Attention Farmers

Here is a partial Quote from the President's FY2013 Budget Proposal to Congress

The Administration remains committed to a strong safety net for farmers, one that protects them from revenue losses that result from low yields or price declines, and strong crop insurance programs. But there are programs and places where current support is unnecessary or too generous. To reduce the deficit, the Administration proposes to eliminate or reduce those programs, while strengthening the safety net for those that need it most. The Administration is proposing to: 

• Eliminate Direct Payments to Farmers. The direct payment program provides producers fixed annual income support payments for having historically planted crops that were supported by Government programs, regardless of whether the farmer is currently producing those crops—or producing any crop, for that matter. Direct payments do not vary with prices, yields, or producers’ farm incomes. As a result, taxpayers continue to foot the bill for these payments to farmers who are experiencing record yields and prices; more than 50 percent of direct payments go to farmers with more than $100,000 in annual income. Eliminating these payments would save the Government roughly $23 billion over 10 years and build a better farm safety net. 

• Reduce Crop Insurance Subsidies. Crop insurance is a foundation of our farm safety net. Yet, the program continues to be highly subsidized and costs the Government approximately $10 billion a year to run: $3 billion per year for the private insurance companies to administer and underwrite the program and $7 billion per year in premium subsidy to the farmers. A U.S. Department of Agriculture commissioned study found that, when compared to other private companies, crop insurance companies’ rate of return on investment (ROI) should be around 12 percent, but that it is currently expected to be 14 percent. The Administration is proposing to lower the crop insurance companies’ ROI to meet the 12 percent target, saving $1.2 billion over 10 years. In addition, the current cap on administrative expenses is based on the 2010 premiums, which were among the highest ever. A more appropriate level for the cap would be based on 2006 premiums, neutralizing the spike in commodity prices over the last four years, but not harming the delivery system. The Administration, therefore, proposes setting the cap at $0.9 billion adjusted annually for inflation, which would save $2.9 billion over 10 years. Finally, the Administration proposes to price more accurately the premium for catastrophic (CAT) coverage policies, which will slightly lower the reimbursement to crop insurance companies. The premium for CAT coverage is fully subsidized for the farmer, so the farmer is not impacted by the change. This change will save $225 million over 10 years. 

In addition, the Administration is proposing to reduce producers’ premium subsidy by 2 basis points for all but catastrophic crop insurance, where the subsidy is greater than 50 percent. This will have little impact on producers. Most producers pay only 40 percent of the cost of their crop insurance premium on average, with the Government paying for the remainder. This cost share arrangement was implemented in 2000, when very few producers participated in the program and “ad-hoc” agricultural disaster assistance bills were passed regularly. The Congress increased the subsidy for buy-up coverage by over 50 percent at the time to encourage greater participation. With current participation rates, the deep premium subsidies are no longer needed. This proposal is expected to save $3.3 billion over 10 years. 

• Better Target Agricultural Conservation Assistance. The Administration has championed programs that create incentives for private lands conservation and has worked to leverage these resources with those of other Federal agencies toward greater landscape scale conservation; however, the significant increases in conservation funding (roughly 200 percent since enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002) has led to redundancies among our agricultural conservation programs. At the same time, high crop prices have both strengthened market opportunities to expand agricultural production on the Nation’s farmlands and decreased producer demand for certain agricultural conservation programs. To reduce the deficit, the Administration proposes to reduce conservation funding by $1.8 billion over 10 years by better targeting conservation funding to the most cost-effective and environmentally-beneficial programs and practices. Even under this proposal, conservation assistance is projected to grow by $60 billion over the next decade (assuming continuation of the current farm bill base line,)

Do We Really Need All This?

Our government was established in 1789, 223 years ago.  We are still making new laws.  How many laws do we need?  In 223 years our government hasn't gotten it right?  That sounds like failure to me.

I was reading some federal government internet sites today.  Did you know that the government spends about $10,000,000 a year to determine federal employee salaries?  Well, it is more than that really;  that's how much they spend on the study they use to determine salary scales for federal employees in various jobs around the country.  We have the Federal Salary Council that conducts the National Compensation Survey.  Cost? About ten million dollars.

A Executive Branch bureau director starts at about $120,000 per year.  That sounds fair for a starting salary.  How many bureaus does the Executive Branch have?  Good question, glad I asked it.  It is hard to say.  The Executive Branch includes the Cabinet. Below is a list of Cabinet Departments.  Each Department has a number of divisions, say bureaus.  I have included some of these under The State Department.  Each Department has a similar division, depending upon its roll in the government. 

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Department of Commerce

United States Department of Defense

United States Department of Education

United States Department of Energy

United States Department of Health and Human Services

United States Department of Homeland Security

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

United States Department of the Interior

United States Department of Justice

United States Department of Labor

United States Department of Transportation

United States Department of the Treasury

United States Department of Veterans Affairs

United States Department of State

Under the State Department we have

Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources

Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs

Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs

Under Secretary for Management

Under Secretary for Political Affairs

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Permanent Diplomatic Missions

The Executive Branch also includes these agencies:

    Council of Economic Advisers

    Council on Environmental Quality

    Domestic Policy Council

    National Economic Council

    National Security Council

    Office of Administration

    Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

    Office of Management and Budget

    Office of National AIDS Policy

    Office of National Drug Control Policy

    Office of Intergovermental Affairs and Public Engagment

    Office of Science and Technology Policy

    Office of the First Lady

    Office of the Vice President

    Office of the Second Lady

    President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board

    President's Intelligence Oversight Board

    President's Intelligence Advisory Board

    United States Trade Representative

    White House Office

    White House Military Office

No Americans were harmed in this report

I believe that our President will be making a great deal in this election year of the fact that he has gotten all our troops out of Iraq. Not much news since; things must be great. I have been doing some web "surfing" to see what the news is concerning Iraq since our troops left. Here are some numbers from what I read.

• The last American troops left Iraq for Kuwait December 18, 2011.
• December 22, 2011, in various attacks/bombings in Iraq 63 died, 160 were injured.
• January 5, 2012, 73 dead, 149 injured
• January 14, 2012, 53 dead, 141 injured
• January 27, 2012, 32 dead, 71 injured
• February 23, 2012, 83 dead, 250+ injured
• March 7, 2012, 14 dead, 24 injured
• March 12, 2012, 14 dead 13 injured

I make no claim that the above list is complete; it is what I found in a brief search of on line news reports since December 18, 2011. The numbers are probably on the low side, but the total from above is 332 dead, 809+ injured in bombings and other attacks in Iraq.

It appears to me that this President's goal for Iraq was to get our troops out. (Let's say we won and leave.) According to Defense Department numbers available on the internet, over 3400 Americans died in combat in Iraq since 2003. But that is history, isn't it. All is good, our troops are out, no more fighting. Happy Saint Patrick's Day to all.

A Question

This is a very political time. Every time I hear a politician drone on, I ask myself, what do I expect of government? It is a lot tougher question than it first appears to be. I do not have a complete and efficient answer, but here is a thought.

I expect a government to provide good order and safety. Government is a collective of the people to provide each with basic needs. Among these the most basic for me is the need to feel safe from harm. The government provides this, locally, with police, and nationally with a military. If we have no trust in our police or our military, then we lack our most basic need, and we must find another way to insure that we satisfy that need.

I have noted in the news lately, an increase in the purchase of guns, and an increase the number of shooting ranges. On TV there are shows like, "Top Shot" and "Sons of Guns." I have to ask myself, are we losing trust in government to provide for our most basic need. If we are, why?

The Next few Months will be .... Memorable

I don't know what has been happening in your life, but I am concerned about the direction we are headed. Personally, I have a very good medical plan. I am retired military with over 25 years of service. Between Medicare and my military supplement, I have it better than a lot of people, I know. But since the affordable health care act passed I have seen the cost of my family's plan go up. Our prescription drug co-pays have nearly doubled, and our dental plan has gone up over $70 a year for the same benefits. Walgreens no longer accepts the military retirees' prescription drug plan.

If this new law is so great why have more than half the States joined in a suit to declare it unconstitutional? Could it be that this one law could bankrupt the states when they are already in financial trouble?

Below are excerpts from an article in today's New York Times. I have highlighted some of the things I find most interesting. Remember this is our "open and transparent" White House.


White House Works to Shape Debate Over Health Law
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: March 9, 2012 New York Times

WASHINGTON —

The White House has begun an aggressive campaign to use approaching Supreme Court arguments on the new health care law as a moment to build support for the measure seen as President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, hoping to shape public opinion on an issue at the center of the battle for the White House and Congress.

On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.
….
White House officials denied that they were trying to gin up support by encouraging rallies outside the Supreme Court,
….
But they appear to have decided that they cannot risk allowing the court proceedings to unfold without making sure that backers of the sweeping overhaul will be prominent and outspoken.
….
At the White House meeting on Wednesday, a wide range of advocates representing consumers and people with diseases and disabilities — as well as doctors and nurses, labor unions and religious organizations — discussed plans to bolster the landmark law, which is being challenged by 26 states as unconstitutional.

Supporters of the law plan to hold events outside the court on each day of oral argument. The events include speeches by people with medical problems who have benefited or could benefit from the law. In addition, supporters will arrange for radio hosts to interview health care advocates at a “radio row,” at the United Methodist Building on Capitol Hill.

People who attended the meeting on Wednesday said the speakers included Jennifer Palmieri, deputy communications director at the White House; Jon Carson, director of the president’s Office of Public Engagement; Jeanne M. Lambrew, deputy assistant to the president for health policy; and Mark B. Childress, a deputy chief of staff at the White House.
….
A White House official who attended the session said that at least 100 people were present, but he declined to provide a list of their organizations.
….
In the week before the Supreme Court arguments, administration officials will fan out around the country and join local groups in celebrating the second anniversary of the law, signed by Mr. Obama on March 23, 2010.
….
Backers of the law said they would use data supplied by the White House to show how the law had reduced drug costs for older Americans, guaranteed free preventive care for millions of people and allowed many children to stay on their parents’ insurance policies.
….
Groups working with the White House include the Service Employees International Union; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Health Care for America Now, a consumer coalition that fought for passage of the legislation; Protect Your Care, a nonprofit group created last year to defend the 2010 law; and the Center for American Progress, a research and advocacy group with close ties to the White House.
….

One last note. Most of this Act does not take effect until 2014.

The Cost of Doing Business

This country runs on gas. That's a fact. While we would love to find an alternative, it just isn't happening. Our current President set out to solve the problem, it was one of his main objectives. To support this statement, here is a quote from his "Person of the Year" interview in Time magazine, December 29, 2008.

[Time] When you look at the economic issues that you ran on in the campaign, does [all the bad financial news] change your priorities about how quickly you’ve got to act on, say, jobs vs. energy?

[President Obama] Fortunately, most of the proposals that we made apply not only to our long-term economic growth but also fit well into what we need to do short term to get the economy back on track. I have talked during the campaign about the need to rebuild our infrastructure, and that obviously gives us an opportunity to create jobs and drive demand at a time when the economy desperately needs jobs and demand. I’ve talked about a tax cut for 95% of working families, and that fits into a stimulus package, and we can get that money out into people’s pockets fairly quickly. I’ve talked about the need for us to contain health-care costs, and it turns out there’s some spending that has to be done on information technology, for example, that we can do fairly swiftly. So there’s no doubt that most of the priorities that I had are ones that will serve our short-term economic needs as well as our long-term economic needs.

The drop in oil prices, I do think, makes the conversation about energy more difficult, not less necessary. More than ever, I think, a wholesale investment in transforming our economy—from retrofitting buildings so that they’re energy-efficient to changing our transportation patterns and thinking about how to rebuild our electricity grid—those are all things that we’re going to need now more than ever. But with people not paying $4 a gallon for gas, it means it drops on their priority list. And that makes the politics of it tougher than it might have been six months ago.

The emphasis in the last paragraph I added to make a point. The pipeline from Canada was recently rejected. That is just one example of the current policies. I found the chart below on an internet source, gasbuddy.com. It shows the average price for gas in the United States between February 2007 and February 2012. I believe it shows a trend that is supported by our current administration. You can draw your own conclusions.

Oh yes, one more thing, here in California the current price is well over $4.00 a gallon and going up. I suppose that makes our President happy.

That Health Care Thing

I do believe that the current confrontation between religious groups and the Administration is just the beginning of a long "debate." The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) contains over 3,000 references to "the Secretary." Most refer to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, although there are references to the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of the Treasury. Over 650 times it uses the phrase, "by the Secretary." What does that mean? Well, here are some items I found on government web sites.

First, here is an excerpt from an Executive order that concerns the implantation of PPACA.

Executive Order 13535

“Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, …."

The Act doesn't tell us what affordable health care is, it authorizes the Administration to tell us what it is, and make the law.

The Act itself is hundreds of pages long. What could take so many pages to say if it is the "Secretary" who will determine the law?

Here is the section on insurance for abortion from the act as amended. Remember this was a major issue before the bill passed. This is how it was resolved as compiled by the Office of Legislative Counsel.

Compilation of patient protection and affordable care act

[as amended through May 1, 2010]

Including

Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act

Health-Related Portions Of The Health Care And

Education Reconciliation Act Of 2010

Prepared by the Office Of The Legislative Counsel

For the use of the U.S. House Of Representatives

SEC. 1303 [42 U.S.C. 18023].. SPECIAL RULES.

[Replaced by section 10104(c)]

(a) STATE OPT-OUT OF ABORTION COVERAGE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may elect to prohibit abortion

coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange

in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition.

(2) TERMINATION OF OPT OUT.—A State may repeal a law

described in paragraph (1) and provide for the offering of such

services through the Exchange.

(b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—

(1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision

of this title (or any amendment made by this title)—

(i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made

by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified

health plan to provide coverage of services described

in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential

health benefits for any plan year; and

(ii) subject to subsection (a), the issuer of a qualified

health plan shall determine whether or not the

plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph

(B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for

the plan year.

(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—

(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—

The services described in this clause are

abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds

appropriated for the Department of Health and

Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as

in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning

of the plan year involved.

(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—

The services described in this clause are

abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds

appropriated for the Department of Health and

Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in

effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning

of the plan year involved.

(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified health plan provides

coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the

issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable

to any of the following for purposes of paying for such

services:

(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the

advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402

of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and

the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction

under section 1412 of the Patient Protection

and Affordable Care Act).

(B) ESTABLISHMENT OF ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.—In the

case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the

issuer of the plan shall—

(i) collect from each enrollee in the plan (without

regard to the enrollee’s age, sex, or family status) a

separate payment for each of the following:

(I) an amount equal to the portion of the premium

to be paid directly by the enrollee for coverage

under the plan of services other than services

described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) (after reduction

for credits and cost-sharing reductions described

in subparagraph (A)); and

(II) an amount equal to the actuarial value of

the coverage of services described in paragraph

(1)(B)(i), and

(ii) shall deposit all such separate payments into

separate allocation accounts as provided in subparagraph

(C).

In the case of an enrollee whose premium for coverage

under the plan is paid through employee payroll deposit,

the separate payments required under this subparagraph

shall each be paid by a separate deposit.

(C) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The issuer of a plan to which

subparagraph (A) applies shall establish allocation accounts

described in clause (ii) for enrollees receiving

amounts described in subparagraph (A).

(ii) ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.—The issuer of a plan

to which subparagraph (A) applies shall deposit—

(I) all payments described in subparagraph

(B)(i)(I) into a separate account that consists solely

of such payments and that is used exclusively

to pay for services other than services described in

paragraph (1)(B)(i); and

(II) all payments described in subparagraph

(B)(i)(II) into a separate account that consists solely

of such payments and that is used exclusively

to pay for services described in paragraph

(1)(B)(i).

(D) ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The issuer of a qualified health

plan shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month

cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including

coverage under the qualified health plan of the

services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i).

(ii) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making such estimate,

the issuer—

(I) may take into account the impact on overall

costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may

not take into account any cost reduction estimated

to result from such services, including prenatal

care, delivery, or postnatal care;

(II) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage

were included for the entire population covered;

and

(III) may not estimate such a cost at less than

$1 per enrollee, per month.

(E) ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), State

health insurance commissioners shall ensure that

health plans comply with the segregation requirements

in this subsection through the segregation of

plan funds in accordance with applicable provisions of

generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars

on funds management of the Office of Management

and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government

Accountability Office.

(ii) CLARIFICATION.—Nothing in clause (i) shall

prohibit the right of an individual or health plan to

appeal such action in courts of competent jurisdiction.

(3) RULES RELATING TO NOTICE.—

(A) NOTICE.—A qualified health plan that provides for

coverage of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i)

shall provide a notice to enrollees, only as part of the summary

of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of

enrollment, of such coverage.

(B) RULES RELATING TO PAYMENTS.—The notice described

in subparagraph (A), any advertising used by the

issuer with respect to the plan, any information provided

by the Exchange, and any other information specified by

the Secretary shall provide information only with respect

to the total amount of the combined payments for services

described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) and other services covered

by the plan.

(4) NO DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.—

No qualified health plan offered through an Exchange

may discriminate against any individual health care provider

or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide,

pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions

(c) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING

ABORTION.—

(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or

otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition

of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements

on abortions, including parental notification or consent

for the performance of an abortion on a minor.

(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed

to have any effect on Federal laws regarding—

(i) conscience protection;

(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and

(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness

or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion

or to provide or participate in training to provide

abortion.

(3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.—Nothing in

this subsection shall alter the rights and obligations of employees

and employers under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964.

(d) APPLICATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES LAWS.—Nothing in

this Act shall be construed to relieve any health care provider from

providing emergency services as required by State or Federal law,

including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (popularly known

as ‘‘EMTALA’’)

Well, I guess that clears it all up. Just in case you missed it, here is that section 1 B (i) again. It is listed 8 times in this section alone.

(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—

(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—

The services described in this clause are

abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds

appropriated for the Department of Health and

Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as

in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning

of the plan year involved.