CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

I trust Arizona citizens and voters are aware and ready for the HUBRIS which our political leaders choose to express …

There will be HELL TO PAY and it will be the poorest, the least educated and those less healthy in Arizona who will pay it …

AHCCCS cuts loom large; fed challenge in the offing
By Mary K. Reinhart …The Arizona Guardian

There are liable to be some big changes for the 1.3 million Arizonans on AHCCCS.

Russell Pearce’s rhetoric aside, Arizona lawmakers and Gov. Jan Brewer are more interested in rolling back the state’s Medicaid program than in dismantling it altogether.

The incoming Senate president was quoted on election night as saying that it was worth losing $7.5 billion in federal Medicaid funds to cut the AHCCCS program.

Russell Pearce & Jan Brewer … Arizona’s … cavalier gun slingers …

Doesn’t it make you proud to live in a State with open-hearted benevolent leadership…?

KKK ALIVE IN ARIZONA

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

As Montana leaders extends its hand to embrace those cultures integral to its history with their language on a school bus…

Arizona leaders show their benevolence with signs … “if you’re brown get off ” …

Tell me … is it the water … is it the air … or what is it that which allows Arizona to be the new haven for old racist sentiments long prevalent with the likes of the KKK…? ? ?

NOW MYTH

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

The “family” farm and “family” ranch is but now myth … legend from reality of times now long gone …

The Last Frontier II: America’s cattlemen fight for survival …November 7, 2010 by ppjg …Op-ED …by: Vaughn Meyer

Throughout history “The Last Frontier” has been associated with the settling of the West during the 19th century. As children this time frame of history was narrated through history books and multi generation family recollections.
Probably some of the most vivid attributes to this period were the Louisiana Purchase, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, the Indian – Whiteman wars, the large cattle barons, huge cattle drives and our very own roughrider president, Teddy Roosevelt.

Near the end of the 1800s we witnessed a new policy of Homesteading which introduced the concept of family production agriculture. This introduction of family ownership and management of agriculture created more incentive for individual achievement and our industry flourished. As agriculture grew it stimulated creativity on the national level which economically and industrially established the U.S. as a world leader.

However as the number of family farms and livestock numbers increased and competition for our product decreased, Congress realizing the need for competition and fair markets for our livestock drafted the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. As the 20th century drew to a close it became apparent to livestock producers that without tools for the enforcement of the P&S Act we still remained at the mercy of the anti competitive practices of the packers.

However during the 2008 Farm Bill debate our Congressional leaders also became aware of the need for rules to enforce competition in the market place and the need to restore fairness within our industry. They commanded the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) under the leadership of GIPSA Administrator Mr. J Dudley Butler to draft rules to enforce the P&S Act. Nearly two years later Mr. Butler and his staff have addressed the congressional mandate and proposed new rules known as the GIPSA Rules.
As with all new game rules which are directed at leveling the playing field the opponents are those who possessed an unchecked advantage over other key players. In this case the packing industry, through its affiliated voices of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Meat Institute (AMI), has realized a 90 year old reign over the production side of our industry. They are squealing louder than stuck hogs and labeling Administrator Butler and his GIPSA rules as the destruction of the industry.

In a recent attempt to degrade Mr. Butler’s motives they portray him as a litigation happy trial lawyer who is attempting to drum up business for his post GIPSA years.

Mr. Butler and his boss, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, have been accused of being indifferent for not considering the request by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson and 114 other congressmen to delay the GIPSA rule with another economic analysis study.

They also connect him to a few so called “other liberal – leaning cattle organizations”.

What critics of Administrator Butler fail to mention is that similar to the other 955,000 livestock producers Mr. J. Dudley Butler is a producer from Mississippi and a former ranch partner from Wyoming. As a fellow producer from S.D. maybe we should look at the producer side of this GIPSA Administrator like:

MAYBE … Mr. J Dudley Butler possesses compassion for his fellow livestock producers as he has witnessed the individual sorrow and defeat of the 370,000 producers and their spouses and children as they lost their livelihoods!

MAYBE… J Dudley Butler has witnessed the hunger and suffering of children in other countries who have insufficient production agriculture!

MAYBE… J Dudley Butler has experienced first hand the destruction of family enterprise hog and poultry farming and wishes to prevent the same coercion and threats from raping the cattle industry!

MAYBE… Mr. J Dudley Butler foresees the 20% drop in producer carcass share over the past 20 years is correlated to the smallest U.S. cow herd since 1952 which will have a profound effect on the future safety and procurement of our nation’s food supply!

MAYBE… Mr. J Dudley Butler noticed that Senate Ag Chairman Collin Peterson and his 114 colleges were the recipients of over $48.6 million of Agri Pac campaign contributions!

MAYBE… Mr. J Dudley Butler has observed the past 90 years of unchecked pilfering of our industry by the packing industry and affiliates and he realizes a change to honest moral values is necessary for the survival of agriculture!

JUST MAYBE… Mr. J Dudley Butler notices the similarities of the “Last Frontier” of the 1800’s and the “Last Frontier” of the present beef industry which ironically is precipitated by the same packing industry. Possible he also recognizes that a United States without a viable livestock industry to spur prosperity in our cities may well become the “Last Frontier” of the world!

In summary, Mr. Paul Engler of Cactus Feeders testified in Ft. Collins that as a child he bought his first calves to feed and today he feeds millions annually. Just maybe Mr. J Dudley Butler, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and US Attorney General Eric Holder realized that that would not be possible in today’s broken market system. Just maybe they and hundreds of thousands of fellow producers are attempting to salvage a market system that will provide similar opportunities for future generations!

As livestock producers we can restore U.S. family agriculture and rebuild our rural communities through comments of support for the GIPSA rule at comments.gipsa@usda.gov

Or Fax to 202-690-2173, or at the Federal e-rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov

Thank you.

Vaughn Meyer, a concerned livestock producer
Reva, SD

God Help us if they succeed

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

And what Bull Shit evidence will this Republican controlled Congress fabricate to promote their “war” on Iran …

God Help us if they succeed …

Republican Bloodlust: Senator Lindsay Graham Lusts For War With Iran … 11-06-2010 • ZeroHedge.com

“Iran is a major threat to any conceivable world order” and that he sees an almost inevitable confrontation with Iran.

As AP reports, the South Carolina Republican saw the United States going to war with the Islamic republic “not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime.”

And the Democrats, still in shock over their recent pummelling, will likely not have the resolve to respond palliatively to such warmongering, which they likely deem as supported by the broad population: “US Democratic Senator Mark Udall, who joined Graham during a panel discussion at the forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, urged continued sanctions against Iran. But he also noted that “every option is on the table,” a thinly veiled reference to possible military action.”

And just when the world was getting along so well, and all the international bickering appeared to be taking place over various Forex terminals… More from AP: The United States faces a possible war with Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions and a “period of confrontation” with China over its currency, a top US lawmaker warned Saturday.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said his fellow conservative, fresh from their historic elections romp this week, support “bold” action to deal with Iran.

If President Barack Obama “decides to be tough with Iran beyond sanctions, I think he is going to feel a lot of Republican support for the idea that we cannot let Iran develop a nuclear weapon,” he told the Halifax International Security Forum.

“The last thing America wants is another military conflict, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran… Containment is off the table.” Furthermore, the fact that Iran recently converted 15% of its $100Bn+ in reserves into gold did not win it any brownie points with the global central banking cartel.

DID WE NOT LEARN ANYTHING
FROM THE IRAQ WMD DEBACLE
OF REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH

HOUSE OF CARD$

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

What don’t you get … Bernanke doesn’t give a damn about you …

He and his a$$ociate$ have constructed a house of cards …

designed to fail … and you and me along with it … got it …

Bernanke Sentenced The Poorest 20% Of The Population To Hunger

Should rampant liquidity end up pushing food and energy prices to double (something that is a distinct possibility currently), Ben Bernanke may have very well sentenced about 60 million Americans to a hungry and very cold winter…

Bernanke Lies With Impunity: Seeks To Destroy The Toil of Generations

The toil of generations of Americans will soon be a blood sacrifice to the unbridled greed of our would be masters…

Dollar Drops Most in Four Weeks as Fed to Pump Money into Financial System

The dollar fell the most in four weeks against the currencies of six major trading partners after the Federal Reserve said it will pump more money into the U.S.

SOLAR POWER …YEA, WE’RE FOR IT … IF IT DOESN’T NEGATIVELY AFFECT OUR NEXT QUARTER’S PROFIT$

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

Were SRP to be a bona-fide publicly owned utility this would be a moot question … especially if as in SRP case solar power is slave to SRP profit$

SRP to decide fate of solar service agreement this month …Phoenix Business Journal – by Patrick O’Grady … Date: Friday, November 5, 2010, 4:25pm MST

Solar installations in Salt River Project territory have been in limbo, and not just because of lower incentives.
Some projects banking on solar service agreements, or SSAs, have stalled because the utility isn’t sure how it’s going to handle them — but likely will decide this month, said Lori Singleton, the utility’s manager of sustainability initiatives and technologies.

SSAs allow a third party to own and operate a system and sell its power to a building owner.

Their use has been approved by the Arizona Corporation Commission, but not SRP, which is regulated by its own board.

SRP officials initially spoke out against the agreements, but decided not to challenge the ACC’s decision. They have not accepted SSAs for about six months as they tried to figure out what to do.

One path is to do what they did before the decision: place the utility in the middle of the agreement. It would work by the third party owning the system, then selling power to SRP, which then would pass it through the end-user. Investors in the solar systems haven’t been exactly enthused by this proposal.

They prefer the other alternative SRP is considering: just meeting what the ACC laid out.

Singleton said the utility’s concerns center on business and homes outside the nonprofits, schools and governments that were approved for the agreements by the ACC.

Solar installers have moved forward with other SSA projects around the state, but only a handful have been done in SRP’s territory. How its delay has affected SSA solar installations is unknown, but the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association has sent a letter to SRP asking for clarification on its position so whatever projects are there can get moving, said Lee Feliciano, the group’s president.

Read more: SRP to decide fate of solar service agreement this month | Phoenix Business Journal

SOLAR POWER …YEA, WE’RE FOR IT … IF IT DOESN’T NEGATIVELY AFFECT OUR NEXT QUARTER’S PROFIT$

Without those inclusions, fossil fuels will be enjoying an economic advantage they don’t deserve.

A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency

The bottom line is that the price of an energy source should reflect not just its production costs but its impact on health, natural resources, and aesthetics. Without those inclusions, fossil fuels will be enjoying an economic advantage they don’t deserve.

Consider Externalities When Discussing Alternative Energy …

Edward Flattau …Environmental newspaper columnist

Some in the fossil fuel industry, along with their ideological sympathizers both inside and outside of government, are not content with pronouncing global warming a hoax in defiance of scientific consensus.

In a further unprincipled effort to ease regulatory curbs, they are opposing a governmental mandate requiring some standardized use of renewable energy, arguing that such technology is not an economically viable alternative to oil, gas, and coal for the foreseeable future.

If that false premise can be sold, a legislative mandate compelling utilities to level the playing field between fossil fuels and solar power, wind, and other relatively clean renewable energy sources will never get off the ground. Healthy competition will be stifled and the United States will invariably fall behind other nations in the transition to a modern, sustainable national energy infrastructure.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a Washington-based free market think tank that frequently acts as a shill for corporate polluters. Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at CEI, contends that without generous federal subsidies, wind could not come close to competing with coal and other fossil fuels.

Lieberman estimates that absent these subsidies, wind would cost approximately 15 cents per kilowatt hour (per KWH) compared to 10 cents per KWH for coal.

What Lieberman conveniently omits are the substantial subsidies and other considerable external costs that accompany coal and are not factored into the market price.

Yes, wind has its subsidies, along with storage and transmission issues and a drain on natural resources through its demand on building materials.

But the costs that coal generates and that are not incorporated into the market price dwarf the expense of producing and operating wind power. Princeton Professor Robert Williams estimates that the adverse effects from coal-related air pollution alone would add 13 cents per kilowatt hour (per KWH) to the price of coal.

Were the hefty additional medical expenditures, lost work hours, and cost of pollution cleanup and prevention built into the price of coal, renewable energy would look a lot more enticing.

More than a decade ago, a senior economist at Southern California Edison Electric Company calculated that with the addition of all external costs, coal would actually be priced at 17 cents per KWH rather than the 1.8 cents per KWH at that time.

He pegged wind and solar at between five and 12 cents per KWH (and renewable energy production costs have been brought down since the date of his study).

The bottom line is that the price of an energy source should reflect not just its production costs but its impact on health, natural resources, and aesthetics.

Without those inclusions, fossil fuels will be enjoying an economic advantage they don’t deserve.