When the Democrats took control of Congress, a colleague of mine looked at me with a sigh of relief and said, "Isn't it great that we won't have to be playing defense against bad policy anymore?" If only that first impression were the case.
In a democracy, we shouldn't have to be constantly vigilant for bad legislative ideas that could hurt the public good. Our legislators are supposed to be the filter that guards against schemes that would strip rights and take choices away from people. Unfortunately, it seems to be the same politics, with the same money trails.
JMG's post yesterday touches on a topic I have been thinking a lot about, and I want to address it in more detail.
On the House Agriculture Committee website, summaries of all of the parts of the legislation being offered are posted. Under the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry there is a Title I Section-by-Section analysis. Section 123 is particularly problematic:
SEC. 123. EFFECT OF USDA INSPECTION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-REGULATED STATUS.
* Prevents a State or locality from prohibiting an article the Secretary of Agriculture has inspected and passed, or an article the Secretary has determined to be of nonregulated status.
What does this mean? Also known as "preemption language," this broad statement basically says that if the USDA says something is safe, a state or local government is not allowed to regulate it. For example, there have been a number of counties around the country that have banned genetically modified organisms from being produced within their borders. This preemption-style language, if it's passed in the Farm Bill, would void those local laws.
State or local governments would no longer be able to issue their own recalls for USDA-inspected meat if the state is concerned it could be tainted. They wouldn't be allowed to regulate hormones or antibiotics given to livestock. There could be hundreds of laws impacted with this language, which takes local control away from the people and gives it to the USDA.
This language is reportedly supported by Chairman Peterson and is being pushed by his agribusiness buddies. It makes it easier for them to manipulate government policy to the advantage of big agribusiness if they don't have to fight on many small fronts. Bottom line, though, is that this provision, if passed, is bad for people and their ability to have a say in their own municipality, county, state, or region.
There are a number of industries that have tried this preemption-style language, and while I'm not following all of them, I know many of the attempts at stripping local control have not been entirely successful. We need to make sure this language is struck from the Farm Bill, even though it's supported by the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
Contrary to what we may have thought, we're still playing legislative defense. The Farm Bill needs to be a democratic process, with an emphasis on transparency and accountability.
The localization of agriculture
Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”
EPA punts on raising ethanol “blend wall”
Comments
View as Flat
amc89 Posted 6:38 am
04 Jun 2007
Some good news is that some states like New York are considering bans on live poultry markets. For more news on efforts to combat factory farming visit:
http://www.HumaneEating.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:41 am
04 Jun 2007
http://tableforone.tpmcafe.com/blog/tableforone/2007/jun/ ...
I especially appreciate that he calls heavily subsidized corn ethanol a "fools game."
Like the saying about war and generals, food policy is far too important to be left entirely to the rural congresscritters.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
meander Posted 4:20 pm
04 Jun 2007
There might have been state credit card regulations that have also been preempted, perhaps regulations limiting interest rates to something like 20% per year (which is far too low for credit card companies).
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:16 pm
04 Jun 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:07 pm
04 Jun 2007
Or maybe it was to water it down to meaninglessness.
Either way, bad mojo.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:13 am
05 Jun 2007
First time I heard about this threatening troubling language was either the Federal Medicare Bill (another so-called "REFORM" law), or a law on medical policy for Big Pharma (another egregious bit of cooperation between business, bureaucracy, and politics = Corporate Oligarchy). In this case it states that 'no one has any legal recourse in a case of incompetency or criminal act once this law is passed'; i.e., 'SCREW YOU!'
That's your Corporate Oligarchy in action. So it is used to screw states and individuals as they please. How the Hell did we let things get this far?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 4:31 pm
05 Jun 2007
There are several reasons why the way is not yet clear to have democratic (that's a small "d") legislation possessing transparency and accountability. One is simply the margin with which Democrats control Congress, a margin that is quite small, so political wheeling and dealing still prevail to get votes. Another reason is the ridiculous riders that bills are burdened with, the addons and pet projects that are unrelated to the subject of the bill, but from my viewpoint the core problem is elsewhere.
Regardless of which party is in control, each of the elected officials has an army of lobbyists representing the Corporate Oligarchy assaulting him/her. And all the lobbyists are tied eventually to the contributors who make it possible for those running for office to pay for campaign ads and activities. Finally, while there are few in office who are clearly there due to fraudulent, unverifiable election results, this potential still looms in the backs of the minds of many people around the country.
In order to really have straightforward honest democratic legislation that addresses people's concerns, we have to first address these three things: Campaign Finance, Lobbying, and Election Fairness and Verification. True reform of these laws will help reduce the power of the Corporate Oligarchy, and give us back the legislative process.
'Pre-emptive' language should be struck from all the legislation, but it seems a favorite of bidness interests, so it will be a struggle.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink