Scythe & Spade Blog

The Dangers of Incumbency

by Chas Bonner

Our blog today is somewhat repetitive, but because the debt ceiling and deficit is almost the only news, and because I am home nursing a recent knee operation, I decided to make it easy on myself and simply reproduce a letter sent this week to the Idaho Statesman.

One of the greatest dangers to our democracy, as well as democracies around the world, is perpetual re-election of the incumbent in virtually every political race. Historically, re-election rates are over 95% for the incumbent. And it is no wonder. Congressional representatives begin spending campaign money as soon as elected, gerrymander their districts to make them safe for re-election, look for every television camera in the area, spend countless evenings on the “rubber chicken dinner” circuit, vote to limit the president to 2 terms, but always oppose limiting their own terms, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Today Republicans and Democrats in Congress are locked in a battle over the budget and debt limit. Countless economists have predicted bad consequences for going into default, not just for the USA, but for the entire world. And even if the consequences are not dire, they cannot be good. Furthermore, most of those economists have stated unequivocally that deficit reduction must be a result of mostly spending reductions, but also revenue increases, whether through slightly increased taxes or elimination of tax loopholes.

Even the bi-partisan Deficit Commission, appointed in early 2010, and charged with the responsibility of crafting a deficit reduction plan did not hear a peep from Congress or the Executive Branch after making their proposals, also a combination of spending reduction, entitlement (Social Security and Medicare) adjustments, tax increases, and loophole closings.

Why is it that our Congress cannot do the job for which they were elected, to run the country responsibly? Could it be that if they perform the job for which we elected them, they might not be re-elected because no matter what a legislator does, someone will be unhappy? Why is it that few important decisions are made during an election year, and the press assumes that is normal; nothing of substance gets done when Congress is facing re-election? Why do important appointments for many branches of government sometime never come up for a vote of approval in Congress, especially in election years?

As a life-long Republican, I truly fear that our party is reducing itself to impotence. Much of the party is now owned by Tea Parties, and we see countless examples of Senators and Representatives moving to the right, not out of fear they will lose to a Democrat in the next general election, but for fear of losing to a right-wing Republican candidate in the primary election. And because our democracy has traditionally been a center-right government, a far right Tea Party backed Republican would most likely lose to the Democrat in the general election. Traditionally, the pendulum always swings too far and for too long, so Republicans could be the minority party for many years.

As American voters, we need to wake up! Congress already has a terrible reputation with the public, generally garnering no more than 15-20% approval rating whereas almost any president usually has a 40-60% approval rating. Unfortunately, despite the fact that we do not like Congress, we like our own representatives. We are not selective enough to watch what our Congressman does, what he or she stands for, but rather vote for the person we recognize, and the one buying the most television time. We are generally uninformed, ill-informed, and misinformed. Nonetheless, because the incumbent spends the most money, has the most TV time, and is in the news, they are re-elected year after year after year.

That focus on professional politics rather than governance could be cured by term limits, even if very long terms of 8-12 years, but no more than 2 terms in either legislative branch so professional politicians cannot spend a lifetime in Washington. Knowing they will be in national government no longer than 20 years, perhaps Congressmen might do what is best for the nation rather than best for their re-election.

Despicable Politics

by Chas Bonner

Conventional wisdom says never to discuss religion or politics in polite company. Excuse me if I am becoming impolite.

Most of the news today circles around Congress and its inability to extend the debt ceiling, to come to any agreement on budget essentials, to compromise with the president, or even to compromise with other members of Congress INCLUDING members of their own party. Freshmen Congressmen elected with Tea Party help need to be recognized as Tea Party intransigents; Democrats seem unable to yield on entitlement spending, and Congressional leadership cannot lead because there are no followers. Virtually any economist of stature has stated that our budgetary woes cannot be resolved without a decrease in spending and an increase in revenues. But “I, Congressman X will yield on nothing.” Many of those same economists have reminded us that even if the country does not face recession without a budget agreement, they have illustrated how so many costs, including interest, will rise after default.

Is it any wonder why the President, any president, has an approval rating ranging between 40 and 60% whereas Congress usually has an approval rating between 10 and 20%? Most of those polls indicate voters like their own Congressmen, but detest Congress.

If we would enact term limits, suggesting 2 very long terms (10-12 years) followed by a prohibition of ever returning to a legislative body, we might get statesmen in Congress instead of professional politicians. We would have representatives who are working for the best outcome of the country rather than the outcome of their next re-election.

We would be most interested in your comments on this topic. Hopefully, you are as angry as I am, and even more hopefully, maybe this will foster some change in our despicable political system. And now the disclaimer: “The above thoughts represent the attitude of the writer, not of Scythe & Spade.”

Agricultural Peer Groups

byBrett MacNeil & Lori Evans

In the corporate world, decision makers, owners, CEO’s all have sounding boards, coaches or teams that they can meet with and seek advice, expertise or input when making critical decisions, but who does the farmer have? As pointed out by Marcia Taylor in her discussion with Danny Klinefelter, a professor of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M University, where do farmers go “for counseling and to build a confidential sounding board on his or her farm business decision?” The popularity of peer groups among farmers is rising; more farmers are realizing the benefits of joining a group. A peer group is defined by Gordon Marshall in his Dictionary of Sociology as “a group of individuals, which share certain common characteristics.” The lonely days at the top are disappearing…potentially for a peer group, properly formed and moderated, can offer numerous perspectives to achieve a solution expeditiously. Peer groups are becoming a necessary aid to farmers in the rapidly changing farming industry and economy.

However, just by joining a peer group does not guarantee success. It is important to find the right “fit” in a group. If you are not comfortable with the people you are around, then you are less likely to share your problems. If you are unwilling to share your problems, then you will be missing out on the input that fellow farmers would be able to provide. The more you share or put into the group, the more advice, wisdom and expertise you will get by utilizing the group’s strengths and experience. Who better to ask for advice, than another farmer that has been in your shoes and faced the very same problem?

When it Rains it Pours

by Chas Bonner

Good news is hard to beat, and when it keeps coming we start wondering “When will it end,” especially in this era of much negative fear-mongering.

We have long known about the interest in “organic, natural, local, etc.” What is somewhat new is the growing interest in “Grown in the USA.” In a recent Eco Pulse survey of a statistically significant number of Americans, the interest in “Grown in the USA” was attributed to significant worries about foreign production (recall the Melamine scandal in powdered milk in China), followed by (important to US farmers) support of the family farmer and local production, and finally support of the country during recessionary times.

Even though few Americans consistently purchase green products, more and more are concerned about our future, want to recycle, buy local, support simplicity, purchase less “throw-away” product and packaging, and search for efficiency.

One of the most surprising facts of the survey was the magnitude of the switch to “greener” living. Today, almost 70% of Americans think about sustainable, efficient living, a full 10 percentage points above a similar Eco-Pulse survey just 2 years earlier. That much of a switch over such a short period is rare.

Yes, when it rains it pours, and for us in the farming industry, the rain is welcome.

Empathy of Our Youth

By: Patti Hardwick

Every parent worries about their own children as well as the youth of America. Being a mother, I too have worried, and one of the perplexities is to understand how they communicate today, or even whether they communicate. My assumption is all of our readers share the same concerns.

About a year ago, there was a University of Michigan study by Sara Konrath that reviewed 72 sociological studies of empathy done over the prior 30 years. Ms. Kornrath found that empathy had been declining, especially since 2000, and that college students today had 40% less empathy than those students in the 1980’s and 90’s. They tend not to feel sorry for those less fortunate, or to put themselves in other’s shoes to learn their perspective.

The question becomes why, and second, how to counter this trend? Speculation by the researchers was that there is less and less interpersonal communication, and everything has become electronic. How many of us have seen 4 teenagers around a Starbucks table, none talking and all texting? A second reason found was worry about the future, and how can each of them get ahead. Finally, it was not just young people that were less empathetic; this is growing phenomenon through all age groups, in large part to shut off bad news and fears.

Now we must learn how to get through the walls and the maze. When we recognize the need for immediacy, informality, and methods of learning, we can be more collaborative with them, and better penetrate any walls. If they understand that we too want to listen and learn from them, they will open up.