Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Celebrating National Ag Day

Get ready to break out the overalls and send thanks to farmers because today, March 25th, is National Ag Day! National Ag Day is extremely important, especially in the world we live in today, which is dominated by technology and fast-paced lifestyles. Although agriculture is not the main focus of the country, it is still essential for the economy and for everyone everywhere!

Agriculture is behind every piece of food you eat, the clothes you put on and even the crayons you used as a kid (or do still) to color with. The U.S. is the world’s largest producer and exporter of corn. The amount of the country’s crop exports has grown about 1.9% each year since 1990, and 2012 preliminary reports show that the agriculture sector is growing according to the USDA website. Despite all this, agriculture is often an overlooked sector. Too many young people go through primary and secondary education without acquiring any knowledge about agriculture.  The once agri-based country is getting out of touch with its roots and young people are growing up without knowing what agriculture is all about. That is where National Ag Day comes in. It is huge step to redressing the lack of recognition and knowledge of agriculture.
  
National Ag Day was founded in 1973 and is organized by the Agriculture Council of America (ACA). The ACA is dedicated to “increasing the public’s awareness of agriculture’s role in modern society” (www.agday.org). Ag Day is a time to recognize and celebrate all that agriculture provides. There are too few people that really understand the contributions agriculture makes to society; Ag Day’s purpose is to change this. Each year farmers, agricultural associations, schools, government agencies and many, many others celebrate the day. It also encourages Americans to learn more about foods and fibers, and to consider a career in ag. The First National Agriculture Day was planned by the National Agri-Marketing Association and the American National CattleWomen. In 1979, the ACA coordinated the first National Ag Day celebrations in Washington, D.C., and they still do so today. There will be events in the nation’s capital from March 24-26; many of them are free of charge. Since then, the celebration has grown a lot and is present all across the country in schools, organizations, and organizations.  March 25th is not just the first day of spring, but it’s National Agriculture Day as well! Go out and spread the word to celebrate America’s farmers.

-Brittany Levine
National Grange Intern

Facts taken from: www.agday.org and www.usda.gov

Friday, March 21, 2014

Crop Insurance- Reassurance!

There’s been a lot of buzz recently about Obama’s 2015 Budget announced earlier this March, and the effect it will have on federal crop insurance for American farmers. Whereas the White House plans on reducing wasteful spending, apparently this means that the administration wants to cut $14.2 billion in excess crop insurance subsidies over the next ten years. And while this unavoidably sounds like bad news, let me take a few minutes to explain these reductions and why they may not be as bad as they sound.

The key here is that the effects of the 2015 Budget need to be taken into account in conjunction with the new farm bill that passed through Congress last month. According to a March 2014 Wall Street Journal Article, “2015 Budget: Obama Proposal Would Trim Crop Insurance Assistance,” the farm bill cut direct payment and countercyclical farm subsidies, alternately boosting government subsidized crop-insurance offerings (The link to the article can be found here: http://on.wsj.com/1nGS8Sv). CBO estimates that the savings reinvested into new subsidy programs is projected to increase crop insurance funding and disaster assistance programs by approximately $5.7 billion over the next few years. If anything, this push towards safety-net programs heightens the risk the government assumes in the agricultural industry because weather and growing seasons as well as market conditions will dictate the outflow of money from government to farmers. As a result, the biggest “losers” of the budget plan will be crop insurance company sellers, such as Wells Fargo & Co. and Ace Ltd. because they rely on discretionary spending. Here is the essential breakdown of the savings: $6.3 billion in savings by cutting 4% from policies that drive up crop insurance program costs, $4.2 billion by cutting crop insurance company profits from a 14% rate of return to 12%, and $3.8 billion over the next 10 years by cutting 3% from premium subsidies. The Environmental Working Group claims that this is $14.2 billion in actual savings, compared to the supposed savings designated in the farm bill (http://bit.ly/NxMCkf).

Only time will tell whether this reallocation of funding will work in giving farmers greater control over risk management of crops, rather than solely relying on direct payment handouts. Common themes the 2015 budget seem to be productivity and efficiency, which are noble goals. The question then becomes whether or not the implemented changes will actually achieve these goals. While I may not have convinced anyone that these net “trimmings” to crop insurance are positive (good luck to anyone who can argue that), for what my $.02 is worth, I don’t think that this is cause to panic nor is the situation is as dramatic as the numbers seem. 

-Allison Paisner
National Grange Intern

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

It Just Doesn’t Make a Whole lot of Common Sense

Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee at the February 26th meeting about the proposed Medicaid Part D changes said, “It just doesn’t make a whole lot of common sense, Mr. Blum,” in response to Blum’s statements about the proposal.  During her five minutes of questioning, Blackburn spent the majority of the time bashing the new plan for Medicaid Part D.  To her, it did not make sense to alter a program that 95% of beneficiaries approved of, especially when the change would limit options and is projected to raise costs.  Currently, only 12% of the Medicaid budget is spent on Part D.  Mr. Blum is the principle administrative director of CFS and was the first panelist at the meeting; he was questioned for over two hours.

Blum claimed that although Part D has been extremely successful and has a high approval rating, there are still some “vulnerabilities” that need to be redressed.  According to him, the proposed changes will alleviate some of the main issues with the current program.  In Blum’s opinion, it will decrease prescriber fraud, help simplify the plan options (by decreasing from over thirty plans to less than four), make the plans less complex, and reduce taxpayer cost.  The new regulation will require more paperwork to be done by prescribers, and give beneficiaries a significantly smaller amount of plan options.

Even though the cost for the program has decreased over the past few years and there are extremely high approval rates, the Obama administration feels a need to adjust Medicaid Part D.  Consequently, it is extremely likely that the cost for beneficiaries will increase while the amount of care/treatment received they need will decrease.   Blackburn was on to something: there really isn’t much logic with this proposal.  Why fix something already regulated that is not working with new regulations?  Adding additional regulations that will make life harder and put more work on the physicians is not the solution, but rather, they should improve the regulations already in place.  Why drastically alter a program that has extremely high approval rating? Very few governmental programs have only five percent dissatisfaction rate. Phrases were thrown out such as “if its not broke, don’t fix it,” and it’s okay to hit the tire even if working, but not when your foot comes back and it hits you.

The overwhelming success of Medicaid Part D along with the high satisfaction does not mean that we should not look at it to fix some of the issues that many seniors are unaware of, but this proposal is not the answer.  As the Congresswoman from North Carolina, my home state, pointed out, 7.4 million out of 7.9 of the state’s seniors will be effected by the change, a change that they do not want.  The majority of the 7.4 million in my home state will be effected negatively.  One of the biggest drawbacks of the plan is that there will be fewer options.  Although having a vast amount of choices can be confusing for seniors at times, choice in plans provides more positives than negatives.  The proposal practically gives no choice to the beneficiaries.

Not only are there logical issues present with the Medicaid Part D proposal, but legal as well.  Almost every congressman pointed out that it would violate the Noninterference Clause, which restricts government from negotiating between private parties.  Under the proposal, the CRS would be able to communicate and negotiate with manufacturers and pharmacies, which they justified under their “new interpretation” of clause.  As expected this received scrutiny from many of the congressmen present.

Not one of the committee members present was in favor of the proposal.  And it makes sense.  The hearing brought up points that made it appear that the new proposal would not help, but actually hurt beneficiaries and physicians, especially those in rural areas. Congresswoman Blackburn hit the nail on the head: this proposal doesn't make the least bit of common sense.

-Brittany Levine
National Grange Intern