buffers. Farmers receive an annual rental payment for the term of the multi-year contract. Cost sharing is provided to establish vegetative cover practices.

Specifically, CRP aims to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen applications, conserve soil, and increase acres of wetlands, riparian and grass buffers, and breeding duck numbers, as well as sequester carbon dioxide.  CRP has been largely successful in achieving these goals and in the process has generated millions of dollars for rural economies from increased outdoor recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, bird watching).  However, increased demand for corn (especially for ethanol production) is leading to a decrease in reenrollment to the program. 

For the benefits to all of society (e.g., cleaner water, recreational opportunities) to continue, a renewed commitment to CRP must be made in the new Farm Bill.  This commitment must include higher payments to encourage highly-erodible lands to remain in continuous native cover, instead of reverting to the marginal farming practices of the past.

So, I stumbled across this little gem of a time-waster today.

It’s called AtomFilms, they are a “broadband entertainment network for original shorts and web shows by top independent creators.”

Check them out at www.atomfilms.com
Don’t miss the HellHoles series or Float.

mongo

As promised, here is the 2^nd of my Sci-Fi series articles. This article is slightly less abhorring than my last. Again, I’M NOT PROMOTING THIS, I’m simply stating something that seems like an evolutionary step for man kind (and in no way do I think this is a good thing). I will expect this to happen in other countries before ours. The reason being attributed to greater populations, less resources, less viable economies, and differing social values that will ‘put them in it’ sooner.

The next step, which is actually a likely a precursor to my first prediction, will also take place in the distant future. This step is -The mandatory age limit-. Now, I don’t know what age would be appropriate here, as the life expectancy continues to grow (generally speaking, in most cases, quality of life is inversely proportional to age). It will come down to a determination of resources required to keep an individual alive against their contribution to the general population.

The means will be a perversion of euthanasia. The end will be fuel and more available resources for those who are in the living age class. I know you are probably thinking I’m a sick bastard, but really this is already happening in a relative way in some places and when looking at the truth of available resources, it isn’t a far fetched idea. Need a few examples?

Example 1.) China has had a limit on the number of children per family for years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy). Why, well look at their population and the problems they are facing with their natural resources – land and water. In some parts of China the water depleting at a rate that is absolutely unrecoverable. Specifically Northern China for the water, the urban areas for the population/land issue.

As for other examples of depleting natural resources by country I could list many. I will give an example close to home though - where else are we seeing depletion of water - right here in the US. In some cases we don’t even have the masses using the water directly, a prime example is the Ogallala aquifer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer) which is being depleted faster than it will recover. And another is the Colorado river (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River) which is en route to becoming a saline mud hole. Fortunately for us we don’t have the population that China does, and our ability to generate resources is more advanced than theirs (in my opinion).

As for the population increases check out this site http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html
It has population predictions through 2050. It shouldn’t take you long to understand that the pressure on resources will be enormous.

I’m going to end this here to let some of the skunk contributors expound on this if they like.
It also occurred to me that a capitalistic society would probably be the last to go this route for obvious reasons.

William

And so it’s January 19, 2007. Less than one month from my least favorite holiday simply known as Valentine’s Day, or VD (venereal disease). I never could figure this holiday out for the life of me. Granted, I have never been involved with someone during this decrepit day and thank god I’m thankful for that. I guess it has never made any sense to me much like a New Years resolution. I mean come on; if you need to make a resolution to make a change obviously it’s not going to work because you would have already made it. Similarly, why make ONE special day to show your love for someone you care so much about when in actuality isn’t that something you should do frequently? I mean if you care so much about them right? Take this post for what it is because it is what it is, a rant and I feel better so post if you feel the same or not.

When you click on a Skunk members name, it will bring up all of the posts they have made since the beginning.

Try it Now!  Click on the small grey william located directly below the word “skunk” in the title of this post.
We can thank AgentCrazyDiamond for that.

William

It is very reasonable that many of you will find yourself appalled or even mortified by the idea I put forth here, as I was the first time this thought came to me. I’m not promoting this, I’m basically making a prediction. I have been told by others that there are similar ideas to this and there is even a movie or book that is very close to my thoughts, but I haven’t seen or read either.

First, you should understand that I have a degree in Natural Resources Management (possible reason that I would have such thoughts), but I was not taught anything in direct relation to this topic in college – it is an original idea (as far as I know). I also know it will be decades before this topic will even be considered as material suitable for a college classroom, but I’m sure there will be a day when this will be as common place as the traditional funeral. Most likely it will become the traditional funeral.

So, are we burying one of our most abundant natural resources? I think so and you need not look further than your community cemetery for the answer. With no disrespect to the deceased or their living relatives, I propose that bodies of the dead should be used as an energy source. In my opinion there is immense practicality of this on many levels.

It would benefit society in several ways, and if you think about it, it wouldn’t have to be looked at so differently than the standard cremation process.

The first benefit would lie within the cost of a funeral. If you have ever had to deal with this aspect (I’m sorry if you have), you are well aware that a funeral is very expensive. Last year the average was 6 to 8 thousand dollars. If there was a system in place that could use our beloved deceased for energy and the trade off being no cost for a funeral and/or energy credits willed out to living relatives, it would be quite a benefit to many people. Of course there would still be a site for memorials, which could be offered at a very small cost. I think it would be a reasonable trade off.

The second benefit would concern the use of land. The only use of land that would be considered here is that of the conversion facility and the memorial site. With the rising cost of land and the growing population of the world it is very reasonable.

The third is that it would help to shift dependence off of non-renewable resources. Of course the plant would have to run on renewable resources or at the very least use the non-renewable sources minimally.

Two of the biggest questions that would have to be addressed and I don’t have good answers for are:

What would the energy be used for?

What is the conversion process?

The world doesn’t have the population yet to make this practical. There will be a time though, when the world is so strapped for land, housing, food, and energy – that it is only logical humans will employ ideas such as this, even though they might seem so far from sanity and our reality today.

-If you liked this, or hated it… wait until you see my next article.

William

            I was thinking about the whole Christmas season that just came and went and decided to post this lecture I delivered last year at Vassar College.  I hope you enjoy it, and if you don’t you’re stupid.

            Friends, I write to you in order to dispel a grave and injurious untruth widely disseminated in these wintry December weeks by our esteemed comrades of the cloth.  During the past few holiday seasons, I’ve been too often subjected to lectures concerning the “true” and “good” nature of Christmas.  Time and time again I’ve been informed that Christmas, at heart, is the celebration of the birth of Christ.  They tell me that Christmas is not about giving or receiving, is not about mistletoe and holly, and above all else, is not about a jolly fat man in a poorly tailored red suit who covertly infiltrates my living room via my chimney, all-the-while leaving presents behind.  No, Christmas, they tell me, is a time for somber self-reflection and gratitude to God for the gift of his son who delivered man from the sins of the world. 
            To all that, I give an emphatic “bah humbug!” in finest Scrooge fashion.  The value of Christmas rests not in its arcane religious significance (for these self-same religious figures all-too-readily admit that the holiday has already lost most of its religious symbolism), or in the celebration of any pseudo-deity’s naissance, but instead in the sentiments and emotions that this holiday so readily evokes in all of us.
            I distinctly remember sitting dismayed in church Sunday last and hearing the minister (a friend of mine) rail against “getting caught up in performing Christmas.”  Christmas, as a performative act, consists of giving to charity, giving and receiving presents to one’s friends and family, and temporarily absolving the grievances of others.  Good Christians, he argued, should be less concerned with buying gifts for friends, less involved in the “spirit” of Christmas, and should celebrate the religion driving the holiday – for the gift-giving and the charity-giving and the goodwill-giving are all consequences flowing from the religious celebration of the holiday.  I was needless-to-say rather shocked to hear this.  What could possibly be wrong with the performative aspect of Christmas?  Isn’t this the very spirit of Christmas?  How can one condemn the good-natured benevolence which seems to flow so readily from this happy holiday?
            To me, it seems like the goods that he was so quick to allege to be “incidental” and “consequential” exceed any of the direct religious goods (of which I’ve seen no demonstration).  Christmas, it seems to me, ought to concern itself more with “peace on earth,” and “goodwill to men,” rather than the “babe born in Bethlehem.”  These goods, cheerfulness and goodwill to strangers and the lessons of giving and receiving, are goods which transcend religious differences and bridge the gap between all men, not merely those of a certain quasi-mythological persuasion.  This is of especial import given the divisive state of affairs in which this holiday finds mankind.
            No, let the religious polemics convince you not: the virtue of Christmas ought not be conflated with the tenets of Christianity, but instead, look to the benefits that this season confers most blatantly.  Christmas ought concern itself first and foremost with Santa and the magic of generosity to one’s fellow men and not with the birth of Christ.

Disclaimer - warriorzerosix holds no political views to heart, he either agrees or disagrees with whoever runs the country on whatever issues their pimping this week. These social reforms are only ideas rattling around in his head, faithfully submitted to The Skunk for the purpose inciting thought, riots, bowel discomfort, or accordance or laughter or whatever. He doesn’t direct comments toward his critics, but will answer any questions asked. To put it another way, if at any time you, the reader feels offended, or frightened, please, for your own safety and sanity, don’t finish reading. After all, Freedom of Speech is scary stuff…

Health insurance has become a nightmare rearing its lousy evil grin into the eyes of many Americans today. It costs too much for the average person, its cost/level of care ratio seems to be way out of whack, and unless you have more money than the Vatican or, (unlike the current administration would like you to have) a decent job, the prospect of sheltering a family with insurance can be a daunting and intimidating task.

However today, as scientists unravel the mysteries of reproduction, right down to the DNA, we could feasibly predict, though genetic screening, the probability of a child being born with susceptibilities to illnesses and diseases, life threatening and furthermore, although (for the sake of winning hearts and minds) a distant second, EXPENSIVE. People who drain health insurance funds taking care of themselves and theirs due to a lack of control over their genetic defects and susceptibilities can become a thing of the past with this program. Methinks caring parents should have a few cells from their unborn children genetically mapped. Upon mapping, the test results can be sent to the insurance provider of the parents choice.

This is where the insurance companies come in. Health insurance providers, due to the ethicality of the issues presented by this program, will be ordered to provide customers with a standard (unscreened) rate. However, when a parent submit’s a genetic screening of their child’s potential, the insurance company will be allowed to offer discounts for having immunities from deformities, diseases, malignant neoplasms (I have no idea what they are, I just like that word, and they kill more kids than suicide) and other horrible things. Note, an insurance company will NOT be able to deny any customer for having an excess of problems, or will they be able to charge anyone with more than the standard (unscreened) rate, for the sake of fairness for those puritan right wing souls who wouldn’t sell their kid’s DNA for a few dollars off their insurance premiums.

The program is not about cloning human beings, or controlling the health insurance industry. The DNA is only to be mapped for the purpose of determining insurance discounts (just like a good GPA helps young drivers). And the Health insurance companies are left to set whatever standard rate they want and whatever discounts they can afford. This goes without saying anything positive that could come from a mapping a cell is an automatic red flag to the conservatives. However, if you hadn’t noticed the sarcasm already, who wouldn’t want to have their kids mapped not only for the possibility of lowering insurance costs, but also to serve as preemptive knowledge as to what to expect from their unborn offspring. People are already crawling to find out if it’s a boy or a girl; hell, I want to know about the malignant neoplasms! We have the capabilities, lets use them. Why waste the science that humans were meant to have? Let this science and insurance merge for a better tomorrow. And don’t worry, anyone who was waiting for me to plunder down that road, I’ll get into cloning later.

Since politics seem to be a major topic here I figured I would share another look at the different political persuasions with you. This came from my roommate’s T-shirt. I got a kick out of it.

mongo

Politics

• Independent: Shit happens.
• Democrat: Shit is a vast Right-Wing conspiracy.
• Republican: The rich deserve more shit.
• Moderate: We must also consider shit’s right to happen.
• Liberal: Shit will happen if we don’t spend enough.
• Conservative: The courts have allowed too much excrement.
• Reform: We can’t get our poop in a group.
• Socialist: Support the equal distribution of shit.
• Communist: Come the revolutiuon, shit will not happen again.
• Libertarian: Legalize all kinds of shit.
• Green: Compost happens!