Dorchester-area farmers recently entered the political fray when an Omaha television station interviewed local producers to gauge their reaction to the 
resignation of USDA Secretary Mike Johanns and the speculation he will run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Chuck Hagel.In an online article on the Web site of KETV Channel 7, Dorchester farmer Scott Vyhnalek said he's impressed with Johanns' service. "I know they'll be some critics that will say he didn't finish his job as governor and as secretary, so what's the guy going to do now? But I think he's served us well," Vyhnalek said.
The article continues: "The farm bill currently up for debate on Capitol Hill is important to Vyhnalek and his brother and father on their farm, he said. They said Johanns laid the framework on which his deputy director -- who will now take over as agriculture secretary -- can build.
"'He probably helped with it,' said brother Steve Vyhnalek. 'You still have familiar faces working with the bill.'"
"The Nebraska Farmers Union's John Hanson criticized Johanns for leaving just as the farm bill is at a critical stage. ... The Nebraska Farm Bureau said that elements from Johanns' proposal were adopted in the House version of the agriculture bill. 'On one hand, I would have liked to see the farm bill through because I know we trust him,' said Scott Vyhnalek. 'But on the other hand, I think he'll serve us well, and we need to keep him here, too.' The Vyhnaleks said Johanns will probably be the front-runner if he jumps into the Senate race, but that doesn't mean he will automatically get their vote."
We at the Times are interested in what our readers think about Johanns' prospective Senate bid.
Farmers Union? Are they still around?? They are communists who will support Bob Kerrey. Last I knew, Bob Kerrey had spent the last eight years living in New York City. Does he even know what a farm is anymore?
ReplyDeleteI will have to tell my parents that they are Communists as they are longtime members of Farmers Union. Ha! Seriously, please reconsider your thoughts. USDA is very biased towards corporate agriculture. I recently had a high ranking USDA official here in DC tell me that his department would not exist if it were not for corporate agriculture. I said yes, but who do you think raises the livestock and crops? Answer: The family farmer. However, that number is sadly dwindling. All of the USDA functions I have attended are geared toward agri-business rather than the small farmer. One look at the invite list will make that clear.
ReplyDeleteHey, D.C. -- Here's the difference between a democrat (farmers union member) and a republican (typically a farm bureau member) ... a republican observes the trends of the free market and adjusts accordingly. Small farms are disappearing for a reason (not because of a big corporate conspiracy). The republican recognizes that Nebraska needs to diversify its economy (bring in more jobs than just ag related) and allow for corporate farms so young people (who aren't related) can combine resources and farm or ranch as one entity.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats, on the other hand, look to big government to revive the small, depression-era farm. They're living in a dream world. Just my two cents, not trying to start an arguement.
I agree the farm program of the 1930's is of no help to small family farms as it seems to encourage consolidation by allocating large subsidies to the big-scale farms. Agri-business gives huge campaign contributions to members of both parties to keep this system in place. Nebraska has needed to diversify its economy for many years, but has been unable to do so. Currently, 1 out of 2 college graduates leave the state. Possibly the current farm program encourages the status quo. Nebraska’s 3rd congressional district was first among the nation’s congressional districts in farm subsidy dollars for 2005. It's a perplexing issue, especially for someone whose parents were Goldwater Republicans and Farmers Union members to boot!
ReplyDeleteI hear Vyhnalek’s hired man is awesome!
ReplyDeletedc husker is correct on many of his points. Co. rd. 1300 really doesn't want to open his eyes and see that farmers generally fair no better under republicans than democrats, unless you include the very socialistic programs that republicans support. The ones that provide huge subsidies to farmers - not a very capitalistic approach to farming.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans want to bring more jobs into a state??? Another dream world. Generally speaking, red states have considerable "brain drain" with their best and brightest leaving these states. In fact, many (all?) of the states with population loss are red states. So much for republicans recognizing diversity.
No democratic president in my lifetime has ever tried to bring back the "depression era farm." Certainly our only democratic president (Clinton) in the last 25 years didn't try any such thing. So get with the times and see that there is no such thing as republican politicians looking out for the farmer. With the dwindling number of farmers, the future will be extremely difficult for the farmer to have a voice in Washington. The priority for politicians is reelection, and even in a state such as NE, they don't need the farm vote to do that.
Sorry to be hard on you, but ignorance only breeds loss of power. Read up and explore the facts, don't believe in so called "truisms" as they only perpetuate fallacies. Explore to find the truth.
An Independent voter
Hey anonymous:
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of ignorance, your quote below defines it perfectly:
"(R)ed states have considerable 'brain drain' with their best and brightest leaving these states. In fact, many (all?) of the states with population loss are red states. So much for republicans recognizing diversity."
The fact is, only the Plains states have significant "outmigration" of their young people, primarly because the farm program, created under FDR and expanded under LBJ, created economies dependent only on agriculture. While those "red states" are overwhelmingly Republican, they send many Democrats to Congress, due in large part to their addiction to farm subsidies (see N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Nebraska senate history).
The U.S. spends about $20B (on average) a year on the three primary farm subsidies (LDPs, direct payments, & counter-cyclicals). How does that not qualify as "caring about the farmer"?
It's funny how so-called "independent" voters spend most their time bashing Republicans who believe in smaller government and more free-market soloutions.
Here's a story worth reading about New Zealand farmers, who have been without subsidies since the 1980s.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rrstar.com/business/x1429053599
Johanns would have my vote.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Thank you for the compliment. However, DC Husker is a SHE. Have a good day.
ReplyDelete90s grad. Your facts only confirm my statement. Plain States ARE red states, and that is where depopulation is occuring (outmigration or whatever you choose to call it - spare me your show of apparent intellect). Hmmn ... talk of ignorance.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the FDR programs have very little to do with the current demographics of these RED plain states. Geographical climate and lack of tolerance probably play a much greater role than programs created 70 years ago.
You and I do agree on something, but you actually seem intent on contradicting yourself. Subsidies aren't in the best interest of anyone in a society. Your reference to New Zealand (nice job finding that) seems to indicate that you think we should remove subsidies because ultimately it will help farmers. But in your response to me, you indicate that republicans are showing "support" for our farmers by providing them with all this subsidy money. Pick a side and stay on it.
I only "bash" republicans in my post because that is who others were claiming to be the true saviors of farmers. I would of done the same to democrats if someone claimed they were the saviors of farmers.
My families roots in farming in this area probably surpass most (maybe yours) - over 6 generations. So I'm very supportive of agriculture, I just hate to see people think that a single party has their interests in mind. If your mind set is one of "them or us," (i.e., vote party lines) then truly your ignorance knows no bounds. If you vote on the quality of the candidate, regardless of party lines, then perhaps there is hope for you.
Lack of tolerance? The only thing becoming intolerable around here are you assinine comments. (And I'll bet the U.S. government brought down the twin towers, too, right?)
ReplyDelete1.) You said DC Husker was correct in her bashing the farm program. The farm program was started by FDR, a Democrat, last I knew.
2.) I vote Republican because they usually aren't self-righteous preachers of tolerance.
Go read another Al Frankin book and watch another Michael Moore film. You're an IG-NOR-AM-ASS.
90s grad. As is typical of many republicans, you must resort to name calling with no facts. That is too bad. I was beginning to enjoy the debate. I really don't care what someone did 70 years ago, we have had plenty of time to make changes.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad to see that you think the govenment had something to do with 911. I'm positive it was terrorists, directed by Osama, not Saddam.
You seem to know alot about Al Frankin. I've never read his books. Do they also spout off about the importance of not be tolerant of different people?
Maybe you need to tell your republican politicians that we shouldn't tolerate differences, and thus should not be supportive of a global economy because many of these people are different.
Tolerance is ultimately what will change a community and help it thrive. You'll have to accept (and even encourage) diversity of people if you really want dorchester to ever grow again.
Do you suppose it would ever be possible for someone to provide facts for us (intelligent or ignorant) to analyze without putting your own party line spin on it? I doubt it, because everyone wants to say I told you so (first). Instead we just have to discount anything you have to say because your information and opinion is obviously biased. Trust me, we'll make up our own mind without all the "garbage in".
ReplyDeleteP.S. I still think if you have to call someone names you ought to have the guts to give your name and take the "credit" for setting the record straight.
Brentski,
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying any political spin. Here are some facts about the the distribution of the work force in NE (pure number and percentage break down) from the 2000 census.
Employed civilian population 16 years and over
877,237, 100.0
OCCUPATION
Management, professional, and related occupations
289,073, 33.0
Service occupations
127,865, 14.6
Sales and office occupations
231,800, 26.4
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations
14,136, 1.6
Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations
81,626, 9.3
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations
132,737, 15.1
This is why I believe (correctly or incorrectly) that politicians really don't care all that much about the farm vote (particularly senate as this is a state wide vote). Even if you include those who work in the agricultural sector, the number only goes up to 5.6 percent. Not a very big piece of the pie.
If someone is truly motivated to serve nebraska farmers, then the best position in the country to do this from is secretary of agriculture. I don't really feel there is much disputing this.
I may still vote for Johanns (depending on who he runs against and their position on issues that I feel are important), but to be elected, he will clearly have to pander to many industries that have needs that conflict with agriculture. I doubt that the next secretary of ag will be from NE, so he really did let down NE farmers.
In 1990, less than 2% of all americans lived or worked on farms. While the industry is vital and essential to our country, the people who run the farms are all replaceable. That is, there is always someone else willing to farm the ground. Knowing this, it leaves me no doubt that the needs of farmers are not at the forefront of american politicians (they will provide a little lip service, but that is about it).
Examples to support my view include; Public support for large swine corporations is quickly waning, with many communties enacting laws to block stop these activities (see Illinois), while other communities have blocked that sale of products that use genetically altered crops (see Califormia). These examples illustrate the weakening position of agriculture nation wide.
I don't know the fix to this apparent trend, but if this trend continues, politicians will become more reluctant to strongly advocate for agriculture. That is why, more than ever, it is necessary to find out how individual candidates feel about ag related issues. Both Iowa senators (Harkin(democrat) and Grassley (republican)) are much stronger advocates for agriculture then either of our senators. So it appears party lines aren't sufficient to determine good representation. That is my point. We have to try find information about individual candidates to determine who to vote for (or believe). It isn't easy with all the spin that BOTH parties give to issues.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteWe have to jump in and remind our readers: Congress writes the farm bills, not the administration.
We'll reserve our opinion on Mike Johanns -- but if he wants to directly impact the farm bill, he will have more success in the Senate. The president can still veto the farm bill, with or without Johanns by his side.
Also, we think you are a little misguided when you say our politicians don't care about the farmer.
Most of the state economy is wired directly to the producer in the fields and feedlots. A well-regarded UNL economist last year estimated that one of every three Nebraska jobs is tied to agriculture.
Ask the banker, the auto dealer, the hardware store owner and other town merchants if they care about the ag economy. You bet they do -- thus, so does the politician.
Perception is not always reality. The media wants us to believe that the U.S. has outsourced all of its manufacturing. Yet we are still the world's top manufacturing nation, producing more than even China. The same holds true with agricultural production and exports. No other nation comes close.
We thought the record should stand corrected. Nonetheless, we appreciate to good dialogue. Blog on.
Villager Dweller,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the thoughtful comments. I do disagree with Johanns having more impact in the senate. He will be one voice jockeying to be heard. As Secretary of Ag, he was actually considered the primary advocate for agriculture, and while no vote, he had a much louder voice and ability to influence how others vote.
While you are correct that bankers, hardware stores, etc. in small communities absolutely need farmers, the same isn't true of their counterparts in large metropolitan areas. Yes, of course, they want ag business, but it isn't essential to their survival. Again, you are correct that in small communities, agriculture is essential for survival. But I'm looking at raw number of voters, who ultimately elect our officials. Most voters don't put agricultural issues high on their list - this is seen in the various opinion polls.
Absolutely agree that perception is not reality. That is why it is important to try and find the facts. It is interesting that you brought up manufacturing sector. Recently (because of the Ken Burns WW II show currently showing on PBS - it was the US leadership in manufacturing that may of ultimately been responsible for our success in the war) I did some research on that sector. While you are correct that the US is still number one, I don't think that will be true in the near future (5 - 10 years). Here is a link that provides some data
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=202325&DID=233605&DOC=FILE.PDF
The loss of 3 million jobs (approx. 17%) in the manufacturing sector in 7 years doesn't bode well for the US to remain the leader in manufacturing. This link also shows the small amount of actual agriculture products exported when taken as part of the big picture (3%).
You are also correct in your assessment that in agriculture there is no real competition. America farmers are incredibly productive.
Thank you for the feedback. I thorougly enjoy good discussion. But I'm a little unsure as to the record needing corrected :-) You also Blog On!!
Just a comment on New Zeland. They do not have subsidies but have a form of subsidized unemployment insurance during the off season plus nationalized health care. Subsidies come in all forms and disquises to all segments of society.
ReplyDelete