My colleague, EWG senior analyst Michelle Perez, had a great op-ed in the Des Moines Register yesterday.

On Monday and Tuesday in Cedar Rapids, the Lance Armstrong Foundation is sponsoring a Presidential Cancer Forum. Armstrong serves on the President's Cancer Panel, which released a report this year concluding that processed forms of corn and soybeans - heavily subsidized commodity crops - "are known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases, including cancer."

Armstrong sees what we at the Environmental Working Group see: a flawed federal policy that continues to spend too much money supporting too few crops while ignoring the nutritional and environmental challenges it imposes.

At EWG, we also see that current farm policy hurts small family farmers by spending most of taxpayers' money on a handful of profitable agribusinesses and wealthy absentee landowners. When Maurice Wilder, a real-estate developer reportedly worth $500 million, receives roughly $1 million a year in federal farm subsidies, you know that the system is broken.

The rest in the jump.

Dan Owens over at the Blog for Rural America has his eye on a little spread down south. Just under 28,000 acres and priced to move--at fifty mil!
Seriously, Dan takes you through the subsidy implications of a giant cotton and rice plantation on the market in Louisiana.
Why, it's just like having every taxpayer in America as your investment partner.
And here's the sweet part: you get all the equity.
Read it and understand why the subsidy lobby has its way with supple-spined politicians. And why God created blogs.

Basically a status-quo proposal, with many issues (like payment limits) not addressed. "The nuances of these programs are negotiable," the document states. "This overview is a platform for further discussion."

There is no change in the big ticket item in this farm bill cycle: $26 billion in direct payments, a leftover from "freedom to farm" payment contracts begun in 1996 that will be made, regardless of crop prices, over the next 5 years. Chairman Harkin has repeatedly criticized direct payments as "hard to justify" when crop prices are high, as they are now, and farmers will be making good money (in some cases record money) in the marketplace.

But with this draft he formally endorses continuing those very payments at the same level. He (suddenly) indicated he would do this a few weeks ago, just after Speaker Pelosi's House farm bill did the same.

They're simply accepting the reality that this is what every major farm and commodity group wants. And that's probably the most important take-away from this farm bill cycle.

We've heard the talking point ad nauseam from subsidized farmers over the years, particularly in response to questions from reporters about their government payments: "We don't like relying on the government. We'd prefer to earn our income from the market. We just don't have a choice."

The next time you hear that from a subsidy recipient or the subsidy lobby, know that it's complete and utter hypocrisy.

Every major farm and commodity group has pressed nonstop for continued billions in direct payments from taxpayers in the 2007 bill, even for crops with very strong prices like corn, wheat and soybeans. They want their subsidy handouts permanently, even on top of record earnings, no matter what other needs go begging as a consequence, whether it's conservation, investments in organic farming, rural development, healthier food, you name it.

Wait and see. Next year or the year after, if Congress faces a budget crunch and the agriculture committee has to cut spending, even if crop prices and incomes are in the stratosphere the subsidy lobby will push to make sure any cuts come from conservation, rural development, research, food stamps (if they dare), or other areas they consider superfluous by comparison.

Other points in this document: Counter-cyclical payments would be triggered by revenue (price plus production) instead of price. Crop loans are set at 85 percent of a 5-year Olympic average, but no annual change in the loan could exceed 1 percent. A few changes to the primary crop insurance program, plus a version of "permanent disaster" authority in the form of supplemental, premium- and fee-free crop insurance that would be made available to farmers when a county receives disaster designation.

“I don’t know I envisioned payment limits getting as much debate as it has,” said [Agriculture Secretary Mike] Johanns, who produced a map showing a red-dotted Park Avenue in New York City. “(This is) some of the ritziest real estate anywhere. The red spots are people in Manhattan that get cash subsidy payments under the farm bill. The bigger dots are getting over $250,000 in subsidy payments annually. The House version won’t impact this in any meaningful way." --Delta Farm Press

Here's another take on it.

The hits just keep on coming.

Democrats in the House of Representatives again have made it clear their priority is politics over policy, re-election over reason.

The $286 billion Farm Bill, which will be debated by members of the Senate after their August recess, is a textbook example of disingenuous leadership.

It would continue to disproportionately prop up Midwest farmers and send billions of dollars a year to the wealthiest growers of five commodities - cotton, rice, corn, wheat and soybeans...

...The 2007 bill is more a tool for retaining power in Washington than a fair and thoughtful approach to the evolving nature of U.S. - and California - agriculture.

How else do you explain House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco so strongly supporting legislation that so stubbornly preserves the status quo?

She promised reform but delivered the same old partisan rewards.

We told you this bill's smell by date would be mid-August. Read the editorial in full.

Rep. Edolphus Towns, chair of a powerful government watchdog subcommittee, wrote Ag Secretary Mike Johanns yesterday with some tough questions about an e-mail circulated by USDA employees, using government computers and during "duty hours," that was part of a campaign to eliminate civil rights provisions from the House-passed farm bill.

Chairman Towns also called for an independent investigation, by the department's Office of Inspector General (OIG), into potentially illegal lobbying by USDA employees against black farmers. EWG and the National Black Farmers Association requested an OIG investigation a few weeks ago, and Senator Barack Obama has also weighed in.

Towns:

As you know, Congress enacted legislation several years ago to address USDA's longstanding history of discrimination against black farmers, and the House of Representatives recently passed a bill including a provision to reopen a landmark civil rights case against USDA for discrimination in providing farm loans to black farmers.

An e-mail recently circulated among USDA employees appears to denigrate the efforts to remedy USDA's history of discrimination against black farmers, and raises serious questions about USDA's commitment in this area. Moreover, the e-mail message appears to violate federal law prohibiting executive branch employees from using official resources to lobby Members of Congress.

Chairman Towns asked Johanns, among other things, for "a statement of whether USDA is conducting an internal or external investigation of improper conduct relating to the attached email."

Well, not just Lance--the President's Cancer Panel, of which he is one of three members.

They issued their 2007 report earlier this month and here's what they said about the Farm Bill.

"Efforts to halt and reverse current obesity trends are unlikely to succeed without the participation and collaboration of governments, non-governmental organizations, industry, educators, and individuals. For example, current agricultural and public health policy is not coordinated – we heavily subsidize the growth of foods (e.g., corn, soy) that in their processed forms (e.g., high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated corn and soybean oils, grain-fed cattle) are known contributors to obesity and associated chronic diseases, including cancer.

"The upcoming reauthorization of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the Farm Bill) provides an opportunity that must not be missed to strongly increase support for fruit and vegetable farmers,improve the national food supply, and enhance the health of participants in the national school lunch, food stamp, and Women, Infant, and Children food assistance programs. Greater efforts are needed to improve the nutrition environment,particularly in lower income areas, to ensure that all people have physical and financial access to healthy food. Although some school districts are attempting to improve the school nutrition environment, the quality of most school food service offerings is poor due to the use of processed government surplus foods and the availability of unhealthy foods in school vending machines, cafeterias, and school stores."

The House-passed bill made a pitifully small down payment on this agenda, despite all the hype about the big new investment in programs to promote fruit and vegetable competitiveness and healthy eating. The Senate needs to do much more.

And next week, The Lance Armstrong Foundation will sponsor two Presidential Cancer Forums in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, because as Lance says, "I think whoever wants to be commander in chief should have to answer the cancer question."

As in, what will you do as president about the Number One killer in America?

He's as serious about "the cancer question" as he was about the Tour de France. I was in Paris for 5 of his 7 wins. (Photo: Steve Drace.)

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: "Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning."

The stockyards may be closed, but they still know how to handle a sacred cow in Chi-Town.

Plow this bill under

Farm subsidies shouldn't go to millionaire landowners

It goes against the grain for farm subsidies to be handed out to the rich. But that's precisely what the House version of the next farm bill does -- it continues big handouts to wealthy farmers and landowners. It's going to be up to the Senate to get it right when Congress resumes next month.

Under the current farm bill, which expires this year, subsidies to farmers are cut off if their yearly incomes are above $2.5 million. The $286 billion, five-year House bill lowers that limit to $1 million -- an improvement, but far higher than the $200,000 limit suggested by President Bush and the $250,000 cap contained in a "Fairness Amendment" that was defeated on the House floor. Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't support tougher reforms because she was trying to protect some first-term farm-state Democrats.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that lowering the limit to $1 million will only cut 3,175 farm owners from the program. And Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, which works to reform farm policy, said the cap will be easy to dodge because the House retained too many loopholes. "A millionaire with an enormous farm, half a brain and a cut-rate accountant will easily avoid" the cap, he said.

The need for change is clear. Just 10 percent of America's farmers claimed 66 percent of the farm subsidies between 2002 and 2005, according to Cook's group. Most payments went to just five crops: wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice and corn. A program started to help small farmers during the Depression did not remain true to its mission. It now favors large agribusinesses, landowners who don't farm and others who don't need any help. Former Chicago Bulls great Scottie Pippen, for instance, received nearly $79,000 in conservation subsidies from 2003 to 2005 for land he owns in Arkansas.

The last hope for the Fairness Amendment is the Senate. Along with the lower cap, that plan would limit subsidies to $250,000 per year. And subsidies would only go to those who actively farm. It also channels more money to conservation, nutrition and other programs. Another proposal co-sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would change how subsidies are paid out to make sure relief goes to the farmers who most need it.

We need a smarter, fairer farm bill, not one that helps rich people harvest more riches.

Andy Martin deftly sizes up the situation in today's NYT:

The National Organic Program, which regulates the industry, has just nine staff members and an annual budget of $1.5 million. A Florida real estate developer named Maurice Wilder received more than that in farm subsidies in 2005, some $1,754,916, to be exact, according to a subsidy database maintained by the Environmental Working Group.

Press accounts vary on Mr. Wilder's worth. This terrific story by DTN's Chris Clayton says it's somewhere to the north of $500 million. But Mr. Wilder says he couldn't make a go of it in farming without his subsidies.

Martin again:

With just nine employees, one of whom performs clerical duties, the National Organic Program would be lucky to effectively oversee the organic industry in Vermont, let alone the rest of the world.

“It’s a joke,” said George L. Siemon, who is chief executive of Organic Valley, a Wisconsin-based farmers’ cooperative, and is a former member of the National Organic Standards Board, an advisory board for the National Organic Program. “This is a pitiful amount of money, and we are running into all kinds of trouble.”

Mr. Siemon cited a rash of bad publicity about organics that has suggested that companies were trying to bend the organic rules.

One problem with such a small staff, he said, is that regulations take years to complete because so much work is stacked up. New pasture requirements for livestock, for instance, have been languishing for years.

As for the increase in organic imports from China, Mr. Siemon said: “Maybe everything is great and maybe it’s not. But it would be great if the U.S.D.A. had done a lot more work over there to find out what’s going on.”

As we'll be describing this coming week, the House-passed farm bill makes negligible improvements to this sorry state of affairs, sprinkling leftover budget dust over a few organic programs.

Advice we at EWG have taken to heart throughout this debate.

The House did sweeten the pot for conservation, renewable energy, nutrition and specialty crops - all good steps, which confronted reform-minded lobbyists with a tough choice. Should they settle for these modest gains, or keep pushing for systemic change against long odds?

They should keep pushing.

Mark Matthews at ABC 30, the network's affiliate in San Francisco, has been doing terrific work on the farm bill this year. Last night he got House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on camera saying she has "always wanted" a tougher limit on farm subsidies than the one she singled out for praise just weeks ago when it was included in the House-passed farm bill.

Before she became Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi opposed the big farm subsidies. After all, for the most part Bay Area growers have been left out of the big money that's gone to the Midwest and South.

Today, Nancy Pelosi told us she's not happy with the new bill that allows subsidies to go farmers that make up to $1 million dollars a year.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House: "Well we're going to conference with that and hopefully we'll have a better number in conference I've always wanted a better number."

ABC7's Mark Matthews: "You still with a quarter million?"

Nancy Pelosi: "Well we'll see what the conference comes up with."

These are not comfortable questions for the speaker. She may be opposed to fat cat farmers getting government handouts, but now that she's Speaker Pelosi, she needs to keep those Midwest democrats happy. And nothing says happy like billions in government subsidies.

As we previously mulched this topic, up until now Speaker Pelosi has sung a completely different tune (make that aria)--of support--about the House bill's phoney payment limit reforms. In fact, she hailed the provisions as reforms even before they emerged from the agriculture committee, back in July. In doing so she dealt a crippling blow to reformers who have been working for years to bring about exactly the kind of sensible subsidy limits she supported in the past and now seems to be intimating she wants to see in the final bill. In the Mulch of July 23, we noted:

In a July 20 statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed the House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill, saying:

“The farm bill represents a critical first step toward reform by eliminating payments to millionaires.”

That's been the topline message from the subsidy lobby on the farm bill reported from the House Agriculture Committee last week. If they can sell the bill on this talking point--and play take away on the characteristic of the subsidy system that is most politically vulnerable in farm country, on editorial pages, and with sentient taxpayers everywhere--then they can sell everything else that's bad about it.

Speaker Pelosi is helping them.

Today, for example, the House Democratic leadership circulated talking points to the caucus that featured this statement right up top:

The House Farm Bill, a true reform bill, would:

Impose real payment limitations that will crack down on subsidies, save more than a half billion dollars, and redirect funds to people who need it most: working family farmers and ranchers...[my emphasis]

Not only did the House Democratic leadership whip the committee bill in order to defeat the broad bi-partisan reform proposal introduced by Reps. Ron Kind (D-WI) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). They also made sure a straight-up, bi-partisan payment limit amendment championed by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) was rejected for floor consideration by the House Rules Committee (See the jump for Rep. Blumenauer's eloquently blunt July 26 floor statement about the leadership's scuttling of his payment limit reform amendment in the Rules Committee).

The House farm bill has been harshly criticized by editorial pages nationwide (partial tallies here and here), and almost all have singled out Speaker Pelosi, and rightly, for embracing the subsidy lobby's agenda and killing reform. Her hometown paper has delivered some of the hardest hits.

On the other hand, the Rice Federation, Cotton Council, and the rest of the subsidy establishment praised her farm bill leadership.

And why wouldn't they? By killing real reform in the House, Speaker Pelosi has only weakened the hand of reformers seeking tighter payment limits, and a fairer deal for small farmers and taxpayers, in the Senate.

So after doing so much to undermine reform during House consideration, when her influence was greatest, Speaker Pelosi seems to be telling Mark Matthews that she will somehow intervene in the legislative fray and get a "better number" on payment limits through the House-Senate conference committee.

How exactly is this going to work? How, for example, will Speaker Pelosi manage to negotiate a "better number" on payment limits in conference if the Senate comes in with a bogus payment limit package identical to the House version--or something even worse?

My colleagues Mike Segner and Don Carr compiled a fresh batch to go with the first one we served. In the jump.

Some of these editorials were penned by big city editors who, according to House Ag Committee Chairman Peterson, "have no clue about what’s going on" and should stop writing about subsidy programs.

“As I said in the response to (an) editorial the other day: those of us in farm country don’t know about the big city and we aren’t about to tell them what to do. But these big-city editorial writers and others don’t have a clue about agriculture and they should keep out of our business. We’d all be better off."

Listen everyone, let these big time subsidy recipients open their six-figure government checks in peace!

AP's Larry O'Dell filed a great story out of Richmond.

A federal employee circulated an e-mail urging colleagues to lobby for the defeat of farm legislation in Congress, prompting a complaint from the National Black Farmers Association and a stern warning from U.S. Department of Agriculture officials.

In full in the jump.

Anika Gupta, reporting in Government Executive:

The head of an Agriculture Department agency said Wednesday that she was prepared to take "appropriate action" against any employee who is found to have used government equipment to lobby against pending legislation.

"Obviously, we take this very seriously," said Teresa Lasseter, administrator of the Farm Service Agency, in reference to an e-mail circulated last Thursday within the agency urging recipients to contact their senators to express their opposition to a provision in the House version of the Farm Bill that would reopen thousands of discrimination claims by black farmers. Those found to have been involved with the e-mail could face severe civil and criminal penalties.

Lasseter said she has appointed an independent investigator to the case. "I have a lot of confidence in [him]," she said. "He was trained by the inspector general, and he's not close to the employees."

The National Black Farmers Association and EWG have called for a truly independent investigation by USDA's Office of Inspector General. We also referred the matter to the Department of Justice since in our view a criminal statute may have been violated.

Sen. Obama wrote a strong letter to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today:

I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding recent reports that U.S. Department of Agriculture (”USDA”) employees are using federal resources to lobby against recently passed legislation. Specifically, news reports indicate that certain USDA Farm Services Agency employees have been circulating an e-mail encouraging their colleagues to contact members of Congress to oppose provisions in the House-passed Farm Bill. The targeted provisions would provide unjustly denied black farmers an opportunity to have their claims filed pursuant to the Pigford settlement reviewed on the merits.

The National Black Farmers Association and EWG allege potential criminal violations on the part of USDA employees who used government computers in a campaign to strip a civil rights provision from a Senate-bound farm bill that passed the House of Representatives two weeks ago.

The provision would reopen the Pigford discrimination settlement to over 70,000 black farmers who were excluded because they were late filing claims.

The NBFA/EWG letter was copied to Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and other top USDA officials, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and senators who have sponsored a similar civil rights redress measure: Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

Responding to disclosure of the lobbying campaign, yesterday a top USDA official warned department employees that lobbying on government time with government resources is illegal.

Farm Service Agency Administrator Teresa Lasseter sent a strongly worded memo to her employees yesterday, reminding them that lobbying against a civil rights provision in the House-passed farm bill is illegal if done on government time or using government resources.

It has come to my attention that some employees may have used government equipment in a campaign to influence Congress with regard to provisions in the House-passed farm bill concerning the Pigford Consent Decree process...

...In each instance where we have reason to believe that FSA personnel may have engaged in authorized activities, we will conduct an inquiry into the circumstances and, depending on the findings, appropriate action will be taken.

The lobbying campaign was first disclosed Aug. 6 in Mulch. We also disclosed that at least one employee told EWG she did use a government computer in the campaign, and had received a campaign email from yet another government computer.

Lasseter also objects to the tone of the email as being inconsistent with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johann's commitment to civil rights in USDA programs, and points out that the Bush Administration has not taken a position on the House provision that would reopen to black farmers who were disqualified from pursuing discrimination claims under the Pigford settlment because they missed a deadline.

I am also concerned about the tone in which the legislative provisions have been characterized...If FSA does ultimately take a position on the legislation, we will do so in a manner that is respectful of the sensitivities involved.

Lasseter's memo was accompanied by a memo from the USDA's General Counsel Marc Kesselmen reminding employees that Federal law prohibits direct or indirect use of appropriated funds for lobbying Congress directly and for "grass roots lobbying"
campaigns.

This fine, eclectic blog cites our rundown of the universal panning the farm bill has received on editorial pages nationwide, and then throws this haymaker:

...nobody who is looking at the legislation in its final form actually believes there is any significant reform at play here except those individuals in whose best interest it is to act like it's reform. And acting is all that this is: you're in theater class, and Pelosi has been asked to method-act the reformer. The quality of her performance has no relation to the accuracy of her role

More hometown criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for falling far short of progressives' expectations on both the farm and energy bills. We've mulched the same ground, and noted the contrasting big wins for the conservative agenda of Blue Dog Democrats.

IT'S HARD not to root for a hometown player who has made it so big, but some San Franciscans have been a little disappointed lately with our representative, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We're especially disappointed with the outcome of two recent big bills, one supposedly having to do with farms and the other supposedly having to do with energy.

If the Bush wiretapping law hasn't been added to the list of ed page disappointments yet, I expect it will be soon.

Pelosi's Scorecard in full in the jump.

Some USDA employees, including a top official in the department, are organizing a lobbying campaign to eliminate a provision in the farm bill passed July 27 by the House of Representatives that would reopen a landmark civil rights case against the department for discrimination in providing farm loans to black farmers.

The provision under challenge would allow up to 73,000 black farmers another chance to pursue discrimination claims that were disqualified without review on their merits because they were filed after a court-mandated deadline.

The USDA employees lobbying to remove the provision work for the very agency black farmers sued in the 1990s for discrimination in providing low-interest government loans to farmers who have trouble getting commercial credit.

"As you all know by now, the House version of the Farm Bill will reopen
the Pigford lawsuit to allow late filers to be considered," wrote Kim DePasquale, an official with the department's Fredericksburg service center, in an Aug. 2 email to 40 fellow employees of USDA's Farm Service Agency. "I was really surprised by this. It makes me wish I was not part of this agency. If I feel this way, I'm sure others do too."

Ms. DePasquale verified to EWG in a phone conversation that she sent the email from a government computer, and that she'd received a version of it from another government computer.

Added in last-minute bargaining just before the House farm bill was considered on the floor and after pressure was applied by the Congressional Black Caucus, the provision will allow black farmers disqualified for late filing under the Pigford v. USDA settlement an opportunity to make their case, on the merits, that they were denied USDA loans as a result of racial discrimination. The provision also requires USDA to provide plaintiffs information that could help the court determine if black farmers were treated unfairly in comparison to similarly situated white farmers who did receive farm loans.

The inability of black farmers to access such information from USDA has been a major reason why so many of them have been unable to prove discrimination and obtain relief under the Pigford settlement process.

The House farm bill also caps all settlements under the provision to $100 million in total payments, sufficient for 2,000 claims if each receives the "automatic" $50,000 provided for "fast track" Pigford claimants.

Except for the settlement cap, the provision in the House farm bill is very similar to separate legislation, the Pigford Settlement Claims Act, introduced in the House by Reps. Bobbie Scott (D-VA) and Steve Chabot (R-OH), and championed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI). The legislation was introduced following a series of congressional hearings that documented, among other problems, serious inadequacies in the effort to notify black farmers about the Pigford settlement process, resulting in tens of thousands of late claims, nearly all of which were rejected without consideration of their merits. A similar senate bill has been introduced by Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Barack Obama (D-IL).

Congressional interest in the case was reignited by this 2004 report by the Environmental Working Group and the National Black Farmers Association.

In the email, USDA employee DePasquale states that "NACS has just spoken to [top USDA official] Carolyn Cooksie concerning the inclusion of another Pigford Bill attached to the House's version of the Farm Bill. She said it is "awful" and will allow some 73,000 late filers in and we will probably have another class action suit."

NACS, the National Association of Credit Specialists, is a professional association of USDA employees who administer the department's credit programs. Cooksie is the Deputy Administrator for Farm Loan Programs at USDA. DePasquale added:

The agency will be required to submit a boatload of information within 60 days of anyone filing which will bury us! Not to mention, most of this information we don't have. Carolyn is doing a lot of legwork in the Senate trying to stop it but NACS, NASE, and other FSA employees need to contact their Senators and work hard to get it stopped.

DePasquale concluded her email with a call to action and a reminder that USDA computers and phones should not be used in the lobbying campaign. Her email was date-stamped during business hours (11:23 a.m., Thursday, Aug. 2). Ironically, DePasquale acknowledged to EWG that she used a government computer to send it.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATOR TODAY CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING: DO NOT ALLOW LATE FILERS ON THE PIGFORD LAWSUIT. AMPLE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN DURING THE INITIAL SUIT TO FILE AND THIS LATE FILING WOULD BURY THE AGENCY AND COST TAXPAYERS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF THE 73,000 LATE FILERS ARE ACCEPTED

Members, please step up and make your voice heard in this Farm Bill debate. I am willing to tell my Senators that I will not cast my vote
for anyone who will not stand up and do what's right instead of worrying
about being politically correct. They should be fiscally responsible
and at the same time listen to their constituients! [sic] WE CAN STOP THIS IF
WE RISE UP TOGETHER AND MAKE OUR VOICE HEARD! KEEP CONTACTING THEM
UNTIL THEY HEAR YOU! MAKE SURE THEY RECEIVE YOUR MESSAGE, FAX, E-MAIL,
ETC.
Remember, don't make contacts using the office telephone or computer.
Send your contacts from home or from another location other than the
office, but send them!

If anyone can find an editorial, other than from a farm trade publication, that does anything other than flay the House farm bill for selling out reform, we'd love to see it. My colleague Michael Segner compiled some of the criticism in the jump; it's still rolling in.

It's been a good two weeks for conservative, Blue Dog Democrats in having their way with the House Democratic leadership.

Last week it was the farm bill. The current Blue Dog districts (we count 48 on their Web site) hauled in $7.7 billion in crop payments over the past three years, fully 22 percent of the national total. Just 13 of those Blue Dog districts got 90 percent of that taxpayer money. House Democratic leaders killed attempts to reform the subsidies and invest the savings to improve nutrition, the environment, organic agriculture, and give taxpayers a break.

Defeat of reform means that over the next five years, the House-passed farm bill will send $5.9 billion in automatic subsidy entitlements ("direct payments") to Blue Dog districts, even if prices and incomes soar, as they’re projected to do for farmers growing corn, soybeans and other crops.

Not a week after House Democratic leaders handed them those billions in crop subsidies, Blue Dogs repaid the favor with some reform killing of their own: namely, a top Democratic priority for energy policy, the first strengthening of automobile fuel economy standards in 30 years (CAFE, for "corporate average fuel economy").

The Blue Dogs sided with the auto industry in favor of a weaker CAFE amendment to the House energy bill to be debated in Congress today. The Blue Dog's defection was a key and highly public factor in a decision by House Democratic leaders to abandon consideration of the much stronger CAFE amendment championed by Rep. Ed Markey and backed by environmental and consumer groups and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As Justin Hyde reported in the Detroit Free Press yesterday:

In a victory for Detroit automakers, the main backer in the U.S. House of tougher fuel economy standards said late today that he would not push for his 35 mile-per-gallon standard this week.

The move by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., means automakers and the United Auto Workers now have the August recess to prepare for a larger debate in September, when Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., plans to address fuel economy rules as part of his work on global warming. It also sidesteps what would have been a bruising floor flight between Markey and Dingell as the House Democrats speed through bills ahead of the August recess.

For the past few weeks, Markey has declined to say whether he would try to attach his plan, which would force the industry to meet an average standard of 35 m.p.g. by 2019, to the energy bill the House is scheduled to consider Friday. Markey said in a statement today that while he believed he had enough votes to move his plan, he would instead back the mileage increase that passed the Senate in June...

...Markey's retreat came after weeks of intensive lobbying by Detroit automakers, the UAW, Toyota Motor Co. and dozens of other groups against Markey's plan and for an alternative from Reps. Baron Hill, D-Ind., and Lee Terry, R-Neb. That bill would have required new cars and trucks to meet an average of 32 to 35 m.p.g. by 2022.

The industry has steadily racked up support for the Hill-Terry proposal, adding 141 co-sponsors since it was introduced a few weeks ago. Earlier today, the 47-member Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative Democrats, threw their support behind Hill-Terry.

So Blue Dogs have the House Democratic leadership doing their bidding in defense of the status quo in both agriculture and energy policy.

UPDATE Sat Aug 4, courtesy of Meteor Blades at DailyKos:

Of the 41 House Democrats who voted today to roll over on the eavesdropping amendment that the White House demanded be added to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 30 were Blue Dogs.