Despite a recent Gallup poll showing that just 26 percent of Americans approve of his handling of the economy, President Obama encountered amazingly few critics over the course of his taxpayer-funded bus tour across the Midwest. It wasn’t until the final two stops on the tour, in the small Illinois towns of Atkinson and Alpha, that questioners broached what has been a principle grievance among many in the business community for quite some time: an overly burdensome regulatory regime.
Advertisement
“Please don’t challenge us with more rules and regulations from Washington, D.C.,” implored a man on Wednesday, describing himself as a corn and soybean farmer in Atkinson. “We would prefer to start our day in a tractor cab or combine cab rather than filling out forms and permits to do what we’d like to do.”
Phillip Nelson, president of the Illinois Farm Bureau, concurs, urging Obama to “put some common sense back into these regulatory discussions so we don’t regulate farmers out of business.”
The president’s response was typical of the lofty condescension he reserves for those who dare to challenge or disagree with his policies. “Don’t always believe what you hear,” Obama told the farmer in Atkinson, urging the man to “contact the USDA,” which, he promised, would easily explain to the misguided sap that his concerns were “frankly unfounded.”
Indeed, any time the president attempts to give advice on how to run a business, “don’t always believe what you hear” is an appropriate maxim. Not only did Obama wrongly identify the federal organization responsible for the regulations suffered by the farmer in Atkinson — regarding dust pollution, water runoff (overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency) and noise pollution (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) — but, as it turns out, directly contacting a massive federal bureaucracy isn’t exactly the best way to get a satisfactory answer to questions about government policies, much less to alleviate concerns about those policies. This was clearly demonstrated by the industrious reporting of Politico’s M. J. Lee, who, after a day’s worth of phone calls, was only able to elicit the following (far-from-edifying) response from the federal government:
Secretary [of Agriculture Tom] Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers.
All assurances aside, the agricultural community is far from persuaded. “The EPA has gone far beyond enforcement of rules, overstepped its authority and begun to exercise legislative power in administering environmental law,” Nelson tells National Review Online ina statement. This “regulatory overreach,” he says, threatens to drive up costs. Farmers (as well as the lawmakers who represent them) are particularly concerned with the EPA’s forthcoming regulatory review, as called for in the Clean Air Act. The agency’s scientific panel has said that while the science of measuring “coarse particulate material” (i.e., dust) remains uncertain, the EPA would be justified in either retaining current regulatory standard or tightening them by half. Significant quantities of dust, the EPA argues, can pose a significant health risk. “Small particulates less than 10 micrometers in diameter post the greatest problems because they can get deep into your lungs and some may even get into your bloodstream,” the EPA writes on its website. “Exposure to such particles can affect both your lungs and your heart.”
Most farmers, of course, are well aware of these risks. They operate in rural areas where dust is as naturally occurring as dirt, and is an unavoidable byproduct of their everyday activities. Many argue that mere “common sense” is sufficient to combat these risks, in lieu of burdensome restrictions, which could force farmers to resort to unreasonable and expensive dust-control measures such as constantly watering down gravel and dirt roads. Farm advocates say that the costs associated with new dust regulations would far outweigh the (minimal) benefits to personal health or the environment.
Having grown up on a cotton farm near Lubbock, Texas and now owning (but not operating) two cotton farms, it is amazing to see the amount of paperwork and red tape my father has to put up with compared to when I was a kid in the 70s and early 80s. He has to have a certain number of education credits every year to be able to purchase and apply common herbicides like RoundUp. Federally-mandated low-sulfur diesel, which is harder to refine, alone is costing thousands of dollars per year for him alone due to its higher cost of diesel and lower fuel economy for his tractors, trucks and pickups. Don't forget the amount of time spent dealing with the Farm Services Administration part of USDA and the paperwork they require. Daddy no longer uses seasonal workers because of the regulations and paperwork required - he just uses more chemicals and better technology - thank God for glyphosate and genetically modified crops! It's amazing - for a guy with such big ears, Obama is incredibly tone deaf!
Growing up in an agricultural community in SE Arkansas where dirt roads were the norm and not the exception, I wonder how we ever survived with the EPA not around to "save" us. But we grew up, graduated from High School and College, got married, had normal children, and are still alive some 68 years later. If we had only known the dangers that dust causes, we probably wouldn't be alive today. What would we ever do without the Federal Government and it's EPA? Life would just have no meaning.
The EPA believes that it is fine to spread sewage sludge on farmer's fields in lieu of fertilizer, yet they want to limit the amount of dust generated in planting and harvesting crops all in the name of protecting air quality.
I lived in a very small town surrounded by farmland, the closest farm less than 100m from my house. I have NEVER experienced a problem with dust. As a matter of fact my lungs have never been healthier, I have been free of asthma since living here. Regulating dust? This is just silly. I hope the farmers just ignore the regulations and keep going about their work. In my opinion farmers have the most important job in the world, without food we would all die. I am thankful for the work that they do, and that I have food on my table. I really hope the government will get off their backs and let them feed the world. Why is the left trying to starve us?
The EPA acts with no regard to the reality of Agriculture; it is only focused on a radical environmental agenda that intentionally seeks to destroy property rights and free enterprise.
The EPA is a federal agency run amok. The process it uses to produce regulation is completely flawed and absolutely malicious in its purposeful destruction of American Agriculture. The procedure that is used to create regulation is based on abstract modeling and worst case scenario conjecture with little to no connection to actual uses and practices by Farmers.
Case and point, the whole idea of regulating dust as a pollutant is asinine. Another example are the proposed spray buffer zones in the North West based on worst case scenario modeling done by the National Marine and Fishery Service that purports damage to water ways from common pesticide sprays used in agriculture. The problem with the "study" done by the NMFS is that it is based on a hypothetical model where every single farmer with farm land bordering a water way (to include irrigation ditches) is dumping 100% of their pesticides directly into the water. This whole idea, is of course in no way connected to reality as no farmer would simply dump pesticides into any water way; because for one, no farmer seeks to degrade the environment that they derive their livelihood from, and two why would a farmer waste money by dumping out expensive inputs used in production? And further, no farmer in the proposed regulatory area has been out of compliance with the current pesticide regulations. So what then could the EPA truly be trying to accomplish with regulations that will definitely put a large number of farmers simply out of business?
The EPA needs to be de-funded and drastically reduced in size and scope before it completely dismantles American Agriculture. A country that cannot feed itself cannot defend itself.
Unfortunately this piece makes me want to paraphrase Niemöller's famous quote - the regulators came for the refineries and I did nothing for I was not a refiner, then came for the factories and I did nothing because I was not a manufacturer, then they came for the utilities and yet again I did nothing for I was not a utility, and then they came for me and finally I got an exemption because I have better PR and more friends in Congress.
The basic problem is the regulations themselves - the scientific research does not confirm the cost-benefit ratios or real risk factors claimed by the EPA for many regulations of the last 30 years.
However with respect to the article for example, the EPA is out to eliminate a 3 percent (phosphate in dishwashing detergents) contributor to nutrient loading in wastewater. While at the same time being being pushed to ignore the 60 per cent contributor (phosphate agricultural fertilizer runoff).
Exempting certain sacred cows from EPA regs has at least three major negatives -
1. It plays 'favorites.'
2. It does not question the basic validity of the regulations themselves.
3. And it puts the regulators in the position of placing tighter restrictions on the non-favored groups to meet the ostensible goal of the regulations.
Congress needs to overhaul the entire EPA regulatory scheme and rein in/eliminate the agency. While I sympathize with agriculture, continuing to allow the EPA to destroy the rest of the economy is insane.
Regarding the EPA and farming I suggest a little more investigation on your part.
The EPA has been more than lenient with industrial agriculture. The Farm Bureau has the power to get what they want.
I am not completely supportive of government regulations in any sector. Often these regulations are job killers. Often these regulations drive up production costs which increase the prices of goods and services.
Never the less industrial agriculture has managed to escape many regulatory issues. Real farming, sustainable farming, is not an environmental problem. Industrial agriculture is harmful to the environment, rural economies, human health and animal welfare.
Regulation is not the answer. The end of farm subsidies--welfare--is the answer.
Those "farmers" who complain about government regulation seem to have no problem with that same government send them their subsidies.
I'm not 100% sure what Parker Bosley defines as "industrial" agriculture, but I would imagine it is aimed at "large" farms. I've worked in agriculture as a university educator working directly with farmers for nearly 40 years. There has been a tremendous shift to larger and larger farms. All I can say is great! That's the free enterprise system at work. I work with hundreds of dairy and grain farmers and I don't know of any farms that have not expanded over the past decade, not one! I've worked on both coasts and in the middle of the country as well. There are a few "bad actors," but the overwhelming majority of our water and land resources are in much better shape than they were in the 1970's. 99.9% of farmers, whether "industrial" or otherwise, have a keen sense of stewardship when it comes to our nations' land and water resources. They want to pass on a productive farm to the next generation, plus good stewardship leads to greater profit. Most of the improvement in our land and water resources were made because it just made good business sense. For the most part, EPA regulators do not have a clue about production agriculture. If America wants to starve, just keep the EPA pointed in the current direction it is pointed! BTW: So-called industrial farming is "real farming" and it is "sustainable." And, most farms I work with, both large and small, would agee with ending subsidies.
"A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House has co-sponsored legislation to preempt the new EPA restrictions."
I thought Congress was the birth mother and father of the EPA. Instead of drafting legislation to counter specific acts of the agency, why don't they just cut off 90% of the EPA's rule making authority and associated funding? If obesity is such a problem in this country, Congress could set a pretty good example by starting with its own progeny.
Honestly, is anybody surprised? We are the breadbasket to the world, and that means we must be taken down a peg, or two, right? America's preeminent position in any field must be destroyed so that the Leftist agenda can be advanced.
Besides, Stalin did wonders by artificially creating famines so he could socially engineer a new evil empire out of it.
If the government makes it impossible to make a profit at farming (which is pretty much the case for small family farmers already) then the government will have no choice but to step in and nationalize agriculture and to save us from the free market that has failed to feed us. You laugh, but watch it happen.
Wheat has only been cultivated for around 10,000 years, so the need for BLB (Bad Luck Barry) to fundamentally transform agriculture should be obvious.
Any halfwit (possibly even the quarterwits) who's ever set foot on a farm is aware that there have been tremendous improvements in safety, working conditions and even conservation practices over the last 20 years, and it happened without the heavy hand of regulation. Modern equipment has better cabs and air filtration systems, and dust masks are much more prevalent during activities that stir up particulates. No-till and minimum-till practices, which leave crop residue intact, are much more common today. Through conservation incentives, grass buffer strips have been planted along creeks and streams to minimize chemical and fertilizer runoff. In other words, leave this industry alone!
But, by all means BLB, you and Mr. Mouch should leave no stone unturned when looking for new and inventive ways to dampen any and all private-sector activity in this country. Who is John Galt, anyway?
I, for one, am done trying to be heard. I'm either labeled 'red neck racist' or 'anti-American domestic terrorist' if I oppose the liberal party. I'm done. The next time I let myself be heard will be when I cast my vote for president. Liberals have cut their own throats by making any one who opposes them out to be the enemy.
The EPA is not just anti-farm, it's anti-people. The EPA will not rest until most Americans rest IN the dust, put there by an unaffordable cost of staying alive.
The EPA even regulates what farmers do with manure excreted by farm animals. Obama's "manage manure in creative ways" remark is unintentionally funny, given what's emitted from his mouth every time he opens it.
Here's the link to the story:
1. The "regulations kill jobs" meme may be popular among small business owners (farmers or not). I doubt if that meme resonates among the bulk of the population, especially in urban areas. Why not ask the soccer moms of the USA, the pseudo-Catholics who live in urbanized suburbs, and other swing voters exactly how many times they were unable to get a job due to "too many regulations"? I think you'll find that such voters will wonder what you're talking about. And, I think you'll find that many of the employers who complain the most are also the ones that don't provide stable jobs for stable families in stable communities, and the voters know that.
2. These farm jobs that are lost due to regulation: Precisely who is it that those farmers employ? Voters? No lo credo.
Follow
