Tag Archives: big farms

Tobacco: Top User of Agriculture Guest Worker (H-2A) Visa Program

With the run up to the 2016 presidential election, we have seen a growing debate on the need for border security versus the shortage of agriculture workers. Tales of apples rotting on trees and produce left in the field are offered as evidence of jobs Americans won’t do. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Foreign Labor Certification program, we have a record number of guest worker visa holders. In agriculture alone, the number of H-2A visa holders has risen nearly 35% in the past decade.

Visa Certifications

Considering the increase of H-2A visa holders, how is it those who grow our food are struggling to bring in their crops? Where are all the workers? Well, according to DOL reports, a majority are harvesting tobacco, working in landscape nurseries, and operating equipment. Annual reports show the tobacco industry is consistently the largest single sector employer of agriculture guest worker visa holders. In fact, a tobacco trade organization, the North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA), touts itself as the nation’s largest user of the H-2A agricultural “guest worker” program. And, though the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports a steady decline in U.S. smokers, the industry is experiencing a growth in acres planted and yields.Visa Top 10

The resurgence comes after an initial dramatic decline in tobacco farming following the implementation of the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (FETRA). That legislation ended nearly 70 years of farm subsidies and marketing quotas. Then, beginning with the following year (2005), the feds stepped in with the Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP). A program that paid nearly $9.6 billion to farmers for the lost value of their marketing quotas over a ten-year period. Also, with the low costs guest workers and the benefit of federal export assistance, the industry has gained a world of new consumers through exporting. For those health conscious consumers, tobacco now qualifies for certification under the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP).

As well, according to a recent report by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in 2012, tobacco companies spent $9.6 billion marketing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in the United States alone. An amount of about $26 million each day, or more than $1 million an hour. Not to mention federal funds at work to assist in identifying medicinal uses for tobacco.

It may appear the relationship between tobacco farming and the government makes no sense, but it actually makes an awful lot of cents. In 2014 alone, federal revenue from tobacco tax amounted to $15.56 billion dollars. Projections through 2020 show an anticipated $157.12 billion into government coffers (no pun intended). American tobacco farming is a windfall tax source for the federal government.

In summary, tens of thousands of agriculture guest workers are designated to work in tobacco while food products go unharvested. The government spends billions to burn food for fuel in its failed ethanol experiment. We have an unprecedented amount of illegal immigration due to a broken system. It goes to show, even a practical program, as is the H-2A visa, government involvement inevitably distorts the original intent.

Committee for Responsible Budget Highway Plan has Issues

Recently, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, released a report titled, “The Road to Sustainable Highway Funding.” The committee, which includes Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, builds on many of the transportation recommendations included in the Bowles-Simpson report. It recommends passage of comprehensive tax reform while ensuring the Highway Trust Fund remains adequately funded. It includes three steps:

  • Getting the Trust Fund Up to Speed ($25 billion) by paying the “legacy costs” of pre-2015 obligations with savings elsewhere in the budget;
  • Bridging the Funding Gap ($150 billion) with a policy of raising the gas tax by 9 cents and limiting annual spending to income; and
  • Creating a Fast Lane to Tax Reform to help Congress identify alternative funding and financing.

The report is a great attempt at creating a sensible national transportation policy which is something that seems to elude Congress. Many of its suggestions are excellent. These include reducing funds for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ), eliminating Davis-Bacon requirements and killing the transportation alternatives program. Keeping federal transportation funding constant is an excellent goal. Limiting future spending to income is a great idea that seems obvious everywhere but Washington, D.C. Encouraging future highway bills to make tax and spending decisions together would be great policy, although I am not sure how this occurs without the Ways and Means Committee losing power, which would never happen politically.

However, some of the bill components are troubling. First, to get the Highway Trust Fund up to speed, the plan spends $15 billion reducing and reforming agricultural subsidies and $10 billion extending the mandatory sequester. While reforming farm policy is a great idea, since paying farmers not to plant certain crops has always been one of our most curious policies, such funding should not be directed to the highway trust fund. Rather, it should pay down general fund debt. There is no real link between farming and transportation.

Second, a two-year highway bill is better than a series of extensions but does not provide the needed long-term certainty. It takes 10 years or longer to complete many highway projects. Securing sufficient funding requires a mix of public and private funding that requires complex deals. DOTs need long-term certainty, and two years is not long-term enough. The traditional six-year bills are also a little short. Ten years would be ideal.

Third, the group proposes to schedule a 9-cent increase after one year. Such an increase is reasonable but only with significant program reforms. Policy makers should also eliminate Buy America. Federal caps on financing tools including Private Activity Bonds need to be increased. And while a 9-cent increase would be a short-medium term solution, increasing fuel efficiency and the presence of electric and hybrid cars, makes the gas tax a poor long-term solution.

Finally, the report’s acceptance of the blanket spending cuts in the sequester (as a baseline) is poor policy. The sequester cut discretionary programs such as Next-Gen which is a core national priority for aviation while not touching formula programs such as streetcars which are neither a national nor a core transportation program. The sequester cuts should be examined to ensure that areas cut do not serve a vital national function.

Draconian California Water Restrictions

California has been plagued by a highly-politicized water crisis for months now, despite crisis warnings for years.

The state has fallen prey to the “tragedy of the (water) commons”, where each person feels their single contribution to the water crisis will not impact the overall situation. With this thought, each Californian uses water like it rained yesterday, with no regard to the desperate calls from Governor Jerry Brown for water conservation.

Until now, Californians have faced few real incentives to lower their water consumption levels. Past water infrastructure subsidies have kept the price of water down as political forces ensured a disastrously low price for California’s many residents. The result was a low water price of less than 0.7 cents per gallon in 2014 for San Diego and Los Angeles. In cities such as Irvine, next to the University of California, the price can be as low as 0.2 cents per gallon.

Economists believe simply raising the water price by 10 percent could cut consumption by 2 to 4 percent.

Not limited to simple price increases, however, new California laws are mandating significant decreases in water consumption. These policies include:

  • New cuts affect 276 rights held by 114 entities to pull water from the Delta, Sacramento, and San Joaquin watersheds. Each of these entities could be supplying water to dozens of additional users.
  • Farmers in the Central Valley have already had their surface water allotment lowered or erased in the last few years.
  • In May, about 200 farmers agreed to lower their water usage by 25 percent in exchange for a promise to face no deeper cuts during the growing season.
  • Other restrictions implemented in May limited yard watering to twice a week and between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.
  • Owners of large farms will now have to hand over detailed reports of their water use to state regulators.
  • A recent executive order calls for the replacement of 50 million square feet of ornamental turf, such as municipality-owned lawns or private lawns.
  • For wealthy consumers, districts now reserve the right to install flow restrictors for private use.
  • Top water users are facing cuts up to 36 percent.

While these policies might lower water consumption, they may be a little too much too late. In the end, these draconian measures are sure to enrage those who can afford higher water prices, while also punishing farmers and low-income water consumers.

Farmers Hit Hard by the Estate “Death” Tax

On April 16, 2015, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the estate tax. The Internal Revenue Service defines the estate tax as, “a tax on your right to transfer property at your death.”

Advocates for the estate tax decry the perpetuation of inequality due to inherited wealth. The estate tax, often called the “death tax” by opponents, is ineffective in reducing inequality; it does, however, excel at destroying family business, especially agricultural operations. Unlike investments and cash, real estate cannot be as easily placed into trust. Thus, American farmers and small business owners are hardest hit by the tax, while cash-rich Americans avoid it.

The shale gas revolution has created economic booms from Pennsylvania to Texas to North Dakota, but it is a mixed blessing for American farmers. The sudden influx of money to rural areas is increasing the wealth of farms in America and complicating estate tax calculations for farms.

  • Many farm estates have increased in value due to the mineral rights to the land. Farmers saw land values appreciate immediately upon signing leases with natural gas producers and land values have continued to rise. In both Texas and Pennsylvania, land values increased from 1997 to 2012, even after several years of drilling.
  • The increase in land value due to the demand for mineral leases was followed by increases in farm estate values, as many farmers invested their royalties from gas extraction back into their farms. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas estimates that three-fourths of farms’ wealth accumulation from energy payments are through increases in land values.

As the U.S. Senate begins debate over the estate tax, it is obvious the stakes are higher than ever. With farms in Pennsylvania and Texas experiencing 10 percent or greater increases in household wealth, the estate tax is a continuing threat to farm families’ ability to pass their farms to their children.

Mike Gajewsky is a research associate at the National Center for Policy Analysis

The Future of Biotechnology in Farming

There is a great deal of controversy over genetically modified crops; some countries have banned their growth entirely, while others have placed strict regulatory restrictions on production. As the world’s population continues to grow (it is projected to reach 9.1 billion by 2050), global food production will have to increase by 70 percent in order to meet demand.

Scientists have discovered ways to improve crops by manipulating plant DNA, creating a product that better resists insects and stands up to herbicides, allowing farmers to grow crops using fewer pesticides. For example, biotechnology company Monsanto created a crop known as Bollgard Bt cotton — a strain of cotton injected with the Bacillus thuringinesis bacterium which produces its own insecticide, reducing the need for additional pesticide. The product was introduced in India in 2002, and its benefits became evident:

  • Yields improved with the use of Bt cotton. One particular cotton farm increased its yield by 7,625.7 pounds per hectare while simultaneously reducing costs by $143.32 per hectare (due to decreased use of pesticides).
  • With more money in their pockets, Indian farmers have been able to upgrade their machinery, advancing the country’s agricultural economy.

Brazil is currently experimenting with biotechnology and sugarcane. While Brazil produces 588 million tons of sugarcane per year (half the world’s output), it could double that production; half of its potential crop is currently lost to pests, weeds and drought.

Biotechnology offers the potential to combat world hunger by greatly increasing crop yields and producing hardier plants that can withstand pests, drought and more. But because many countries do not allow the production or importation of biotech crops, the ability of these crops to feed the globe is limited.

Agricultural Education – A Growing Field

Since 1928, the United States has housed an organization that connects a home life in farming to the classes students take in high school. The Future Farmers of America (FFA) immerses students in programs to learn where our food comes from and to appreciate how important agriculture is to the world.

From 2007 to 2012, the number of farms in the U.S. dropped by 100,000, while the FFA enrolled an additional 60,000 students, opened new chapters and propelled the organization to its highest number of students. 580,000 students receiving agricultural education is a monumental achievement, one that many people did not see coming. In Nebraska, this is particularly difficult as they are seeing the highest number of students interested in agriculture programs ever. In response to the need, the Nebraska Farm Bureau is creating a scholarship program to help schools find more agriculture teachers. The scholarship is directed by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s agriculture education program, and will pay $1,200 during a semester of student teaching. There is also a program to pay off loans for current teachers starting at $500 dollars and increasing for each school year. Meanwhile, other states are fighting to keep their programs running.

Ag. Top 10 States

California has experienced extraordinary difficulties in years past, and they are reaching a peak as the state faces one of the worst droughts in history. Agricultural education is needed more than ever, yet law makers are attempting to cut the Agriculture Education Incentive Grant Program (AEIGP). The AEIGP supports 315 agricultural programs that currently enroll over 75,000 high school students statewide. Free markets and privatization are critical in any growing industry, but high school boosters have struggled in years past to keep up with the growing demand that agriculture places on society. The reason the government places incentives on agriculture is because of how important it is to the continuation of society.

States recognize the importance of agriculture and the benefits that they receive from investing in education. Their return is substantial as those students not only go on to learn about agriculture, but a majority will also take jobs in the agriculture industry and assist states in the production of food. As new techniques are developed, the way food is grown constantly changes. Agricultural education is needed to keep up with those growing changes.

Drones Strike the Farms

Technology advances in the United States as quickly as it can be researched and one of the oldest professions is still seeing accelerating growth. The most recent achievement is the use of drones in agricultural surveillance. Also known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), drones gained fame during the Iraq-Afghanistan conflict as a safer way to attack targets. Their original intention has been lost recently as companies such as Amazon and UPS are researching ways to use drones to deliver packages to your front doors.

While it may sound like drones will be taking jobs away from Americans it is in fact the opposite. One report details that once the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) establishes guidelines for commercial use, the drone industry could expect to create more than 100,000 jobs and nearly half a billion in tax revenue to be generated collectively by 2025, and most of that is just agriculture.

The agriculture industry represents over 16 million jobs in the United States and nearly 1.1% of all Gross Domestic Product (GDP). With numbers like that it is no wonder that drone surveillance is such an emerging technology for farmers. There are even colleges in the Midwest that are incorporating learning drone technology for farming. However, while there are significant benefits with utilizing drones, there are consequences to the technology.

Right to privacy is a huge factor and how do nearby farmers know that the drones are not watching their land? This could create huge advantages for local farms that are looking to receive an advantage from using highly advanced surveillance techniques. This year alone nearly 36 states, including Iowa, are attempting to implement legislation that would put numerous restrictions on drone use.

The possibility of drones depends wildly on the users definitions of privacy. Citizens in some states may care more than others, thus it may allow one state to have a high level of drone use while another may choose to not allow them. Whatever the decision is, it is my prediction that the use of drones for commercial purposes may make its way up for the Supreme Court to decide. There is too much controversy around the technology to take off immediately; there are several hurdles that the technology will have to jump before it becomes mainstay in society.

Chipotle’s Assault on Farms

Chipotle has recently come into the news as the creator of a new TV series, ‘Farmed and Dangerous’. The series sets out to portray a satirical look at industrialized agriculture, but when the satire is created by a corporation set on organic foods it creates more harm than good. Declaring war on “big farms” is a misguided agenda that can only serve to hurt small farms more than hurt big farms. According to a previous blog post that explored the USDA Census of Agriculture, a survey stated that 75% of farms in the U.S. are still operating under 50k a year.

Farm Size

‘Farmed and Dangerous’ is beyond misleading in that what it attempts as satire is actually misguided facts about industrial agriculture. The series takes the smallest portion of the industry and distorts it to relay a message. Chipotle makes attempts to bring in customers by advocating for local farming. Since the majority of farms are still small and local, it is hurting them more than helping them. The only winner in this scenario is chipotle, as the marketing plan is not about eating responsibly — but to eat at Chipotle.

While it is important to utilize sustainable agriculture and conservative techniques, it is also important to gain truth based on facts and information. In the U.S., there is a good chance that you are eating locally grown food, so keep on eating. Just remember that you are already helping out the local farmer without having to buy at Chipotle.