In retaliatory move, Mexico targets American farm products, including pork, cheese, apples, potatoes, whiskey and cranberries
The U.S. Senate is set to vote next week on its version of the Farm Bill. The legislation is pitting Midwestern lawmakers against Southern lawmakers over two competing subsidy programs that both say are essential to farmers in their regions. The debate over the Farm Bill is always contentious. It usually pits Democrats against Republicans. But this issue has lawmakers from different regions battling each other. In the South, crops like rice and peanuts need a lot of water and fertilizer. Yields are comparatively steady but subject to steep fluctuations in world markets. In the fertile soils of the Midwest -- where corn and soy are king -- farmers need less fertilizer and irrigation but are more susceptible to bad weather conditions. The differences have led to a split between lawmakers vying for resources in the 2018 Farm Bill. "In Congress, you a lot about Democrats and Republicans fighting each other. You get into things like the Farm Bill and it doesn't have anything to do with Democrats and Republicans, it has to do with regional agriculture," explains Sen. John Boozman (R-AR). Sen. Boozman says his state relies on a program known as the PLC (Price Loss Coverage) that provides subsidies to farmers if crop prices drop. Farmers in the Midwest prefer the ARC (Agriculture Risk Coverage) program which bases its subsidies on crop revenues. During Farm Bill negotiations, Southern lawmakers say their Midwestern counterparts sought to boost the ARC program by depleting PLC."
The U.S. Supreme Court today split 4-4 and will let stand a lower-court order requiring Washington to remove hundreds of culverts to protect tribal fishing rights, an order that farm groups warn will bolster legal challenges to dams and irrigation systems. The tie, made possible by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s recusal, is a victory for 21 Western Washington tribes that had previously prevailed in U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Washington appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the order misinterpreted the Stevens Treaties, which the tribes signed in 1854 and 1855.Several Western states, including Idaho, had filed briefs urging the high court to overturn the culvert-removal order. The Washington, Oregon and Idaho Farm Bureaus also filed briefs, echoing the states’ concerns.Former Justice Department lawyer Nathanael Watson, who litigated tribal cases, said the tie vote improves the negotiating position
Something that nobody wanted has started – a trade war. At least nobody on the south side of the Rio Grande wanted it, because on the other side it seems that it was wanted. In response to tariffs on steel and aluminum, the Mexican government has decided to impose several tariffs on various American farm products. For many, that was a lukewarm response, or even timid, very timid, since Mexico "punished" the U.S. with tariffs on cranberries (how many cranberries do Mexicans eat?) and bourbon (maybe we do consume more this, but I doubt it is consumed more than tequila). Corn? In 2016, Mexico imported 54,500 metric tons of corn from Brazil. By 2017, this figure increased to 583,200 metric tons, and in the first quarter of 2018 it is already at 107,000 metric tons.
As more than a million Americans face losing food stamps under President Trump’s vision for reauthorizing the farm bill, his vow to wean families off dependence doesn’t apply to thousands of others who have been relying much of their adult lives on payments from the government’s sprawling agriculture program.And many of those farmers have been getting aid for far longer than the average 10 months that a food stamp recipient gets help. In fact, 27,930 farmers have been collecting for 32 years, a report shows. The assistance is supposed to keep their farming operations afloat, but it flows in good years and bad.
The Trump administration is preparing to release a sweeping plan for reorganizing the federal government that includes a major consolidation of welfare programs — and a renaming of the Health and Human Services Department. The report, set to be released in the coming weeks by the White House Office of Management and Budget, seeks to move safety-net programs, including food stamps, into HHS. The plan would also propose changing the name of the sprawling department, while separately seeking cuts at the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department. The $70 billion food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is run by the Agriculture Department and makes up the vast majority of the department’s budget. The program helps more than 40 million low-income Americans buy groceries each month.“You have low-income assistance in a bunch of different shops without one point of oversight and without a whole lot of communication,” said one of the people with knowledge of the plan. “Why not have one federal agency responsible for execution?”The report, which is expected to recommend big changes at many federal agencies, is almost complete and is expected to be introduced this month, according to one administration official. Sources in and outside the government have been told the rollout will happen in late June. The plan is still being finalized and some of the details could change, but one of the people familiar with the report said the proposal to reorganize HHS has widespread buy-in at OMB.OMB spokesman Jacob Wood declined to comment on the plan.The biggest changes outlined by the White House are unlikely to be implemented because moving multibillion-dollar programs and renaming federal departments generally requires congressional action. But the plan, like the president’s annual budget, demonstrates the administration’s thinking on a range of domestic policy issues. It also offers a strong political selling point for the Trump White House as it tries to burnish an image of an administration dedicated to conservative principles and smaller government.“The administration already put a lot of stuff out in this year’s budget related to cuts, but that was the easy stuff,” the administration official said. “This [report] is the harder stuff.”It’s unclear exactly how HHS would be reshuffled, but sources said its new name would emphasize programs that provide assistance to low-income Americans, potentially restoring the term “welfare” to the title of the department. HHS — a sprawling Cabinet-level agency that spends roughly $1 trillion annually —already oversees the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which provides cash assistance to low-income people, as well as Medicaid, the health coverage program for the poor that insures more than 70 million Americans.
President Trump wants to end the three-party talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, aiming instead to deal separately with Canada and Mexico to restructure the trade accord, a senior adviser said Tuesday. Trump does not intend to withdraw from NAFTA, National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow said on “Fox & Friends.” But after more than one year of multilateral discussions, he feels the current approach hasn’t been fruitful and a new one is needed, Kudlow said. “His preference now — and he asked me to convey this — is to actually negotiate with Mexico and Canada separately,” Kudlow said. “He prefers bilateral negotiations.” It wasn’t immediately clear how such an arrangement would work. The United States, Mexico and Canada agreed to NAFTA in the 1990s, and all three countries have worked to renegotiate the deal since Trump became president. Changes would have to be agreed to by all sides.
If a trade war is coming, the cheesemakers of Wisconsin are standing in the line of fire. So are the farmers of the Great Plains and the distillers of Kentucky. And the employees of iconic American brands like Harley-Davidson and Levi Strauss. The likelihood of a trade conflagration leapt closer to reality this week after the United States imposed tariff on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, Mexico and the European Union. Infuriated, the jilted U.S. allies vowed to retaliate with tariffs of their own. And in a separate dispute, China is poised to penalize $50 billion in U.S. goods — many of them produced by supporters of President Donald Trump in the America’s agricultural heartland. “They’re going to hit the farmers,” said Bryan Klabunde, a farmer in northwestern Minnesota. “We want things fair for all industries, but we’re going to take the brunt of the punishment if other countries retaliate.’” President Donald Trump, who entered office promising to rip up trade deals and crack down on unfair trading practices, is clashing with trading partners on all sides. To the north, he’s battling Canada; to the south, Mexico; to the east, Europe; across the Pacific Ocean to the west, China and Japan. “The president seems to be creating trade (and other) disputes with everyone — allies and adversaries alike -- and it’s difficult to discern any coherent strategy,” said Rod Hunter, a former National Security Council staffer under President George W. Bush. “The impacts of the disputes have been limited so far, but the economic and political costs will go up as retaliation by trading partners begins in earnest.” Mexico, for instance, plans to retaliate against the steel and aluminum tariffs by targeting U.S. cheese, among other products. “It’s our second-largest market,” Jeff Schwager, president of Sartori, a cheese company in Plymouth, Wisconsin, said of Mexico. Retaliatory tariffs “will reduce sales — there’s no question.” “The hard-earned sales we’ve secured in Mexico could be at risk given the potential for retaliation,” the National Milk Producers Federation warned in a statement. The EU is threatening to penalize Kentucky bourbon and the motorcycles of Wisconsin-based Harley-Davidson. The potential tariffs pack a political punch: They’d hurt constituents of House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.
A new federal policy will allow federal agents to investigate, and possibly arrest and deport, families who step up to host children found at the border. It’s the latest in a series of enforcement actions by the Trump administration intended to discourage a new surge in unauthorized immigrants. The new policy was welcomed by some who see it as an important check on smugglers posing as helpers, but immigration advocates accuse the administration of using the detained children as “bait” for attracting, investigating and deporting immigrants living in the United States without authorization. Either way, it is certain to make it even harder to recruit families, usually relatives, to care for children who cross the border alone or who are separated from their parents. Authorities are preparing more shelters to house them. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will now screen families seeking to host children, including others living in the home, checking their immigration status “to identify and arrest those who may be subject to removal” — meaning deportation — the new policy states. Previously, federal authorities might have checked immigration status as part of screening hosts, but they did not bar unauthorized relatives from hosting or share information with immigration enforcement.
The Environmental Working Group came roaring back this week with a new “study” that – true to form – breaks no new ground and is largely a recycling of old irrelevant data. EWG essentially re-released their “farm subsidy database,” which is designed to publicly shame farmers for using farm policy to manage the unique risks they face. And EWG’s big conclusion is that farmers receive aid from the USDA, and some have seen farm policy benefits for 32 years.That’s not news. It's the law, and it has been the law since the 1860s when USDA came into existence. And as a result, the U.S. is home to the most diverse and most dynamic agricultural sector in the world. Its support of farm families is minuscule compared to other developed countries. And U.S. consumers enjoy the most affordable food supply in the history of the world. No one should be surprised that some multi-generational farms have received assistance of varying degrees for the last 32 years – including the conservation assistance that EWG favors. And it shouldn’t be a point of criticism. That farms have survived the natural disasters and down markets of the past three decades is a testament to the endurance of farm families and the benefits of stable farm policy.