PNP comment: Great background on the Farm Bill. — Editor Liz Bowen

My Heritage.org

By  Kelly McNair

June 12, 2012

Many provisions of the current farm bill will expire at the end of September. It is estimated to have cost Americans $284 billion over the last five years.

Most programs in the farm bill were established during the Depression-era and they have not changed as our agricultural landscape has changed. Through various farm subsidies, the burden of agricultural risk is placed on taxpayers. Heritage Foundation policy expert Diane Katz says “Americans are taking a double hit:  Tax revenues are used to subsidize producers, and production limits raise the cost of products.”

The number and size of farms has dramatically changed since the depression-era as well:

The number of farms has dramatically changed, decreasing from a peak of 6.8 million in 1935 to 2.2 million in 2010. During that same period, however, the amount of land in farms declined by less than 13 percent. Taken together, the two trends reflect fewer, but larger, farms. Indeed, the number of farms with more than 1,000 acres increased by 14 percent between 1982 and 2002. In the same period, farms with 50 to 1,000 acres declined by about 17 percent.

These trends are important to note because they directly affect agriculture policy. Because the distribution of subsidies is largely influenced by the volume of farm production, larger farms are receiving a larger proportion of the payouts.

The current farm bill legislation also distorts the food market, artificially inflating food prices by limiting the quantity farmers are legally able to produce.

There is no doubt that farmers face risks in their job but there is no such thing as zero risk in entrepreneurial ventures. Katz argues “to the extent that Congress artificially shields some farmers from the reality of their occupation, they are more likely to take bigger risks running their farms.”

Overall, the farm bill burdens taxpayers, increases the cost of food, and keeps farmers from producing to their potential. Read more of Katz’s ideas on how Congress should address the Farm Bill.

Do you think the programs in the farm bill should have been updated during the last 79 years?

Read it:

http://www.myheritage.org/news/the-farm-bill-harvesting-taxpayer-dollars-since-1933/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email

PNP comment: We in Siskiyou  are watching our skies for drones hired by the State Dept. of Fish and Game to spy on farmers and ranchers. — Editor Liz Bowen

By Andrew Becker, G.W. Schulz

Published: Friday, Jun. 15, 2012 – 12:21 am

Last Modified: Sunday, Jun. 17, 2012 – 7:21 am

Sacramento Bee

TUCSON, Ariz. – An aerial drone, zooming somewhere out of sight high above the cooling scrubland, first spotted the group of nearly two dozen migrants.

Snaking through the Sonoran Desert on a warm, moonless night last month, the would-be immigrants traversed the rugged foothills southwest of Tucson, a few miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border.

It had been a relatively quiet shift in that area for U.S. Border Patrol agents, who paused to chat in their passing green-and-white SUVs as dusk crept closer. But just after 10 p.m. agents perked up, their radios crackling with activity.

A fixed-wing Cessna took over from the Predator B unmanned plane and from overhead the pilot helped direct agents toward the migrants, who wove around ocotillo and brush.

A helicopter swooped in, its spotlight beaming over the hillside and rotors slicing the desert solitude as agents dropped down a ridge to chase the scattering group.

All told, a dozen men and women in olive uniforms converged. They rounded up eight of the migrants, walked them toward their gathered trucks and lined them up in a shallow drainage ditch along a washboard dirt road. A few of the migrants asked about the “camera in the sky” that had caught them.

A pilotless aircraft may have awed the failed migrants, but such success stories about U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s quarter-billion dollar drone program come in short supply, according to a Homeland Security Department inspector general’s report released Monday.

Grounded by wind and bad weather, costly maintenance and poor planning, the underachieving aircraft have flown only a fraction of the agency’s desired flight time from four bases in Arizona, Texas, Florida and North Dakota, the inspector general found.

In Arizona, where the agency keeps four drones, agents seemed pleasantly surprised that an unmanned craft had aided their efforts, though they had apprehended fewer than half of the detected migrants.

In its audit, however, the inspector general recommended that the agency stop buying the drones, manufactured by Poway-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, until officials can properly plan how to get the most out of the unmanned planes and budget for the program, which includes having enough equipment to perform their mission.

“CBP has not adequately planned to fund unmanned aircraft-related equipment,” such as ground control stations, ground support equipment, cameras and navigation systems, the inspector general report says. “As a result of CBP’s insufficient funding approach, future UAS [unmanned aerial systems] missions may have to be curtailed.”

Customs and Border Protection officials said they concurred with the inspector general’s recommendations and were committed to continuing to improve the drone program. In its written response to the inspector general’s report, the agency said it had no plans to add more drones beyond the 10 already in operation or on order “unless directed by a higher authority.”

The agency’s previously stated goal was to expand to 24 drones, which cost about $18.5 million for the Predator B and $20.5 million for the maritime version, known as the Guardian, to operate. Those costs include maintenance, surveillance technology and ground equipment.

In the past year the agency has added two unmanned aircraft to its underutilized fleet and expects to receive its 10th system by September. The agency can still purchase up to 24 drones, but authorization is based on the availability of funding.

Read more here:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/14/4564084/at-us-border-expensive-drones.html#storylink=cpy

PNP comment: 100 loads of logs is not nearly enough. We need to drastically THIN our over-grown forests before they burn up like the trees are in Colorado. — Editor Liz Bowen

PNP comment: And the lies of Global Warming continue! — Editor Liz Bowen

Report: UN to consider $1,300 “green” tax on US

June 16, 2012

Diplomats at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Conference in Rio de Janeiro next week will consider proposals that would levy taxes on American families and energy industries in order to support international efforts to combat global warming, according to a draft agenda for the conference.

“We recognize that subsidies for non-renewable energy development should be eliminated and replaced with a global tax on the production of energy from non-renewable energy sources,” the UN draft agenda, amended by non-governmental organizations at the invitation of the UN, says. “The income of this tax should be allocated to renewable energy development.” The draft agenda was obtained by the Center for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a group skeptical of the UN’s position on global warming.

President Obama has adopted similar policy positions in his discussions of energy and tax policy over recent months. “I am writing to urge you to take immediate action to eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and to use those dollars to invest in clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Obama said in an April 26 letter to top-ranking members of the House and Senate.

Read more at The Washington Examiner. By Joel Gehrke.

Bible Verse from Frank Tallerico 6/17/12, Psalm 34:4-67NKJ:

I sought the Lord, and He heard me, and delivered me from all of my fears. 5. They looked to Him and were radiant, and their faces were not ashamed. 6. This poor man cried out, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles. 7. The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him and delivers them.

Scientist Paul R. Houser, Ph.D.

Dennis Lynch, lead Klamath Dam removal scientist, blasts Houser in the media, and former top scientist in Bureau of Reclamation and science integrity officer, Dr. Houser, responds. 6/16/12.

WOLVES issue:

(Modoc) County aims to take tough stand against wolf, Modoc Record June 2012

www.klamathbasincrisis.org

PNP comment: Wow, this is the same question we in Siskiyou County have been asking the DFG and the feds over Klamath dam removal?  Great question! We have never received a real answer — just a side-step, like “it doesn’t matter, this is what we the government is going to do!” — Editor Liz Bowen

Steve James: Why so many rules if sediment is OK? » Redding Record Searchlight http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jun/16/steve-james-why-so-many-rules-if-sediment-is-ok/

Redding Record Searchlight

June 16, 2012

Dennis Lynch’s discourse brings up some serious questions. If releasing 5.4 million to 8.6 million cubic yards of reservoir sediment into the Klamath River is OK, then why are state and federal agencies enforcing regulations that end suction-dredge mining, requiring multiple alteration permits for land use, or mandating any sort of erosion control at all? If, as stated, “very little of this sediment would remain in the river channel,” then who cares about any sediment from any source entering the ecosystem? It all disappears instantly, right?

If 5.4 million to 8.6 million cubic yards of sediment has been trapped by the dams, then won’t dam removal subject the lower Klamath to a permanent increase in detrimental sediment in addition to the release of the reservoir sediment?

Are 10 percent mortality rates of coho and chinook salmon and 20 percent to 30 percent mortality of steelhead really acceptable risks? Since this region often gets droughts that last for several years, won’t the mortality rate continue for several years? Why is this wonderful nontoxic sediment being wasted anyway?

In the 1980s, the feds constructed billion-dollar concrete curtains at Shasta Dam and in Whiskeytown Lake to lower the Sacramento River water temperature and thus benefit migrating fish. Won’t dam removal on the Klamath Rive raise water temperature and harm the fisheries?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA,
the Klamath River Basin, and private property rights can be found at The
Klamath Bucket Brigade’s web site – http://klamathbucketbrigade.org/index.html –
please visit today.