The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a cabinet-level agency that oversees the American farming industry. USDA’s duties range from helping farmers with price supports, or subsidies, to inspecting food to ensure the safety of the American public. The department seeks to expand overseas markets for US agricultural products and support international economic development, provide financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities and infrastructure in rural America, and improve nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education. USDA’s issuing of farm subsidies has been the subject of much controversy for decades, as critics contend that the assistance is distributed unevenly and that it manipulates the agricultural market. The department also has come under scrutiny for its failure to adequately protect American consumers from tainted foods that are not processed properly at slaughterhouses and other agricultural facilities.
Before the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) was created, the US Patent Office was the first federal office that carried out duties related to the farming industry. This came about because of Henry Ellsworth, who became Commissioner of Patents in 1836. Ellsworth had an affinity for agriculture and began collecting and distributing new varieties of seeds and plants through members of Congress and agricultural societies. His work led to Congress establishing the Agricultural Division within the Patent Office in 1839.
In 1862 President Abraham Lincoln decided that a cabinet-level agency was needed to handle matters related to American farming and authorized the creation of the USDA. By 1865 imported animals had been identified as a source of diseased livestock, prompting the USDA Secretary to pressure Congress to pass an act providing quarantine of imported animals. Although the act was passed, Congress gave authority to quarantine diseased animals to the Treasury Department, which did little to address the problem.leaving the state governments to try and regulate the cattle industry. This prompted veterinarians and ranchers to push for a nationally regulated solution.
In 1884 legislation was approved that established the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) within USDA to prevent diseased animals from being used in food and food products. The BAI was the predecessor to the Food Safety and Inspection Service. In time, foreign markets began placing restrictions on US food exports, prompting the 1890 Food Inspection Act.
In 1905 Upton Sinclair published his seminal work, The Jungle, which had a profound affect on federal regulation of the meat-packing industry. The book described the conditions in Chicago’s meatpacking houses with such gruesome detail that Sinclair gained widespread public support in urging President Theodore Roosevelt to place government inspectors in slaughterhouses and to pass the Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Meat Inspection Act.
By this time the USDA oversaw the Bureau of Chemistry and BAI. Enforcement of the Food and Drug Act fell to the Bureau of Chemistry (the predecessor of the Food and Drug Administration) and the Meat Inspection Act to BAI. In 1912 BAI also began inspecting eggs intended for use by the Navy. But, at the time, no one inspected eggs for use by the general public, or other branches of the military or other federal. Eventually, this responsibility was assigned to the Food and Drug Administration.
In the 1950s the USDA was reorganized under President Dwight Eisenhower, who eliminated BAI and other divisions and created the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) to assume their responsibilities. The Poultry Products Inspection Act was passed to provide federal oversight of the rapidly growing poultry production industry.
During the 1950s and 1960s the focus on consumer protection and safety shifted from contaminated meat and food products to mislabeling and adulteration from chemical additives. At that time, food inspections consisted primarily of looking for visible contamination. Most of the newer concerns were the results of progress: new kinds of products, complex processing methods, and increased volume. Many of the concerns focused on pesticides, residues of drugs given to animals, and preservatives. The 1958 Food Additive Amendment was passed to address safety concerning these issues.
In 1967 the Wholesome Meat Act required state governments to assume meat inspection responsibilities, previously delegated to the federal government under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. By 1968 the poultry and meat inspection programs had merged and were now under the USDA’s Agriculture and Research Service. By 1972 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was established for the purpose of assuming the regulatory responsibilities of the Agriculture and Research Service. These responsibilities were transferred in 1977 to the newly created Food Safety and Quality Service, which, in turn, became the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in 1981.
In 1993 an outbreak of E.coli killed four people and made another 400 sick from eating at Jack in the Box restaurants. That incident prompted the FSIS to use more scientific methods to inspect foods. The FSIS issued the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems—a rule intended to reduce microbial pathogens in raw products. This rule held industry accountable for producing safe food and the government responsible for establishing safe food standards and maintaining oversight and enforcement.
In the first months of 2004 the US underwent the first of several scares. Mad Cow Disease, officially bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), led to a long and intense investigation that ultimately led to the destruction of 255 animals suspected of being at-risk, but which ultimately tested negative for BSE. Shortly after that, the Bird Flu scare of 2005 occurredleading people to fear that they could contract the disease by eating chicken.
History of the U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA
(US Recall News)
The US Department of Agriculture manages a wide range of duties related to helping American farmers and ensuring the safety of consumers with respect to food. USDA helps farmers by providing price supports, or subsidies, inspects food processed at agricultural facilities, works to expand overseas markets for US agricultural products, provides financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities and infrastructure in rural America, and improves nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education.
USDA Offices:
Nutrition
Food and Nutrition Service: FNS seeks to provide access to food and improve the diets of needy Americans. It does this on a budget that hovers around $64 billion. FNS seeks to carry out its objectives through nutrition education and food assistance programs. The agency is responsible for a multitude of programs, including food stamps, and involving the nutrition and feeding of women, children and infants, as well as food distribution. Through its distribution programs, FNS is also able to subsidize the agricultural industry by purchasing and distributing surplus crops. FNS finds itself at the center of ideological battles that question the role of the state in dealing with poverty and welfare, as well as business and subsidies.
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion: Part of the USDA’s Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, CNPP seeks to provide dietary information for the benefit of the US population. The center tries to improve the nutrition and well-being of Americans by developing and promoting dietary guidance that links scientific research to the nutrition needs of consumers.
Tools that the center uses include dietary guidelines and the food pyramid. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans give advice on food and physical activity choices for health. The Dietary Guidelines describes a healthy diet as one that 1) Emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products; 2) Includes lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts; and 3) Is low in saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, salt (sodium), and added sugars. In April 2005, USDA released the MyPyramid food guidance system to replace the original Food Guide Pyramid.
Inspection
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: APHIS is responsible for regulating genetically engineered organisms, administering the Animal Welfare Act and carrying out wildlife damage management activities. The agency’s efforts support the USDA duty to protect the nation’s food, agriculture and natural resources. Additional areas of assistance include helping to contain and eradicate agricultural pests or diseases and developing science-based standards with trading partners to ensure the country’s agricultural exports.
Food Safety and Inspection Service: FSIS is responsible for ensuring the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry and egg products is safe from disease. The agency also works to make sure meat, poultry and egg products are labeled and packaged correctly to minimize contamination. FSIS uses scientifically-based microbiological approaches to detect, understand and prevent food-borne hazards, including Salmonella, E. coli and Listeria. In addition, FSIS laboratories use data collection and reports and risk assessments to guide risk-based inspection, which applies risk analysis principles to manage inspection programs. The agency also works with intelligence and law enforcement agencies to strengthen surveillance systems to detect intentional contamination of meat and poultry products.
Natural Resources
Forest Service: USFS is the federal agency responsible for managing public lands in national forests and grasslands. The US forest system includes 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands, as well as 122 research and experimental forests and other areas, covering more than 192 million acres of public land. The agency maintains and cultivates these lands for public use and national interests through various activities ranging from scientific research and development to firefighting, recreation maintenance, wilderness and wildlife protection, ecosystem management and timber production. USFS policy was historically centered around timber production, but over the years evolved into a system based on a principle of “multi-use,” including recreation, wilderness, minerals, water, grazing, fish and wildlife. In recent years, ecosystem management and sustainability have increasingly formed a basis for USFS policy. In addition to the structure, funding and management of USFS, a number of issues have been the subject of debate or controversy for some time, including fire management policy, logging practices and the timber industry, ecological sustainability and environmental protection, road building, wilderness and wildlife policies, watershed protection, and state/county ownership issues.
Natural Resource Conservation Service: The primary function of the NRCS is to help administer the government’s conservation policy and practices. The organization provides technical and financial assistance to private land owners and users, who occupy 70% of the contiguous United States. The Agriculture Department’s conservation policy is administered through a combination of education and technical assistance, economic incentive payments, and regulatory requirements. Although responsible for the regulation of private lands, the NRCS also assists with planning and implementing conservation projects in concert with communities, including tribes, local and state governments and other federal agencies. Areas of technical and scientific expertise include animal husbandry, clean water programs, ecological sciences, engineering, resource economics and social sciences.
Rural Development
Rural Development: The USDA’s Rural Development (RD) division, referred to by its director as the “venture capitalist” for rural America, represents a consolidation of a number of agencies with roots in the Great Depression that were successful over the years in supporting the agriculture industry, electrifying rural America and building community resources. The division operates more than 40 rural development programs focusing on housing, community facilities, water and waste management, business and technological development, among other areas. It claims $91 billion in investments in rural homeownership, business development and community and technological infrastructure since 2001, with more than 1.7 million jobs created or saved as a result. Since the Washington Post broke a story in April 2007, RD has come under increasing criticism for the fact that the vast majority of its budget actually goes to metropolitan areas, including resort and retirement developments—more than three times the amount provided to poor or shrinking rural areas. The current Under Secretary, Thomas Dorr, was once forced to pay fines for violating the rules of the very agency that he now heads.
Rural Development Housing and Community Facilities Service: HCFP is a division within USDA’s Rural Development Agency that administers aid to rural communities in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees and grants for housing and community facilities. Through more than 20 programs, the agency provides over $6 billion in funding each year. Programs focus on home ownership and restoration, farm worker housing, multi-family housing projects, community facilities and rental assistance. Rural America continues to show high poverty levels and a shortage of affordable housing. According to a 2004 CRS Report to Congress, rural areas account for a “disproportionate share of the nation’s substandard housing.” In rural areas, homeownership is the principal form of housing, but residents are faced with higher development costs, limited access to mortgage credit, and pay more of their household income for housing than urban residents.
Rural Utilities Service: RUS is a division within USDA’s Rural Development agency, responsible for providing public utilities—including water, waste, telephone and electricity—to rural areas through public-private partnerships. The agency administers loan, loan guarantee and grant programs to eligible populations.
Marketing
Farm Service Agency: FSA was formed to support farmers in times of need, using loans, subsidies and disaster relief programs. Because the risks that can come with growing food depend on the economy, food preferences and mother-nature, the government established FSA to protect the people and operations that provide food for Americans. The controversies that have arisen in the last few decades regarding the FSA center on the way the assistance has been distributed and the fact that Americans now import much of their foodstuffs. According to the FSA, the agency provides services to farm operations including loans, commodity price supports, conservation payments and disaster assistance. The agency aims to assist farmers in adjusting production to meet demand in order to create a steady price range of agricultural products for both farmers and consumers. The agency provides credit to agricultural producers who are unable to receive private, commercial credit, as well as distributing grants to those that qualify. Congress set up a system under which federal farm programs are supposed to be administered locally. Farmers who are eligible to participate in these programs elect a three- to five-person county committee that reviews county office operations and makes decisions on how to apply the programs. FSA also works with farmers and their debtors to try to arbitrate agreements and head off foreclosure.
Agricultural Marketing Service: AMS is responsible for administering programs that promote the sale of American agricultural products, including food, fiber and specialty crops. By administering these programs, AMS tries to help US farmers gain greater participation in overseas agricultural markets. AMS provides testing, standardization, grading and market news services, and oversees marketing agreement and orders. The agency also administers research and promotion programs and purchases commodities for federal food programs. AMS enforces certain federal laws such as the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act and the Federal Seed Act.
Foreign Agriculture Service: FAS is the Agriculture Department’s lead agency in international activities. FAS is responsible for opening new markets and increasing US agriculture competitiveness overseas. The agency works on market development, trade agreements and negotiations, and analysis of market information. It also administers USDA’s export credit guarantee and food aid programs. Operating on a global basis, FAS seeks to support international economic development and trade capacity building and improve the global sanitary and phytosanitary system to facilitate agricultural trade. FAS also supports economic development through its technical and development assistance.
Economic Research Service: ERS is responsible for developing and sharing information and research within the USDA and outside the department. ERS conducts research to inform public and private decision-makers on economic and policy issues revolving around food, farming, natural resources and rural development. ERS employs a staff of trained economists and social scientists to conduct research, analyze food and commodity markets, produce policy studies, and develop economic and statistical indicators. The research program was designed to meet the informational needs of the USDA, as well as those of policy officials and the research community. ERS research information and analysis is also used by the media, trade associations, public interest groups and the general public.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: GIPSA is a part of the USDA Marketing and Regulatory Programs, charged with facilitating the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals and grains, oilseeds and related agricultural products. The agency is responsible for ensuring fair trade practices and competitive market conditions in livestock, meat and poultry industries through various oversight, inspection, analysis, auditing, price protection and payment programs. GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Program (P&SP) regulates and enforces competitive conditions in meat and livestock markets, while the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) deals with marketing, inspection, standardization, quality assessment of grain and related products.
Research
Agricultural Research Service: ARS functions as the principal research agency of the USDA, in charge of more than 1,200 research projects (called National Programs) designed to explore and resolve agriculture-related issues that affect the American farming industry and the quality of food consumed by Americans. ARS focuses on research and development in nutrition, food quality, animal production, crop production, and natural resources and sustainability. Their main goal is to provide the public with up-to-date information from studies that will be beneficial to consumers, their health and the private agricultural sector.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: CSREES is one of four agencies that make up the USDA’s Research, Education and Economics mission area. CSREES helps fund and facilitate research, education and extension programs on agriculture, environment and human health at state and local levels, primarily through the Land-Grant University system and other partner organizations. In recent years, reform initiatives have aimed at trimming funding for the agency—and phasing out federal formula funding in favor of competitive grants. Since the late 19th Century, formula funding for public agricultural research has been controlled at the state level by scientists who determine priorities for local research needs and issues. Competitive grants, on the other hand, are directed at the federal level, with a research agenda that tends to be national in scope, but that can arguably be influenced by lobbyists and special interests. Begun under the Carter Administration in 1977, the trend toward a competitive grant system has recently culminated in the Bush Administration’s proposed moratorium on earmarked funds for CSREES, record increases in competitive grant funding and eventual elimination of federal formula funding.
National Agricultural Statistics Service: NASS conducts hundreds of surveys each year as part of the Agriculture Department’s farm census. The agency analyzes findings from survey that cover information on production and supplies of food and fiber, prices paid and received by farmers, farm labor and wages, farm finances, chemical use, and changes in the demographics of US producers.
The Department of Agriculture spent more than $31 billion from 2000-2008 on contractors, according to USAspending.gov. Almost 75,000 different companies and organizations were paid by USDA to provide various goods and services, such as agricultural and forestry products ($4.05 billion), meat, poultry and fish ($3.5 billion), fruits and vegetables ($2.6 billion), bakery and cereal products ($2.4 billion) and forest fire suppression services ($2.3 billion).
The biggest spenders within USDA are the Forest Service ($7.8 billion), Farm Service Agency ($7.4 billion), Agricultural Marketing Service ($5.9 billion), Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service ($4.4 billion) and the Agricultural Research Service $1.6 billion).
The top 10 recipients of USDA contracts are:
|
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company $1,560,546,562
|
|
Cargill Incorporated $1,325,055,379
|
|
Cal Western Packaging Corp $814,357,149
|
|
IBM $668,507,207
|
|
Bunge Limited $663,624,710
|
|
Didion Milling, Inc. $436,415,544
|
|
Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation $367,972,306
|
|
Land O’Lakes, Inc. $358,907,025
|
|
LDC Holding Inc $352,826,823
|
|
Polytex Fibers Corp $307,658,927
|
USDA’s Farm Service Agency provides subsidies to farmers across the United States. However, most of this federal support goes to 19 congressional districts (of 435), accounting for half of federal crop subsidies paid between 2003 and 2005. During this same time period, two-thirds of farmers collected no farm bill subsidies at all. The top 2% of beneficiaries received 27% of all farm subsidies. The top 6% received 52% and the top 15% received 75% of total subsidies. The bottom 80% of beneficiaries shared 16% percent of the benefits of crop subsidies.
Office Closures for Farm Service Agency
In order to cut back on government spending, the Bush administration in its second term, along with Congress, was responsible for the closing of Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices across the United States. In September 2005 the agency proposed the closures of 30% of its offices. The plan eventually closed 713 of the 2,351 offices nationwide. The agency was also trying to reduce its payroll by up to 655 jobs. This downsizing has led to protests from farmers who benefit from the FSA. Local FSA offices have been a crucial connection between farmers and the department since the 1930s. In Homer, Alaska, the local FSA was closed down, prompting a lawsuit claiming the Alaska Farm Service Agency closed the Homer district office improperly and without considering other options. The closure plan alarmed area producers who depended on the agency to apply for what limited farm subsidy programs were available to Alaska producers.
Global Warming Poses Threat to US Farming
In May 2008, the US Climate Change Science Program issued a report on the threats of climate change (aka global warming) to agriculture and other key natural resources of the United States. The report points out that American crops and livestock (valued at about $200 billion in 2002) are grown in diverse climates, regions and soils. “No matter the region, however, weather and climate factors such as temperature, precipitation, CO2 concentrations, and water availability directly impact the health and well-being of plants, pasture, rangeland, and livestock,” stated the report.
Among the reports conclusions were:
- With increased CO2 and temperature, the life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely progress more rapidly. But, as temperature rises, these crops will increasingly begin to experience failure, especially if climate variability increases and precipitation lessens or becomes more variable.
- Climate change is likely to lead to a northern migration of weeds. Many weeds respond more positively to increasing CO2 than most cash crops, particularly “invasive” weeds.
- Disease pressure on crops and domestic animals will likely increase with earlier springs and warmer winters, which will allow proliferation and higher survival rates of pathogens and parasites.
- Climate change-induced shifts in plant species are already under way in rangelands. Shifts in plant productivity and type will likely also have significant impact on livestock operations.
- Higher temperatures will very likely reduce livestock production during the summer season, but these losses will very likely be partially offset by warmer temperatures during the winter season.
Farm Subsidies
Large sums of money are given annually through price supports for certain crops or farmers. These subsidies artificially keep American produce prices low on foreign markets, harming struggling foreign farmers, critics argue. Half of the subsidies available go to the top 6% of farmers, and half of this money flows to the top ten districts for farming. “I hope that reform momentum can continue to build until we have a more fiscally responsible safety net for all farmers rather than subsidies for a select few,” Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) remarked after the Senate approved its farm bill. “The bill further increases price supports and continues to send farm subsidies to people who are among the wealthiest two percent of Americans,” said Chuck Connor, then-acting secretary of the Department of Agriculture.
Hallmark/Westland Meat Recall
In early 2008, megalith meat packer Hallmark/Westland was exposed for abusing cows in its plant. The company was exposed by an undercover investigator with the Humane Society, who worked for Hallmark/Westland. While employed with the meat packer, the investigator shot secret video that showed workers prodding “downed” cattle with electric rods, ramming them with a forklift and shooting high-powered water streams up their noses in an attempt to get them to stand for slaughter.
Beyond the cruelty inflicted on the animals, there were broader ramifications of the incidents for Americans, who risked illness from consuming the meat. Downed cattle are prohibited from the food supply as the risk of infection, contamination and disease is heightened with lame animals.
This particular incident was troubling for the Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), as much of the meat from Hallmark/Westland was slated for the agency’s programs, including the National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. In fact, Westland was the second largest supplier of beef for the National School Lunch Program.
Following the story, these products were placed on hold, and 143 million pounds of beef was recalled—the largest beef recall in US history. The recall included beef products dating back to February 2006. This retroactive recall raised eyebrows, as Westland was named “supplier of the year” by the Agricultural Department in 2004-2005. The incident led legislators such as Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to criticize the USDA for an inadequate job of inspection, a responsibility under that agency’s purview.
Rural Development Division Funds Urban Areas
With more than 40 programs under its aegis and growing, the Rural Development division of the USDA is a quiet but controversial presence, distributing billions of dollars in development aid and loans/loan guarantees. Many observers note what can seem like arbitrary administration of these funds to areas designated by a vague policy definition of “rurality.” The majority of recipient communities are, in fact, not at all rural—but suburban, retirement- or resort-economy-based, and positively metropolitan.
USDA officials maintain that they follow regulations as directed by the department and Congress, but those regulations are increasingly confusing or opaque. Rural America covers 75% of the nation’s landmass and can no longer be predominantly defined (culturally, demographically, or economically) by the agriculture industry. But inconsistent definitions of “rural” lend well to subjective—and ultimately, strategic interpretations.
According to an article published in the Washington Post in April 2007, the USDA had doled out in excess of $70 billion in grants, loans and loan guarantees through its Rural Development program since 2001. A Post investigation found that over half of that money had gone to “metropolitan regions or communities within easy commuting distance of a midsize city, including beach resorts and suburban developments.” Metropolitan areas with populations of 50,000 or more received $30.3 billion—more than triple the amount given to poor or shrinking rural counties (which are the ostensible beneficiaries of Rural Development), which received a total of $8.6 billion for the same period. (Even retirement or recreational communities got $8.8 billion).
Among the beneficiaries: Providence, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod, home to some of the wealthiest beach towns in the country. Such popular destinations, which are located conveniently close to big cities and swell with summering populations (and the resultant tourist economies) and boast exorbitant real estate prices, are somehow eligible for billions of dollars in USDA rural development aid. In addition to the “beach towns from Cape Cod to New Jersey to Florida” that the Post reported “collected federal money for water and sewer systems, town halls and boardwalks,” are the electric and Internet companies awarded low-interest loans to provide for affluent southern suburbs.
The Post article further argued that, over time, the RD program had “become more complicated, bureaucratic and secretive,” with reporters deferred to central authority in Washington and “heavily redacted” documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, which hid loan amounts and recipient locations.
Only a day before the Post article was printed, then-Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns had proposed changes in the 2007 Farm Bill that would include streamlining RD, with more funds going to rural health care and community facilities, as well as a consolidation of energy grant, business loan, loan guarantee and Community Programs platforms. At the same time, RD’s top official announced a $62.9 million provision for distance learning and telemedicine loans, $75 million in loan and grant combinations and $15 million in grants.
Packing and Stockyard Corruption
In January 2006, the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General issued a report evaluating GIPSA’s mismanagement, particularly with its Packers & Stockyards Program (P&SP), which has been widely criticized for not adequately enforcing federal regulations and anti-competitive laws. The report was initiated in response to concerns raised by a Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) in 2005 regarding the possible inflation of actual investigations conducted by the competition division in annual GIPSA reports—to suggest a higher rate of enforcement activity.
The report confirmed accusations that top officials had intentionally blocked investigations by refusing to provide clearance for employees to conduct investigations and inflating the number of investigations to give the misleading appearance that the agency was responding to pressures to clamp down on anti-competitive practices and market concentration.
Responding to the USDA report, the US Senate Agricultural Committee charged the GIPSA had failed to enforce competition laws over the past decade, citing a “long history of incompetence” in its investigations, and accused auditors of ignoring recommendations for improvement in oversight of PSA.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation to reorganize USDA, with a more aggressive approach to policing anti-competitive activity and “bad actors in livestock and poultry markets,” and charging that, “[f]or over five years, the Dept essentially took no action against unfair market practices and high-level USDA officials let it happen…”
ARS Among Federal Agencies Caught Skimming from Pork Projects
In 2005, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) launched an investigation after learning the Department of Agriculture was skimming funds off of congressional earmarks (aka “pork projects”). Nelson’s investigation found numerous offices guilty of “earmark skimming.” In many cases federal agencies were found to be taking cuts from earmarked funds for years, some for unrelated purposes as varied as staff salaries and postage stamps.
Nelson asked the Congressional Research Service to look into the matter, and it found that the federal government had no umbrella legal authority that allowed agencies to take a cut of each earmark and no overall standard for how much agencies should take.
The amount taken from earmarks varied within an agency. The Agricultural Research Service, for example, took 10% of earmarks, while the Extension Service at the Agriculture Department took 4%.
Food Stamps and Welfare
Much debate swirls around the existence of food stamps and other welfare programs. The debate is complex because it includes questions of morality and ideology. These questions include the reasons for the poverty that welfare seeks to relieve: What causes poverty? Why do people remain impoverished? Compounding these issues are disagreements as to how hunger and poverty are defined and quantified: What are the components of poverty? How extensive is poverty in the US? Answers to these questions are often demarcated along party lines.
Right
Conservative opinions of poverty tend to reflect ideals of choice and personal responsibility. This view sees the poor as architects of their condition: the poor are poor because on some level they choose to be, through a lack of motivation, work or intelligence. For those on the Right, welfare programs, including food stamps, reward laziness and encourage dependence. To support this opinion, The Heritage Foundation reported that the majority of household receiving food stamps were headed by young able-bodied adults, 70% of whom do not work, instead relying on the government for support. The Heritage Foundation went on to report that the “typical” non-elderly recipient has received benefits for more than seven years. For many holding this opinion, welfare programs hurt both the poor and society as whole because they engender dependence, discourage ambition and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
Left
Liberals focus on societal and systemic causes for poverty, such as disproportionate advantages and opportunities given to the middle class and the wealthy in the academic and work spheres. As opposed to viewing poverty as a personal choice, the view from the Left tends to see poverty as a creation, and therefore a responsibility, of society. Welfare programs are necessary to the marriage of capitalism and democracy, and welfare programs correct for market failures and redistribute wealth, allowing all members of a democratic nation to be engaged in political and economic processes.
Facts
The Food Stamp Program (FSP) reports on its homepage (during a conservative presidential administration) that 84% of the 26 million people participating in FSP in FY 2006 lived in households that contained an elderly or disabled person or a child, and that these households received 89% of all benefits. In addition, the average length of time for participation in FSP was two years, not the seven as reported by The Heritage Foundation. These figures help dispel the myth that the majority of FSP participants are able-bodied adults who choose laziness and dependency over work. On the contrary, these statistics reveal the costly and time consuming reality of caring for disabled persons, a situation which becomes exacerbated in low-income households.
Norman Jay Coleman, February 15, 1889 - March 6, 1889
Jeremiah M. Rusk, March 6, 1889 - March 6, 1893
J. Sterling Morton, March 7, 1893 - March 5, 1897
James Wilson, March 6, 1897 - March 5, 1913
David F. Houston, March 6, 1913 - February 2, 1920
Edwin T. Meredith, February 2, 1920 - March 4, 1921
Henry C. Wallace. March 5, 1921 - October 25, 1924
Howard M. Gore, November 22, 1924 - March 4, 1925
William M. Jardine, March 5, 1925 - March 4, 1929
Arthur M. Hyde, March 6, 1929 - March 4, 1933
Henry A. Wallace, March 4, 1933 - September 4, 1940
Claude R. Wickard, September 5, 1940 - June 29, 1945
Clinton P. Anderson, June 30, 1945 - May 10, 1948
Charles F. Brannan, June 2, 1948 - January 20, 1953
Ezra Taft Benson, January 21, 1953 - January 20, 1961
Orville L. Freeman, January 21, 1961 - January 20, 1969
Clifford M. Hardin, January 21, 1969 - November 17, 1971
Earl L. Butz, December 2, 1971 - October 4, 1976
John A. Knebel, November 4, 1976 - January 20, 1977
Robert S. Bergland, January 23, 1977 - January 20, 1981
John R. Block, January 23, 1981 - February 14, 1986
Richard E. Lyng, March 7, 1986 - January 21, 1989
Clayton K. Yeutter, February 16, 1989 - March 1, 1991
Edward R. Madigan, March 8, 1991 - January 20, 1993
Alphonso Michael "Mike" Espy, January 22, 1993 - December 31, 1994
Daniel R. Glickman, March 30, 1995 - January 19, 2001
Ann M. Veneman, January 20, 2001 - January 20, 2005
Michael O. Johanns, January 21, 2005 - September 20, 2007
|
Founded: 1862
Annual Budget: $92 billion
Employees: 104,000
|
Department of Agriculture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Department of Agriculture, was born with the name Kenneth on December 13, 1950, in a home for unwed pregnant women in Western Pennsylvania, and was placed in a Catholic orphanage in Pittsburgh shortly after his birth. He was adopted as an infant by Bud and Dolly Vilsack. His father was a real-estate agent and insurance salesman, and his mother was a homemaker. He had one sister, Alice, who was six years older than Vilsack and died in her mid-40s.
Vilsack reportedly had a lonely and difficult childhood. His mother was addicted to prescription drugs and alcohol, and she abandoned her family when Vilsack was 13.
He met his future wife, Ann Christine Bell, in October 1968 while attending Hamilton College in New York. Vilsack graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1972, and the following year he married Ann. He attended Albany Law School of Union University and received his JD in 1975. That same year, he and his wife moved to his wife’s hometown of Mount Pleasant, IA, and Vilsack started practicing law with his father-in-law, Tom Bell.
Vilsack first became involved in fundraising to help build a $750,000 sports complex facility in his town in 1978. He went on to become president of the Rotary Club, Chamber of Commerce and United Way board. He served as president of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association in 1985.
Vilsack’s political career began in the wake of a tragedy that shocked Mount Pleasant. On December 10, 1986, a disgruntled resident, Ralph Davis, shot and killed Mayor Edward King and wounded two council members during a city council meeting. King’s father and others encouraged Vilsack to run for the office. He was elected in 1987 and went on to serve three terms as mayor.
From there, Vilsack ran for the state Senate as a Democrat and was elected in 1992. He was re-elected in 1994 and 1996, although he almost gave up politics in 1996 after mulling a run for Congress. Instead, he returned to the state Senate for one last term.
In 1998, Vilsack made a risky career move and ran for governor—risky because Iowa had not elected a Democratic governor in 32 years. He came from 20 points behind in the polls to upset Republican Jim Ross Lightfoot (who was also adopted from an orphanage), thanks in part to strong support from organized labor. He easily won re-election four years later.
Early in his second term as governor, Vilsack oversaw the creation of the Grow Iowa Values Fund, a $503 million appropriation designed to improve the state’s economy by offering grants to corporations and initiatives pledged to create higher-income jobs. Vilsack tried to finance the new program through use of his line-item veto power, by axing monies for other programs and redirecting them to the fund. The move was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.
Vilsack raised some eyebrows in 2005 when he signed an executive order that allowed felons who served their sentences to regain their right to vote. Iowa law had held that convicted felons were permanently barred from voting unless the governor personally restored their voting rights.
But Vilsack’s most controversial moves as governor involved the state’s agricultural sector. Vilsack established a cozy relationship with “big ag,” including leaders in biotech farming, like Monsanto, which gave Vilsack several free rides on one of their corporate jets. He signed legislation in 2005 that prevented local cities and counties from restricting the sale of genetically modified seeds. Other critics complained about the increase in the number of hogs per farm in Iowa during Vilsack’s tenure as governor, rising from 800 to more than 1,800 per farm. Hog farms have often been the focus of concerns by environmentalists due to the large volume of waste that such operations produce. As a state senator, Vilsack voted for a 1995 law meant to exclude livestock operations from public nuisance lawsuits. The Iowa Supreme Court later overturned the law as unconstitutional.
After eight years as governor of Iowa, Vilsack launched a campaign for president on November 30, 2006. The bid lasted less than three months, once the Midwest Democrat realized there was little money left to raise, what with Obama and Hilary Clinton dominating the ranks of Democratic donors. He ended his campaign on February 23, 2007, and threw his support behind Clinton, becoming her national co-chair.
While helping Clinton seek the Democratic nomination for president, Vilsack joined the Des Moines office of Minneapolis-based law firm Dorsey & Whitney on May 1, 2007. Dorsey & Whitney is the 60th largest law firm in the United States, with 18 offices, about 650 lawyers and 850 support staff spread out across the US, Europe and Asia. Founded in 1912, the firm specializes in mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, intellectual property, patent, and trademark issues, employment and labor, environmental issues, white-collar crime, and public offerings. It represents numerous Fortune 500 clients, including Wal-Mart.
Despite his support for Clinton, Vilsack won over Obama with his aggressive campaigning for the Democratic nominee in Minnesota, North Dakota and Pennsylvania. He also helped Obama by making calls to agricultural leaders and organizations and by promoting Obama’s farm views. It also didn’t hurt that Vilsack had ties to some of Obama’s top advisors, such as campaign strategist David Axelrod, who worked as a consultant for Vilsack in 1998. In addition, in October 2008, Vilsack published two essays that demonstrated his policies were in tune with Obama’s. One essay advocated for a focus on renewable energy to help with the economic recovery, while the other called for a “carbon revolution,” with the Midwest becoming the world’s renewable energy center. Vilsack is a strong supporter of ethanol, most of which is made from corn. Iowa is the leading producer of ethanol in the United States.
Vilsack’s nomination as secretary of agriculture prompted concerns among organic farmers and some environmental groups, owing to the former governor’s support for large agribusiness and biotechnology. “Vilsack’s nomination sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association.
|
|
|
Schafer, Ed
Previous Secretary
|
|
|
Born and raised in Bismarck, North Dakota, Ed Schafer served as the 29th Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture from January 28, 2008, until the inauguration gof Barack Obama. Schafer graduated from the University of North Dakota in 1969 with a bachelor’s degree in business administration and earned an MBA from the University of Denver in 1970.
After finishing graduate school, Schafer went to work for his father’s business, Gold Seal Company, a successful marketer of nationally-known consumer products, including “Mr. Bubble” bubble bath, “Glass Wax” glass cleaner and “Snowy Bleach.” Schafer held a series of management positions with the company before becoming president in 1978. Under his leadership, Gold Seal’s sales climbed to $50 million through acquisitions and new product introductions and its net worth tripled. It was sold in 1986. Schafer then went on to launch several new businesses, including a commercial real estate development company, a fish farm and a classic car dealership.
Schafer’s first run at public office came in 1990, when he challenged Democratic Congressman Byron Dorgan for his North Dakota House seat and lost. Two years later he successfully ran for governor of North Dakota and was re-elected in 1996, serving a total of eight years until 2000. While serving as governor, Schafer was elected chair of the Western Governors Association. In 2000 he was elected chair of the Republican Governors Association and that same year he co-founded and co-chaired the Governors Biotechnology Partnership to increase public understanding and support for the benefits of agricultural biotechnology.
After leaving office in 2000, Schafer co-founded Extend America, a venture capital-backed company, to provide wireless voice and high-speed data services to commercial and residential customers in five rural Midwestern states.
Shortly after taking over as Secretary of Agriculture, Schafer got into a war of words with the Humane Society over video footage that the organization shot of mistreated cattle at the Hallmark Meat Packing Co. plant in Chino, CA. Schafer complained that the Humane Society should have alerted the USDA sooner about its findings, claiming that the animal rights activists contributed to the cows’ suffering.
“The Humane Society, since late October, has been willing to let animals suffer out there,” rather than notify USDA immediately of the abuses, Schafer told the media. Humane Society president and CEO Wayne Pacelle called Schafer’s statement, “an outrageous and astonishing comment.”
“It’s USDA’s responsibility to prevent this abuse,” Pacelle said. “USDA personnel were on site and they are the ones who are paid with American tax dollars to prevent this appalling cruelty.”
|
|
|
|