Why I like the Electoral College:

Why I like the Electoral College:

A national recount would be impossible. In 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, and maybe 2012, there would have been screams and cries from the losers for a national recount. If we can barely recount Florida today , how could we recount the whole nation? 

The EC has worked fine since 1789, and has always provided a smooth transition of power. Never assume that is a given. 

No major democracy has a full direct election of the Commander-in-Chief, b/c it breeds revolutions .

If it is not broken , do not fix it .

-------------------------------------------------

Techno Politics in Presidential Campaigning

~~Seems interesting ,,
Click here for my take on this ~
~~ TP

Techno Politics in Presidential Campaigning
New Voices, New Technologies, and New Voters
Edited by John Allen Hendricks, Lynda Lee Kaid

* Price: $49.95
* Binding/Format: Paperback
* ISBN: 978-0-415-87979-8
* Publish Date: November 10th 2010
* Imprint: Routledge
* Pages: 324 pages
* http://routledge-ny.com/books/details/9780415879798/

My Full Resume

EDUCATION:

1998-2003: Yeshiva University, New York, NY. Political Science Major. Writing Arts Minor. B.A., January 2003.

1995-1998: Rabbinical College of America, Morristown, New Jersey. Judaic Studies B.A., August 1998.

WORK HISTORY:

2007: Washington Heights-Inwood Coalition. 652 West 187^th Street, New York, NY 10033

Grant Proposal and General Document Editing. Casework database management Varied administrative duties as needed.

2001-2005: Thomas Publishing Company. 5 Penn Plaza. New York , New York 10001 http://www.thomaspublishing.com/

Marketing of Web Content , E-commerce Programs , and B2B Industrial Advertising.

2000: Nachas Healthnet Incorporated. Brooklyn, NY 11219.

Development Consultant. Thoroughly audited and critically examined all organizational Development, Media, Publicity and Outreach programs. Adapted and implemented restructuring of procedures. Provided relevant re-training to all executive and program staff.

1999: Daughters of Jacob Geriatric Center, Bronx, NY

Assistant Chaplain. Conducted assessments of residents in accordance with State and industry standards.

1995-1998: Rabbinical College of America, Morristown, New Jersey. http://www.rca.edu/

‘Special Assistant for Student Affairs’ to President of the College. Student Administrator of Federal Work Study Program. New Student Orientation.

1995: The Brotherhood Synagogue, Gramercy Park South, New York, NY.

Staff Archivist for Rabbi Emeritus and Founder , Rabbi Irving J. Block. Organized and classified all career records. Facilitated research for published memoirs: “A Rabbi and His Dream” (KTAV 1999). http://www.brotherhoodsynagogue.org

1992-1995: New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) / Straphangers Campaign, New York, NY.

Development and Outreach Organizer. NYPIRG Telephone Outreach Project: Ongoing training and orientation all new and novice staff for the mobilizing of NYPIRG’s 70,000 members to participate in various legislative initiatives and/or funding them. Also involved as needed in other NYPIRG campaigns: Voter Registration, Childhood Lead Poisoning, Recycle First. May 1992- June 1993: NYPIRG Fuel Buyers Group: Liaison between members and fuel companies providing Group discount. Securing renewals &. new members www.nypirg.org

1991-1992: Environmental Planning Lobby (EPL), Albany & Westbury, NY.

Development and Outreach Director for Downstate NY. Implemented major expansion of EPL membership base in key legislative districts of New York City, Long Island and Westchester County. General supervision, hiring, and training of all downstate staff. http://www.eany.org/

1986-1991: GREENPEACE U.S.A, New York, NY,

1990-91: Administrative Director and Media Liaison for NYC Metro Area. Site Supervisor and Police & Media Liaison for all Greenpeace demonstrations staged by NYC office. Oversight of Development Programs for NYC Metro Area. General supervision of 40 member fundraising staff. Liaison to various police and town officials and other groups regarding outreach schedule. Hiring & training of all staff. 1986-90: Field Manager for outreach & fundraising crews and NYC Metro Media Liaison. www.greenpeace.org

1983-1986: New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) / Straphangers Campaign, New York, NY.

1985-1986: Front Desk & Continuity. Membership & Circulation Director for NYPIRG’s news bi-monthly. Office Manager for 17-office statewide outreach program. 1983-85: Canvasser in outreach/fundraising program. www.nypirg.org

Community Organizing Experience:

1990-1995: George Washington Tenants Association, 23 Lexington Avenue, Gramercy Park, New York.

Founding Member and Communications Chair. Tenant action was catalyst of a landmark New York State Court of Appeals ruling that placed New York City real estate brokerage firm advertisements under the domain of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs. Organized successful rent action of 200 plus tenants.

Political and Campaign Experience:

1992: Democratic National Convention (DNC), New York City. DNC Press Office Staffmember.

1989: Ruth Messinger for Manhattan Borough President. Various campaign activities.

1988: Senator Paul Simon (Dem.-Ill.) for President, New York, NY. Staff member & Office Manager.

1986: Mark Green for United States Senate. Staff member. Front Desk and Continuity.

==================e -------n ----D

Joseph Lieberman Beats the Internet Activists. Senator more powerful than ever!

~~` Back after the Connecticut Democratic primary this year , the world -- or at least the press -- proclaimed "Internet, activists help topple prominent US Democrat".

Well at the time , I was not impressed . And now we have , once "Democratic" Sen. Joseph Lieberman,

as now INDEPENDENT Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

With just a one vote Majority in the senate the Democrats will have to quake every time Lieberman speaks his mind. Lieberman is now more powerful then ever, thanks to the Internet !?!?

If Internet "activist" are going to proclaim victories, they are also going to have to accept the lessons of this big defeat.

The lesson is , while the Internet is a great "tool" for political organizing, it is still only one "tool" among many, and alone it cannot win for you.

California's 2006 Candidates for governor reach out by Web, iPod

~~~ For over a decade many technopolitical folks have been heralding how the Internet
and digital / wirelesss things will change politics.
I , as I write about out here, dissagree with that vision.

All politics is local.
Face to face human interaction will always be the core of
of political activity. Which is why close elections are won and lost by field organization, and always will be.

How well can you get out the vote on election day is what the game is all about. Seniors , low-income folks, and many on the religious-right, do not use the internet as much as other voters-- yet . These voting groups can only be reached by old -fashioned local field work. Knocking on doors, holding rallies , and working the bus & subway stops.
~~~ TP
===================================

Article: News - Candidates for governor reach out by Web, iPod:

By SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON
The Orange County Register www.ocregister.com

"Welcome to California's 2006 gubernatorial race, where winning traditional grass-roots support is more about bandwidth than shoe leather. Campaigns are following the example of Howard Dean, a littleknown former Vermont governor who used a network of Internet-connected supporters to leap onto the national stage in the 2004 presidential race".

"California's gubernatorial candidates hope the same Web-based techniques will make their campaigns more accessible and supporters feel vested. With new campaign contribution limits and skyrocketing costs of TV advertising hampering campaigns, the Internet has become a vital tool to boost contenders' visibility, especially among the grass roots, experts say."

Introducing Mr. McDean? - Los Angeles Times

~~~Sen. Russ Fiengold is trying to become the next internet sensation. Can he succeed where Howard Dean failed? In the end I think that grassroots door-to-door canvassing , handshake rallies, and a good core activist base is what is needed to win elections.
Remember , in the end all politics are local !
The Internet can help, but good field organization is what gets the vote out. ~~~ TP
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Introducing Mr. McDean? - Los Angeles Times: "
"Feingold clearly is courting the Dean vote as he positions himself to the left of other Democratic presidential hopefuls. He is reaching out to the Internet-savvy, airing video podcasts on the website for his political action committee and holding an online 'listening session.'

'Howard Dean was one of the first people who recognized the power of the Internet as a [political] organizing tool, and absolutely we are picking up that mantle and using those tools,' said George Aldrich, spokesman for Feingold's PAC."

Internet Fosters Local Political Movements, AP News

~~~ It appears from this article the Internet is finally causing some political activity , that otherwise would not happen. But I still feel for the most, the Internet has done little to change the balance of powers in elections , nor seriously impacted how legislation is passed & public policy formed. Even in the the headline here, note the choice of the word "fosters" as oppossed to "galvanizes" or "energizes" . [Click HERE for another recent post & article on this suject] ~~` TP
.

----------

"Internet Fosters Local Political Movements"
By RON FOURNIER
AP Political Writer
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1135653

FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Frustrated by government and empowered by technology, Americans are filling needs and fighting causes through grass-roots organizations they built themselves -- some sophisticated, others quaintly ad hoc. This is the era of people-driven politics.

From a homemaker-turned-kingmaker in Pittsburgh to dog owners in New York to a 'gym rat' here in southwest Florida, people are using the Internet to do what politicians can't -- or won't -- do."

Fla. attorney general says his e-mails aren't spam | CNET News.com

~~ Political emails may be propaganda, but to call them spam --- which is commercial -- is unfair. We expect politicians to stuff our real and virtual mailboxes with reasons why I should vote for them. I am just thankful to live in a country where election violence , bombings & etc does not occur [anymore ] . If the price for that is a little "political spam" , well I am cool with that ~ `~~ TP

Fla. attorney general says his e-mails aren't spam | CNET News.com: "Florida's attorney general has spearheaded an aggressive campaign against unsolicited e-mails, or spam. But as a candidate for governor, he appears to be generating some unwanted Internet clutter himself."

" Sen. William Proxmire Dead At 90 "

~~ The second Senate giant to pass this week. Like Sen. Eugence McCarthy , William Proxmire is one for the history books. A unique maverick who often defied labels. Mostly "Liberal" , but against abortion. Thifty , but always bought home the milk-price supports to the home state. Most importantly Sen. Proxmire also led the charge to get the USA to sign the International Genocide Treaty. A very complex man indeed, and like Sen. McCarthy the type of politician who probably could not get elected today.~~ TP
----------------------------------

CBS News | Sen. William Proxmire Dead At 90 | December 15, 2005 "Long before the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law was a twinkle in the eye of lawmakers, and at a time when millions were spent campaigning for Senate seats, Proxmire made a point of accepting no contributions. In 1982 he registered only $145.10 in campaign costs, yet gleaned 64 percent of the vote."

Internet redefining politics: new survey

~~ I disagree with the findings here. While the Internet is becoming "part" of politics in the USA, there has not been , nor will there be soon any major shift in political power.

The Republicans have used the internet to help
solidify their base better than the Democrats have.

This is because there is still a major Digital Divide in the USA,
with the wealthier Republicans having more broadband to use politically . ~~ ` `TP
----------------------------------------------------------------

Internet redefining politics: new survey: "Online campaigning is transforming US politics and empowering individual voters dwarfed by the might of the print and broadcast media, the author of a major new Internet use survey said."

http://www.physorg.com/news8706.html

Questions on the Legality of Campaign Fund-Raising - New York Times

Questions on the Legality of Campaign Fund-Raising - New York Times: "'Contributions can only take you so far,' said former Senator John B. Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat who has relocated to a K Street law firm and is now advising clients on lobbying strategy. 'I tell them, 'Look, you can give to an elected official and take them to lunch, dinner and breakfast. "But if you are asking them to vote yes on an issue and they have 2,000 letters from home telling them to vote no, then you have a problem."

~~ The most powerful tool in any political lobby , is the handwritten letter from the home district . Even in this technopolitical world in which we now exist , the simple old ways of local storefront politics still prevails. ~~ TP

Could blogs trump stumping in Iowa? | csmonitor.com

~~ No !!!!

Handshakes, kissing babies ,, and meet face to face with the Big $$$$, will ALWAYS win elections.

Internet is not local . All Politics Are Local .

---------------------------

Could blogs trump stumping in Iowa? | csmonitor.com: "The power of the Internet has led the Pew Center's Michael Cornfield and others to say that we should now speak of a much more visible 'virtual primary.'

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R), Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) of New York all blog or occasionally post on prominent blogs.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist just started a blog. Last week House Republicans initiated a 'Capitol Hill Blog Row,' inviting a number of bloggers to meetings and briefings."

Advertising in the Age of the Empowered Voter - A View from Washington

~ I Got this by e-mail.
This event wil explore lobbying and activisim from a TechnPolitical view.

~~~ enjoy ~` TP ~~ `

=================

"Advertising in the Age of the Empowered Voter - A View from Washington"
When:Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:00 PM - 7:00 PM

How do mobile, blogs, and podcasts change political and advocacy communications?

E-Voter Institute is hosting bipartisan events to delve into the ways in which these and other new technologies are changing the political landscape.

Join campaign strategists, online pioneers, researchers, journalists, and media experts for the first of three lively discussions about the role of Internet and wireless technology for politics and advocacy.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:00 PM - 7:00 PM

CBS News | Not A Time For Partisan Sniping | September 1, 2005 09:00:05

~~ I agree with the below's headline.

This is a time for the noblest of human qualiites, not political cheap shots.

For a least a week I would like to only see the best

non-partisan face our politicians can muster.
~~

~` ~ technopolitical.com

========================

CBS News |

"Not A Time For Partisan Sniping"

| September 1, 2005 09:00:05:

"This event is frankly too big to have opinions about. All I can think to do is point to one of my all-time favorite college quotes: 'Think of destiny,' the Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius wrote in the second century, 'and how puny a part of it you are.'
"

Congress Online: Much Sizzle, Little Steak

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytco.com/

June 24, 2003

Congress Online: Much Sizzle, Little Steak

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

ASHINGTON, June 23 — By now, almost every representative and every senator in Congress has a Web site. The sites offer a cornucopia of personal and hometown lore, in most cases virtually everything except what becomes legends most: their voting records.

For example, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Republican of Colorado, bursts from his home page in a leather jacket, showing off his motorcycle, which is decorated with stars and stripes. Senators John B. Breaux and Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrats, give links to recipes for down-home Southern cooking.

None of these sites disclose the lawmakers' votes. And these sites are the rule.

A New York Times analysis of the Web sites has found that only 11 percent of senators and 40 percent of representatives provided some kind of information about their voting records, either a partial list of their major votes or a link to a vote-listing service. Many list their opinions, the bills they have sponsored and press releases. Only one senator, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, provides her complete voting record.

Surveys by other groups suggest a strong desire by citizens to see the voting records of their lawmakers. Extensive work has been done on this subject by the Congress Online Project, a program financed by the Pew Charitable Trusts to improve electronic communication between members of Congress and the public. In addition, Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, has organized Congressional interns to prod their bosses to post their voting records on their Web sites. Focus groups told the Pew researchers that they were not interested in every vote but wanted know the important ones.

The Times analysis found that besides Senator Feinstein's, the model sites were those of two Republican representatives, Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Frank R. Wolf of Virginia. Links to their voting records are heralded prominently on their home pages.

Others offer links to services like the Library of Congress's Thomas service (http://thomas.loc.gov/), Project Vote Smart (www.vote-smart.org) or congress.org, which can direct viewers to individual votes.

Some legislators are overhauling their sites to provide such links. Senator Breaux, for example, is in the midst of a redesign. His spokesman, Brian Weiss, said it would include a link to the Thomas service.

Some sites are so poorly designed that even when a link is available, it is not easy to find. Nothing on the site of Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Democrat of Hawaii, who appears on his home page with a green lei around his neck, refers to his voting record. Only by clicking on "links" and then stumbling into "federal government" — not the obvious repository for a voting record — can one then click on www.senate.gov and find a vote by navigating from there.

Paul Cardus, Senator Akaka's press secretary, said the site was being updated and would probably add a direct link and call it "voting record" to take the viewer to Thomas.

Some Web pages offer no links at all. Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the Missouri Democrat who is running for president, does not list his votes on his fairly limited House Web site or on his flashier campaign site. His spokesman, Erik Smith, said he knew of no demand for the votes but thought that listing them might be a good idea.

Critics like Mr. Nader say that while the links to services can help find a vote or two, trying to compile a voting record by year and by issue from these links is cumbersome, confusing and time-consuming.

Mr. Nader says some members are trying to obscure their votes.

Others take a more benign view. Brad Fitch, deputy director of the Congressional Management Foundation, which helped with the Congress Online Project, said many members were just getting up to speed with online technology.

"There is a learning curve," Mr. Fitch said.

He said some members had told him they did not provide quick access to their voting records because they did not want to do the research for their challengers back home.

Mr. Fitch says he responds like this: "I tell these members that I'm letting them in on a little secret — that the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee have computers, and this information is available."

He added: "The only thing a member does by not providing this information is send the wrong message to constituents. You're inviting them to go someplace else, and that's a lost opportunity, from a political and a communication standpoint."

It is not clear, however, that all lawmakers are behind the technology curve. Representative Wolf said he started making his voting record available by newsletter as soon as he was elected to Congress in 1980; an opponent had told voters they could "look up" his record, so Mr. Wolf promised to send his record out.

He adapted to the Internet without difficulty and lends his assistant to help others set up sites.

"It's like opening up a book," Mr. Wolf said. "You want everything to be there. And of course your votes should be. Ye shall know them by their fruits, they say, and our votes are our fruits."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Political parties: In Web we trust

Political parties: In Web we trust
By Lisa M. Bowman
Staff Writer CNET News.com
October 11, 2002, 10:43 AM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-961768.html

Political parties are using the Web more aggressively to reach voters and gather personal information such as e-mail during this election season, an indication of the Internet's growing importance on the campaign scene.

A new study by political consultants PoliticsOnline and RightClick Strategies praised the major political parties for their continuing embracement of the Web as a vehicle for getting their message out. The report examined how official sites of the Republican and Democratic parties are communicating, fund raising and organizing this campaign season.

Researchers found that the Democratic National Committee did a better job of collecting e-mail addresses of voters, but the Republican National Committee excelled in selectively targeting and sending more information to people whose e-mails it had.

However, the study criticized the parties' sites overall for several shortcomings, including not providing search features, being difficult to navigate, and failing to keep their sites fresh.

"With the election approaching, and the political arena a hotbed for news in general, it is not for lack of material that the committees do not provide daily updates to their respective sites," researchers wrote. "It was not uncommon during the course of this study for material on home pages to be more than two weeks old."

The Web has been slowly encroaching upon the political scene since it became a mass medium.

Back in 1996, even the presidential candidates posted little more than political pamphlets on their sites. Things, and fortunes, changed by the 2000 election--which took place amid the backdrop of the go-go dot-com era. Much ballyhooed sites such as Pseudo.com exploded onto the scene, taking their place in political convention skyboxes next to the networks, offering voters features and access only possible via the Web. Citizens could chat with candidates online, get a behind-the-scenes 3D view of political events, and organize real-time get-out-the-vote efforts.

However, many of the sites' political ambitions flamed out soon after they appeared on the scene, their fortunes declining as the dot-com bubble burst. Some even shut their doors before voting day.

Now, with sites such as Pseudo.com little more than a footnote in campaign history books, political consultants are looking back at the era--and examining how the Web has evolved since then--to try to figure out what works.

Campaigns are finding that the Internet provides a more efficient tool to narrowly target voters than television, and the Web can make fund-raising efforts cheaper and easier.

The PoliticsOnline study offered a lengthy list of methods to improve campaign sites. Many of them draw upon the latest Web marketing techniques from the corporate world.

Researchers suggest making it extremely easy for voters to submit their e-mail and other personal information by providing them with sign-in boxes as often as possible. The sites also need to inform voters about the frequency and content of any e-mails they will receive. In addition, the study suggests capturing e-mail address through two tried-and-true features in the corporate word: sweepstakes and the "e-mail to a friend." The study praised the Web as a fund-raising platform, proposing that parties take advantage of the feature by asking for donations on every page.

Researchers also suggest that campaigns personalize communications as much as possible with individually tailored greetings (such as "dear Mrs. Smith") and by letting people sign up for e-mails based on their interests in topics such as the economy or education.

On the content front, the report makes several suggestions for a robust campaign site, including offering television and radio ads for downloads, updating the site frequently, providing links to archival material, and options that make it easy to find personalized information about a candidate such as a calendar of events and a search-by-zip-code feature.

Related News
• Elections group to tackle Net political ads August 27, 2002
  http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955597.html
• A politician in every cell phone August 22, 2002
  http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954903.html
• Free speech or campaign spam? March 4, 2002
  http://news.com.com/2100-1023-851126.html
• Democrats race to catch up to GOP online February 1, 2002
  http://news.com.com/2100-1023-828063.html
• Get this story's "Big Picture"
  http://news.com.com/2104-1023-961768.html

Copyright ©1995-2002 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Mandate for the Middle: By Sen. JAMES M. JEFFORDS

November 30, 2002

Mandate for the Middle

By JAMES M. JEFFORDS
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/opinion/30JEFF.html

ASHINGTON
I have listened to a lot of people discuss what went right and what went wrong in the 2002 midterm elections. In the final tally, there is no question that President Bush did a masterful job engineering victories for the Republican Party.

But I worry that the list of issues that dominated the election season was woefully incomplete. As we respond daily to the latest threats of terror highlighted by the administration, I believe other issues that bear directly on the security of our homeland are being dangerously obscured.

Our slumping economy, our threatened environment, our underfunded schools, our corporate scandals — these are not issues that you will hear discussed by the White House, but they are being talked about by people who don't have the power to define the nation's agenda.

In Congress we have just passed a law that will bring about the largest restructuring of our government since World War II. We are telling the American people that a new Department of Homeland Security will protect them. But Americans are losing their jobs and their ability to support their families. In less than two years, more than two million private sector jobs have been lost, while our economic growth is the weakest it has been in 50 years.

We should be addressing that homeland security issue.

Too many hard-working people are stuck in low-wage jobs, wondering how they will make the rent payment and cover child-care costs. The Census Bureau's recent income and poverty report stated that 1.3 million Americans slipped below the poverty line in the last year. This increase means that 11.7 percent of the United States population is living in poverty. The Census Bureau also reported that median household income decreased for the first time since 1991.

What's more, many workers who are fortunate enough not to have to worry about their jobs are now worrying about their savings. More than 50 percent of Americans have investments in the stock market, and they have seen the value of those investments decline by more than $4.5 trillion since last January.

We should be addressing that homeland security issue.

Coal plants in the Midwest continue to spew toxic pollutants into the air, yet the administration does not see the wisdom in regulating these emissions, preferring to rely on the good-faith efforts of plant owners to police themselves. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are dying prematurely every year from such pollution.

I was proud to work with President George H. W. Bush on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. He called our work "a new chapter in our environmental history, and a new era for clean air." Now, President George W. Bush insists on moving us backward, undoing his father's legacy and our nation's environmental policy. Last week the administration issued regulations to ease clean air rules to allow power plants to avoid having to install new antipollution equipment when they modernize their plants.

We should be addressing that homeland security issue.

The lack of funding for our schools is disgraceful. Of the major industrial nations, the United States ranks among the lowest in terms of financing education at the federal level, providing only 7 percent of the cost. The president's education plan is long on new federal mandates but short on the resources to make them work. The government promised more than 25 years ago to pay 40 percent of special education costs for children with disabilities; it now covers only 18 percent.

There's no question that we are living in a dangerous time. Some of the threats we face are being met with judgment and careful deliberation. But others, namely the steady erosion of economic opportunity here at home, are being ignored.

If the new, razor-thin Republican majority abuses its power and moves forward with an extreme agenda that overlooks the concerns of the many and benefits only the privileged few, there will be repercussions.

Since the election, my decision to leave the Republican Party last year has been subject to new scrutiny. The attention on my personal decision, while understandable, is misplaced. If the Republicans read the recent election results as a rejection of moderation and a mandate to steamroll opposition from within the party, they will be making a grave mistake.

James M. Jeffords, an independent, is the junior senator from Vermont.

Copyright The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, #S.1731,

The FARM BILL of 2002 .
~~ by technopolitical ~~ ` `

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, #S.1731, passed by the Senate on February 13, 2002, ( and vernacularly known as the “2002 Farm Bill”), is far-reaching and elaborate legislation touching on most every facet of the American agriculture industry. The Farm Bill regulates the prices of America’s staple crops, livestock, and dairy products. Payments of subsidies to farmers of corn, wheat, and cotton, comprise the bulk of the bill’s total expenditures, estimated at $171 billion over the next 5 years. [Miller]. The bill also includes issues of conservation, land / water rights and usage, and allots $800 million more per year for food-stamp payments and nutrition programs than current levels. [AP]

It is important to note that there are not fixed amounts of money distributed by the Farm Bill, only the “mechanisms” of how the money is paid out is fixed. Many factors that affect crop prices are beyond human control. So specific payments can vary according to volatile economy of the agriculture industry. Weather factors, like drought, flood, and early frosts can reduce crop productions, while good weather conditions can cause bumper crops. A main function of the farm bill is to insulate farmers from major price fluctuations by stabilizing their earnings with subsidies.

The passage of a Farm Bill is a forgone conclusion, as the legislation is the centerpiece of domestic agricultural policy. The battle becomes what will be in the Farm Bill. As we will see a Senator’s foremost concern is what they can get included into the bill for their home state.

While the final vote on the bill broke mostly on partisan lines --with 48 Democrats voting for and 38 Republicans voting no--- the bills sponsor and prime architect Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) hailed the outcome as a “bipartisan” victory. (The word bipartisan appears no less than 5 times in the bill’s brief press release on Harkin’s official website.)

In reality, the Farm Bill is a parochial piece of legislation. Senators and their home state farm interests tended not look into the big picture of the national bill, but more just how much money came to their state. Nine Republicans voted for the bill, and two Democrats voted against it. Here we will highlight a few of these swing Senators, who split from their party leaders, as they give an excellent overview of the issues involved in the Farm Bill’s particulars.

Six of the nine Republican yes votes came from just three states-- Alabama, Maine, and Virginia— where both senators are Republican and both voted for the bill.

Of the three other Republicans who voted yes, two--- Chuck Grassly of Iowa and Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois--- come from states that fair well with the Farm Bill. The votes of Grassly, whose co-senator Democrat Tom Harkin was the bills Prime Sponsor, and Fitzgerald, whose co-senator is Democrat Dick Durban, were never really in doubt.

(Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, was the only Republican ‘yes’ vote whose co-senator did not also vote yes, as fellow Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum voted against the bill.)

******

The technology of the Internet greatly affected the shaping of the debate of this year’s Farm Bill, by way of a single group called the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Using the freedom of information act, the EWG compiled comprehensive statistics on exactly to whom and to where subsidies from the previous Farm Bill went from 1996-2001 and posted them on their website for all to see. [www.ewg.org] The data posted on the EWG site became embedded into the debate on the bills formation, and provided Senators, interest groups, and reporters covering the bill, with volumes of statistical information. (Most every article used to research this paper mentioned the role and/or contained statistics from EWG.) A New York Times article published a week after the Senate’s vote summed up the impact of the EWG website:

“Throughout the angry Senate debate about whether to limit subsidies to wealthy farmers, lawmakers kept referring to ‘the Web site’ to make their points. ‘You can see on the Web site — 10 percent of the farmers get most of the money,’ said Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma. ‘I looked up Indiana on the Web site,’ said Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, ‘and very few Indiana farmers would be affected by a modest limit.’ [Becker]

EWG revealed that 75 percent of farm subsidies from 1996-2001 went to only 15 states. As well, EWG showed that many of the largest recipients of payments via the 1996 Farm Bill were to Fortune 500 Corporations who own major farming concerns.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) put together what was dubbed the “Eggplant Caucus”, a bi-partisan coalition of mostly northeastern senators whose goal was to bring regional equity to federal farm subsidies. (This caucus included Maine’s two Republican senators whose votes in favor of the final bill were crucial to its passage and will be highlighted below.)

The Eggplant Caucus secured the major provision of the Senate 2002 Farm Bill that greatly lowered the cap on subsidy payments. The 1996 Farm Bill contained a cap of $460,000 per farm, while the 2002 Senate bill places the cap at $275,000 per farm. [Zremski] This cap reduction is designed to make more money available to be distributed to states --outside the Midwest---- that in the past have received fewer moneys.

Maine’s republican senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins joined Northeast Democrats in voting yes and were important swing votes, with Collins in the undecided camp until just a few days before the Senate’s final vote. The prime motivating factors for the Snowe and Collins vote, was how it would affect the dairy industry in Maine, which has lost one-fifth of it dairy farms in the past decade. [Jensen]

The Farm Bill of 1996 included price supports for milk, but the program expired last September 30, and Maine’s senators battled vigorously to reacquire those moneys plus some. Senator Snowe was instrumental to the addition of $2 billion a year for payments to dairy farmers within the bill. $500 million of which would be divided among the Northeast states. [ibid]

It is important to note that subsidy payments for a particular product—in this case milk—are not uniform and varies from state to state. Republican Pete Domenci of New Mexico, claimed that in final Senate bill New Mexico farmers would get only 6 cents per 100 pounds for milk, while Maine farmers would average 90 cents per 100 pounds. [ibid]

Senator Snowe’s fight for this milk money also put her at loggerheads with Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana whom as the ranking Republican on the Agriculture committee was a prime opponent of the final bill. Lugar singled out the milk issue for criticism saying, “there is no sound policy reason for this disparity.” [ibid]

Whether or not the milk price support system is sound fiscal policy, it was part of the “pork” that Maine’s Republican senators demanded in return for their support of the Senate Farm Bill.

Senator Collins held out her support of the bill until Sponsor Tom Harkin agreed to include an experimental savings program intended to help insulate farmers from price drops. Under this program the government would match the first $5,000 that farmers put aside into their savings accounts.

As well, Maine’s senators won major increases in money available for conservation. The 1996 Bill gave Maine $4.6 million a year for conservation, while the 2002 bill will give the state least $12 million per year and maybe as much as $29 million per year [ibid].

Alabama’s two Republican Senators Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby also voted for the bill because of what they got for their homestate. Sessions was able to get four additional Alabama counties added to Delta Regional Authority, which provides grants to farmers in eligible counties.

"I am pleased the Senate voted to add these four counties to the 16 Alabama counties already included in the Delta Regional Authority," Sessions said. "These counties will benefit from DRA grants to improve their infrastructure and draw jobs to those areas. I am hopeful that conferees will work expeditiously, so President Bush can sign this bill as soon as possible. Planting season is quickly approaching and our farmers need the certainty that a new five-year farm bill provides. [Sessions]

The only two Democrats who voted against the bill; Sen.Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Sen. Jon Cozine of New Jersey, each had different specifics of why they opposed the legislation, but the common factor was that that saw the bill as bad for the folks back home. After her no vote Lincoln stated: “My support for the Senate farm bill was dependent upon what it did for my state, and I voted against this bill because it unfairly inhibits Arkansas farmers and ranchers.” (AP-1)

Sen. Lincoln opposed the final bill because it contained a provision that prohibited meat-packers from also owning the cattle within 14 days of slaughter. Lincoln argued that this provision would prevent the Arkansas meat-packers from running at full capacity at all times. [ibid]

Meanwhile, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Jon Carzine saw the Farm Bill as unfair to Jersey farms as “the overwhelming bulk of subsidies in this bill will go for commodities that, by and large are not produced in the Garden State” [Miller].

The Farm Bill clearly demonstrates the axiom that “all politics are local.” Despite its massive size and scope, in the end legislation got an individual up or down vote from our swing senators solely on what the bill did for that Senator’s home state. Loyalty to homestate interests outweighed all other factors in the formation and passage of the legislation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------END OF PAPER

See here for more ;

http://technopolitical.blogspot.com/2002_08_01_technopolitical_archive.html#_ednref82

-----------------end ---END of paper >>>>>>

NOTES :

AP

“Senate Passes Farm Subsidies Bill” by The Associated Press

Obtained via the New York Times on the Internet; www.nytimes.com . 13 February 2002.

-------------------------------------

AP-1

“Arkansas Senators vote no on bill.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire. 13 February 2002

(Available via Lexis-Nexis and was accessed on 21 March 2002)

-------------------------------------------------------

Becker, Elizabeth

“Web Site Helped Change Farm Policy” The New York Times 24 February 2002

Obtained via the New York Times on the Internet; www.nytimes.com , accessed 24 February 2002

(Available via Lexis-Nexis)

------------------------------------------------------

EWG

Environmental Working Group website www.ewg.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jansen, Bart

“Farm Bill Supports Dairy Farmers, Conservation” Maine Sunday Telegram. 17 February 2002

Sec: Insight; Washington Politics: page 2C.

(Available via Lexis-Nexis and was accessed on 21 March 2002)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sessions, Jeff. United States Senator. “Senate Farm Bill Would Add Four Alabama Counties To Delta

Regional Authority” Posted at : www.sessions.gov/headlines/farmrelease.htm and last accessed

5 May 2002

----------------------------------------------------------------

Miller, Micheal.

“More Aid Unlikely For NJ Farmers.” The Press of Atlantic City. 25 February 2002

(This article was obtained through it’s posting at: http://sierraactivist.org/article.php?sid=6604 )

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zremski, Jerry

“Farm Bill Aims for Level Playing Field; Congress is Poised to Correct A Disparity in Federal

Aid That Has Overwhelmingly Favored the South and Midwest.” The Buffalo News.

19 February 2002. Sec: Local, p. B1 (Available via Lexis-Nexis and was accessed on 21 March

2002)

>>>>

END... END .......END ..........END..... END ..........END -----------------------