March 18, 2015

"The tone of some of my tweets concerning Iowa was at odds with that which Gov. Walker has always encouraged in political discourse."

Said Liz Mair, resigning from Scott Walker’s political operation. We were just enjoying her work here.

What did she tweet about Iowa? "Morons across America are astounded to learn that people from *IOWA* grow up rather government-dependent" and "The sooner we remove Iowa’s frontrunning status, the better off American politics and policy will be."

142 comments:

Heather said...

Twitter is a cess pool. It destroys political discourse. You need someone to be engaged but the medium itself discourages real discussion.

bleh said...

She's right, you know. Ag subsidies are a big part of the welfare state, and supposed conservatives in farming states seem oblivious to their dependency on inefficient, wasteful government programs.

Michael The Magnificent said...

I cannot say I agree with much of what this woman has tweeted, but I certainly think this country would be better off if the rent-seekers in Iowa didn't have the outsized influence they do.

The corn growers and ethanol producers need to be cut off of all subsidies.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Was not a fan of her love for the f-word, but wholeheartedly agree with her take on Iowa politics. Sad to see Walker throw her under his bus already. Not sure he's ready for Iowa etc. now.

Brando said...

What she wrote is completely true, but when you're on a team like that you just stay on message. It baffles me how many people keep jeopardizing their livelihoods via social media. Have they not seen enough examples of this? Is the desire to say something edgy just that irresistable?

Mark said...

She was on the bus for a day before Walker threw her under.

Typical complete lack of vetting, just another name to add to that list.

MadisonMan said...

The corn growers and ethanol producers need to be cut off of all subsidies.

Ethanol producers, yes. Corn growers no. I think there is still a place for subsidies for small family farms. Especially this year, which I think will be dry.

lgv said...

"Ag subsidies are a big part of the welfare state, and supposed conservatives in farming states seem oblivious to their dependency on inefficient, wasteful government programs."

You are so right BDNYC.

I still find it amazing that people make such poor tweeting decisions. I try not to say the first thing that comes to mind, nor would I tweet the same thing.

Maybe politicians and political staff should have a self-imposed rule that they can only type tweets with one finger of one hand. That way they have time to reconsider the whole effort.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Gaffe=blurting out the truth.

Well known observation.

As far as subsidizing family farms, that is a conversation that ought to be had by itself, not mixed in and hidden from view in incomprehensible "Farm Bills."

I am of two minds on that, I have to admit, living next to Quebec, where farms are much smaller and farm country is more densely populated, I have to say it is kind of nice. Not sure what the role of govt is to make that happen though.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Sending out 40 tweets over this personal kerfluffle indicates she is kinda reactive and not very PR savvy.

The only things I know about her are what I have seen in the last 24 hours and, based on that, I would not hire her to represent me or my products.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

I could be a liberal except that "income inequality" doesn't bother me, but absolute poverty does.

B said...

Walker's behavior in Iowa has really soured me on his candidacy. I'm off the Walker bandwagon.

Nonapod said...

Twitter is a cess pool. It destroys political discourse

Twitter is perhaps one of the greatest things to happen in modern politics. It's like that old saying: If you want to know what somebody's really like as a person you should get drunk with them. Alcohol inhibits those self imposed social blocks, the filters come off. Twitter is somewhat similar. It's almost like a completely unfiltered window into someones first impulsive thoughts after an event.

B said...

I think there is still a place for subsidies for small family farms. Especially this year, which I think will be dry.

Why are small family farms more deserving of that kind of help versus any other business? Why can't they just hire a financial adviser to help them hedge against risk to their crops?

Shanna said...

Twitter is a cess pool.

Indeed. It is amazing what people are willing to say with their [sometimes fake] names attached.

Wasn't this person hired as a communications/pr person of some sort? In that case, she doesn't seem to be very good at it.

Amexpat said...

Her comments are correct, but she's the moron for not anticipating the reaction to her tweets.

averagejoe said...

Good move to jettison this spokesperson who would only create headaches for Walker going forward. Aside from her liberal politics and opinions, and her dubious history with losing campaigns, the use of vulgarities in her public discourse is abrasive, unnecessary and unprofessional. It wouldn't be long before she said something off-putting to the general public which the democrat party media would be quick to hang around Walker's neck.

chickelit said...

B said...

Why are small family farms more deserving of that kind of help versus any other business? Why can't they just hire a financial adviser to help them hedge against risk to their crops?

Probably for the same reason that every small business can't hire a consultant.

Don't be a dunce.

chickelit said...

This "scandal" which already caused one commenter here to "walk away."

Mark is excited because his alter egos have been itching for a gotcha-Walker-is-finished moment.

The truth is that she appears to be sort of self-apointed and self-removing. But Mark wants us to believe that she was a highly vetted SCOTUS appointment.

GFR

robother said...

She shows contempt for agricultural subsidies and ethanol, leveraged by Iowa's first in the nation caucuses? Truly this is a woman to whom nothing is sacred. In the name of Kinsley, and all that we hold dear, she must be banished from American politics.

Joe Schmoe said...

This lady is an idiot. Did she really think she was going to help Walker win by calling potential voters greedy and entitled?

Brando said...

"Twitter is somewhat similar. It's almost like a completely unfiltered window into someones first impulsive thoughts after an event."

It seems mostly to show people don't have the judgment to keep those thoughts to themselves. If anything, Twitter helps us weed out the most inept people from politics. Via natural selection, we will end up with far savvier, craftier politicians.

dreams said...

I share links to Twitter of stuff that I've read that I think other people should read but otherwise I don't use it.

n.n said...

What are the tangible returns from subsidies to America and people?

What are their side-effects, including sponsoring corruption, economic distortion, misaligned development, etc.?

As for her Nit-Twitter, less Nit-Twit, and probably less Twitter too. Also, she needs to reach reconcilable positions before public displays of Twittering.

Unknown said...

NH makes their primary first by law. I'd love for some state, preferably mine but any will do, to make a law that sets their primary one day before NH. The resulting pissing match would be hilarious. It's past time something like that shook up the primary system.

garage mahal said...

She was on the bus for a day before Walker threw her under.

Ba BOOMP!

B said...

Probably for the same reason that every small business can't hire a consultant.

Don't be a dunce.


Every small business with nontrivial annual revenue a professional accountant. Most people already have access to optional adviser services through their brokerage.

Farming isn't a niche business. It's entirely reasonable to sit down with a consultant for a few hours twice a year to make some basic hedging investments.

Curious George said...

"Mark said...
She was on the bus for a day before Walker threw her under.

Typical complete lack of vetting, just another name to add to that list."

Who else is on that list?

Unknown said...

I see in this thread the current confusion about the issue of government intervention in our lives. One more time: It isn't a matter of do you think that your prejudice justifies the government intruding on our lives in this particular case (small family farms).
Government should just govern as absolutely necessary and stay out of our lives as much as possible = conservative. Government should be used as much as possible to make our lives better = liberal.
Both options leave us with a set of problems. The issue is with which set of problems do you prefer to have to live. Campaign accordingly, vote accordingly.
And, for that matter, Tweet accordingly.
Unless you are campaigning in Iowa. Then you must do what is necessary as in this case.
Seems simple enough to me.

garage mahal said...

That's what....5 face-plants from Walker in a month?

But rest assured, Walker is ready. Curious George met him!

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
404 Page Not Found said...

What she said was totally true, of course. Iowa should NOT be getting farm subsidies, and ethanol subsidies are an outright crime.

But politics is much different from policy, and one has to stay on message. She was fired for failing as a communications director, not for being wrong.

traditionalguy said...

Like Mr Gruber, she spoke the truth at an inconvenient time.

IMO this is a Walker mis-step. Not hiring her, but firing her.

She was hired to communicate. She does not set policy.

Iowa GOP will sell their "caucus attendence" to the worst religious right nut case anyway. That is not walker's targeted audience in thr rest of the states, so walker will never please them enough.

Revenant said...

Pussy move on Walker's part. It doesn't bode well.

Revenant said...

I think there is still a place for subsidies for small family farms.

If you can't stay in business without government handouts, you shouldn't be in business at all.

It isn't like "bad weather" is some freakish new phenomenon for farms. It happens regularly. There are good years and bad years. You save profits from good years to carry you through bad years. If you can't do that, farming's not for you.

jr565 said...

Twitter turns everyone into ideologies. If you want to read Cher at her most unfiltered check her out on Twitter.
Part of it is the brevity of posts.
You can't elaborate on thoughts you have to condense it into a set number of characters. As such you lose all subtlety.
now celebrities are certsinly political but they don't want to be so one sided they turn off the majority of their fans. Think of how Lennon said the Beatles were bigger than Jeaus and how radio stations then started organizing events where people burned beatles records if you're trying to gain fans maybe not a good idea to be so strident.
Twitter, if you're not really careful forces you to be that strident.
So celebs in particular should stay away unless they make completely banal statements.
But I've always hated Cher so I take enjoyment watching her turn into an Internet troll with a tin foil hat.

Sebastian said...

Mistake 1: hiring her.

Mistake 2: firing her.

Mistake 3: pandering to IA GOP.

Meta-mistake 4: reinforcing not-ready-for-prime-time narrative.

Walker wants to avoid a Pawlenty. But he can't stake too much on IA, since Jeb can stay in until Super Tuesday at least.

Bob Ellison said...

Bob Ellison said yesterday on Althouse's comment forum, "She sounds like a twit. Maybe Walker hired her in order to fire her."

Shanna said...

She was fired for failing as a communications director, not for being wrong.

Exactly. And there are ways to say that without starting off calling your audience 'morons'. If she can't figure that out, she doesn't need to be a communications director for a politician.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

What I find mind-boggling, is that the same people bitching about Walker firing her, would probably be the same people bitching about Walker NOT firing her sooner if she stayed on-board and then REALLY stuck her foot in it... I can hear it now: "You see! Walker doesn't even know how to vet his own people. There were clear signs all the way back to early 2015 that she was a bad choice, but yet h didn't fire her. OMG!!! HE LACKS EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP SKILLS!!!!"

What a tempest in a teapot... I'd have faulted Walker for NOT firing her after she called people Morons... That kind of antagonistic attitude is not the image that Walker is trying to cultivate with the larger American public.

garage mahal said...

How humiliating: Having to endure an interview with the knuckleheads at Bretibart about her citizenship, and then having to apologize to Scott Walker for being fired after one day. Oof!

Meade said...

It isn't like "bad weather" is some freakish new phenomenon for farms. It happens regularly. There are good years and bad years. You save profits from good years to carry you through bad years. If you can't do that, farming's not for you.

Rev's right. Plus, what "small family" farms? "Small family" farms produce mushrooms and arugula, not corn.

Revenant said...

She was fired for failing as a communications director, not for being wrong.

Exactly.

No, not "exactly". She was fired for comments she made months before she was hired. How exactly does one "fail" at a job months before one is even hired for it?

If Walker plans to be this spineless, he needs to do a better job vetting his hires.

Meade said...

"Meta-mistake 4: reinforcing not-ready-for-prime-time narrative."

Whatever. 2018 REELECT GOVERNOR WALKER

bleh said...

If you can't stay in business without government handouts, you shouldn't be in business at all.

It isn't like "bad weather" is some freakish new phenomenon for farms. It happens regularly. There are good years and bad years. You save profits from good years to carry you through bad years. If you can't do that, farming's not for you.


Yep. Although I can see the envirofanatics hyping climate change as a reason for farming to come under further control of government. Those farmers are not capable of planning for contingencies and securing our nation's food supply now that weather has become more volatile and unpredictable. If California does not emerge from its drought, I fear the government will become even more involved in farming.

There already is an unholy alliance on right and left in support of farm subsidies. The basic assumption is that we as a nation are unable to reliably feed ourselves without government involvement and supervision.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Revenant said...
I think there is still a place for subsidies for small family farms.

If you can't stay in business without government handouts, you shouldn't be in business at all.


I broadly agree, but I'll take this opportunity to once again plug a recent EconTalk episode with Daniel Sumner on farm subsidies & programs; one of the points Sumner makes is that while it's true that the problems farms/farmers face have been around for a long time, it's also true that farm subsidies and distortionary "support" programs, etc. have also been around for a long time. They discuss the political economy of farming generally, especially how certain policies get enacted and stay protected. It's a libertarian/free-market based discussion that makes some interesting points.

Also, ethanol subsidies are ridiculous. And they're recent, so no excuse there!

Titus said...

The farmers near my family, all republicans, all receiving hundreds of thousands in farm subsidies a year-many millions during their lifetimes, have multi million dollar homes-all their kids too-and grandkids.

The small farmers don't get the cash; it's the huge farmers that cash in-and don't fucking touch those farm subsidies-they are due them.

It wasn't like she said anything false.

tits.

Titus said...

I am talking huge farmers around Madison receiving hundreds of thousands every year from the government.

victoria said...

Hubris will get you every time.

Vicki from Pasadena

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Meade said..."Small family" farms produce mushrooms and arugula, not corn.

Although you're right w/r/t what kinds of farms we're usually talking about when discussing subsidies, it's not true that only large farms need worry about regulations, etc.--ask the Professor about Wickard v Filburn (only relatively recently scaled back as applied to wider issues)--your can't be small enough to "not count" when considering Federal regulatory schemes and programs.

richard mcenroe said...

Fine. Cancel the ag subsidies. See you at the grocery store. Waiting.

richard mcenroe said...

No competent professional would be stupid enough to say what she said in public. It's the equivalent of Garage bitching about "darkys", and being employed by, oh, a law professor/blogger.

richard mcenroe said...

A candidate's "communications director" should realize that HER positions are NOT THE MESSAGE.

garage mahal said...

Calling Democrats morons and railing against government subsidies is a firing offense for a Republican comm director? Haha.

Shanna said...

She was fired for comments she made months before she was hired.

She was randomly talking about Iowa on Twitter months ago? Well that seems to have been ill advised.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Ethanol producers, yes. Corn growers no. I think there is still a place for subsidies for small family farms.

Bullshit. Your rights, and the rights of farmers everywhere, end at the tip of my nose. Your rights do not extend into my wallet, any more than my rights extend into yours.

Institutionalized theft is still theft.

Gusty Winds said...

The other night Turner Classic Movies aired "The Mating Game" with Debbie Reynolds and Tony Randall (1959).

Debbie Reynolds' farmer Dad owes the IRS back taxes, and IRS agent Tony Randall figures what they owe and falls for the farmer's daughter. (It's a 1959 Debbie Reynolds; who wouldn't?)

As the farmer's fortunes turn, a more senior IRS agent explains to the farmer that the gov't will actually pay him not to grow crops.

The Farmer never heard such a thing and thinks the policy is absolutely crazy.

That's how I knew the movie was fiction.

Curious George said...

Yawn.

Matt Sablan said...

Rule #1 of any job: NEVER make your boss look stupid.

Revenant said...

She was randomly talking about Iowa on Twitter months ago?

She wasn't "randomly" talking about it, she was talking about it because there was a major GOP event in Iowa then.

Well that seems to have been ill advised.

Hardly. This hurt Scott Walker, not Liz Mair. She didn't say anything that most Republicans don't agree with. Walker, on the other hand, screwed up at least twice -- once by not vetting her, and once by pandering to the corn lobby. He's going to have a hard time running as a reformer if he hasn't got the balls to take on a problem as small and obvious as ethanol subsidies.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Titus,
"have multi million dollar homes-all their kids too-and grandkids."

Wow!! All their kids and grandkids have multi-million dollar homes?



Shanna said...

Well that seems to have been ill advised.

Hardly.


Well it did get her fired...I would call that ill advised.

I didn't know she said this a year ago, though. She still sounds unprofessional.

Gusty Winds said...

...was at odds with that which Gov. Walker has always encouraged in political discourse

I've always found it entertaining the way Walker tells his political opponents to f**k themselves without ever having to say it.

A few months ago Walker tweeted about the great lunch he had at Sobelman's in Milwuakee, maybe just two days after Dem State Rep. Josh Zepnick ripped the bar owner on FB for opposing Barrett's streetcar.

Zepnick issued a public apology after Charlie Sykes clubbed him like a baby seal on-air.



Freeman Hunt said...

Two things:

(1) I thought we were all supposed to assume that Walker is okay with ethanol subsidies right up until the moment the Iowa primary polls close.

(2) I thought we had farm (food not ethanol) subsidies to provide strategic advantage in times of war. (Maintaining higher production capacity than is needed in peacetime so that in wartime enemies won't be able to have as much leverage over us by disrupting food imports.)

damikesc said...

Nothing she said is inaccurate. I like Iowa a lot, but ethanol is a boondoggle and their caucuses seem pointless.

paminwi said...

This was a vetting mistake. Obviously the people who hired her did not know how to check tweets written a year ago which was why they needed to hire a social media person.

Walker can not keep making mistskes like this and I say this a some one who likes him.

Freeman Hunt said...

These tweets seem consistent with her style. Did no one read her tweets before hiring her?

Someone should hire her as a commentator. The hard-bitten, plain-spoken revealer of hard truths is a good character for commentary. It's not so good for politics. Hard truths aren't broadly popular, so the only workable version of the character in politics is the hard-charging, manipulative teller of obvious lies, which is not quite the same thing.

SteveR said...

I join those who dislike the importance of Iowa in presidential politics. There simply has to be a better way.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

If you rely just on Wall Street to feed you, there will be some years you won't eat.

Revenant said...

If you rely just on Wall Street to feed you, there will be some years you won't eat.

I'm sure that sounded clever to you when you wrote it, but it doesn't actually make any sense.

TosaGuy said...

Rule No. 1 for PR people: don't become the story.

Michael K said...

"supposed conservatives in farming states seem oblivious to their dependency on inefficient, wasteful government programs."

The Iowa caucus conservatives are disproportionately "social conservatives" which means they are not very conservative at all. That's why outliers like Huckabee and Santorum do so well there, then disappear.

Michael K said...

"She was on the bus for a day before Walker threw her under."

I think this is a mistake for Walker because he needs to reach out to the Rand Paul people. He has the Santorum people locked in.

She was more the Rand Paul type although a bit undisciplined.

Michael K said...

"Why are small family farms more deserving of that kind of help versus any other business?"

They might be but they are not the ones getting the subsidies. Agribusiness is king there. Dole was "The Senator from Archer-Daniels Midland."

I have no beef with agribusiness except subsidies. Speaking of beef, one reason beef is so expensive I fear is that corn is going to ethanol.

Michael K said...

"Hubris will get you every time.

Vicki from Pasadena"

So, Hillary is toast ?

Agree.

Deep State Reformer said...

I agree with her views completely. Iowa is a false dawn of very dubious value. In recent years only two winners of their oddball dog n' pony show have ever gotten nominated, Clinton, '92 and Bush '00 and gone on to win. Only one if not for the electoral college in '00. But telling the truth as one sees it doesn't really work too well in American politics, so Walker was right to dump her.

Kelly said...

My husband is from Iowa, his family are the nicest people imaginable. They all live in a conservative manner, but vote democrat religiously. They are all teachers, policeman, farmers and state workers of some sort so I guess that's why. We don't talk politics.

phantommut said...

I like Walker a lot, but he showed wuss on this. Big mistake.

garage mahal said...

Someone wandered too far from the plantation and needed to be punished.

iowan2 said...

The Iowa caucus force retail face to face politics. Farms, businesses, cafes, bowling alleys,etc. tons of newspaper interviews, and small town radio interviews. If you dont like the Iowa caucus, you dont like the electoral college.

Eliminate the 1st in the nation caucus and the 1st in the nation primary in New Hampshire. What you have left is the election of the President decided by the 5 to eight biggest cities in the Nation. Look at the state of Illinois. A state ruled by Chicago. Michigan, used to ruled by Detroit. If you want the nation to perform like Illinois, go for it. It will be different, but not better.

Meade said...

"The hard-bitten, plain-spoken revealer of hard truths is a good character for commentary. It's not so good for politics. Hard truths aren't broadly popular, so the only workable version of the character in politics is the hard-charging, manipulative teller of obvious lies, which is not quite the same thing."

So much for my dreams of a future Freeman Hunt presidency.

Now I'm sad.

Known Unknown said...

Twitter is a cess pool.

Is it though? I mean, you choose who to follow, and who to not follow. You can fully customize what you want to see in your feed.

I am sure there are terrible things spewed on Twitter all the time, but I don't have to read them.

iowan2 said...

Farm subsidies.

No. Food security.

Ethanol? Look, get the govt out of alternative energy. all of it. Let the free market rule. Let coal, oil, natural gas, deregulated nuclear, slug it out. Fine with farmers, Eliminate the Dept of Ag (80% of its budget is non ag) and its attendant agencies.

But if you want to replace fossil fuels you are going to have to subsidize ethanol, and the rest.

BUT, the govt has created ethanol, so now they have to replace that capacity with something.

Revenant said...

Hard truths aren't broadly popular, so the only workable version of the character in politics is the hard-charging, manipulative teller of obvious lies, which is not quite the same thing.

Not so. There are two workable versions if the "tell of hard truths". The first is someone who identifies a viable coalition, then tells hard truths about people who aren't in it. The second kind is the person who recognizes hard truths that ARE broadly popular, but which most politicians either are afraid to say or don't realize are popular. The latter sort of hard-truth-telling covers all sorts of things, from Reagan's "government is the problem" to Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" speech.

Iowa has a trivial number of electoral votes and absolutely sucks at picking Republican nominees. Agribusiness subsidies are unpopular with the American people and extremely unpopular with Tea Partiers and economic conservatives.

Walker missed a good opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment here. If he's too much of a pussy to take on unpopular subsidies for comparatively unimportant special interest groups, you can forget about him doing jack ship to tackle tax or entitlement reform. It'll be another case of President Business-as-Usual in the White House.

sdharms said...

to Tim in Vermont: what else is in a "FarmBill" Except subsidies???? Nothing.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Farm subsidies. No. Food security.

You'd feel differently about it if I managed to get enough politicians to write legislation to steal from you, to give to me.

It doesn't matter a whit if you've employed Guido, Robinhood, or the IRS to do your dirty work, Stealing is still stealing.

Laslo Spatula said...

I don't use Twitter because I don't want to get caught saying embarrassing things in public.

I am Laslo.

Beldar said...

I'm thoroughly fed up with Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina getting vastly disproportionate impact on both parties' POTUS-nominating processes. There's not a single good reason for it, and it's grossly unfair to every other state in the Union.

Primary dates should be rigidly controlled via bipartisan agreement so that each election cycle, some new states go first.

Except that for the first 30 years of my new plan, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina all have to go last.

Michael K said...

"the govt has created ethanol, so now they have to replace that capacity with something."

We do not have enough storage capacity to store all the oil since Obama has banned exports. We are swimming in oil !

machine said...

he does what he is told...

Revenant said...

Food security.

A nation that *exports* $100 billion of food a year and grows $700 billion for domestic consumption needs $1.2 billion in farm subsidies for "food security"?

The only thing farm subsidies secure is votes for midwestern politicians.

RecChief said...

The Iowa Republican Party "leaders", who threw a hissy fit worthy of any MMFA reading Prog, should shut the fuck up.

And as an Iowan, who grew up on a farm, she was right, the ethanol subsidy needs to go. Aside from the actual science that says you don't get enough energy out of a gallon of ethanol, it's a boondoggle. Why am I so sure it's a waste of money? Tom Harkin pushed it, and if I knew nothing else about ethanol blended gas and the government propping up of this industry, the fact that Tom Harkin is for it tells me it's simply a big government program that distorts and entire industry (farming).

By the way, here is some information on Flint Hills Reources:
"Biofuels and Ingredients – Flint Hills Resources operates ethanol plants in Georgia (Camilla), Nebraska
(Fairmont) and Iowa (Arthur, Fairbank, Iowa Falls, Menlo and Shell Rock) with a combined annual capacity of 820 million gallons of ethanol, and has a regional office in Ames, Iowa. Flint Hills Resources, a leading producer of transportation fuels in the Midwest, is the largest purchaser of ethanol in Minnesota, where it has utilized ethanol and other biofuels in its fuel distribution system since the mid-’90s. The company is equipping a biodiesel plant in Beatrice, Nebraska, to begin operation in 2015. In addition, the company holds equity investments in bioenergy companies."

If Lefties and Democrats (sorry for the repetition) knew that even a dollar of the ethanol subsidy was going to the Koch Brothers (who own Flint Hills Resources) would they change their tune about it?

Drago said...

Ah. I see our resident lefties are busy as little bees trying to forget the comeuppance given their earthbound messiah who was so heavily "invested" in the defeat of Bibi.

Hamas, obama and garage hardest hit.

MadisonMan said...

It's entirely reasonable to sit down with a consultant for a few hours twice a year to make some basic hedging investments.

Most should suggest Crop Insurance.

The family farm in my wife's family, down in Illinois, is 600 acres -- is that small? I think so -- and produces only corn and soybeans. My wife and her sis once tried to convince the farm manager to plant edamame. I imagine the look they got could be called withering.

sojerofgod said...

I can see from the comments here that many of you guys aren't familiar with farming. (I Will refrain from calling you a bunch of city boys)
Does big agribusiness cash in on subsidies and ethanol production? Sure thing.
Are small family farms in on the hog trough just the same (and just as guilty) as BigAg? Well, yes, but then again Ummm, not so much.

The problem with the small farm, (and I refer to a type of farm that is quickly vanishing- the row crop farmer), Is that they are on a treadmill that the government so graciously put them on close to 100 years ago and can't get off.
The original idea of price supports came into being in part due to two factors: Foreign competition and the commodities markets. The farmer's biggest enemy was/is not the weather, weeds or insects: It is the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Speculating and price fixing essentially meant that the market would drive price for farm goods to a point that the farmer might not even get back his cost of production, followed by -once he was forced to sell for nothing- a mysterious/magical change in fortunes that made the middlemen quite rich. When there was a good year the harvest is good, the price falls to where little is made. In the bad years the price goes up, but -and this is important- There were no goods to sell: it was a bad year!
Farmers banded together -there used to be quite a lot of them you know- and got price supports passed so that they didn't all go broke in a single year. The government realized it had an interest in making sure that the farms stayed afloat.
Farming is a funny business. You can't just get into it like you would opening a shop selling shoes or cigarettes. Most farmers learn the trade from birth. Many couldn't tell you how to become a farmer if you asked them- I know this from personal experience as I HAVE asked several and they really just kind of stammered about. I think to many of them raised to it farming is like walking or riding a bike. You just know. In the 1800's cities had to work out how to manage three basics: Food, water and sanitation. There is always a large population of poor that have to be fed. City fathers get kind of nervous if the food supply gets thin. those poor can't just be asked to eat on Tuesdays.
they get sulky. And violent.

I have seen many farmers 'born to it' who live each year from farm loan to farm loan. this year's loan pays off the last year's debt. and with little leverage the farmer gets paid less than top price for his goods, and so is in an endless cycle until something breaks down, or he does, and he is broke.

I could go on for quite a while longer on this subject, but nobody would probably read it anyway.

sojerofgod said...

MadisonMan:

600 a small farm? My answer from Mississippi would be, it depends. In the hill country (where I live) 600 AC is not bad. Sure it's small, but about what one family can handle without hired help.

Over in the Delta, 600AC would be the boss' front yard. 10,000AC is a fair starting point to those guys. It used to be all cotton, with a soybean rotation to keep the soil up. Now most of the land is corn.
Corn! Corn! we all wants that yeller gold!
And pile on the fertilizer and water because corn don't grow itself.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

We are so F.....

Sprezzatura said...

"I thought we had farm (food not ethanol) subsidies to provide strategic advantage in times of war. (Maintaining higher production capacity than is needed in peacetime so that in wartime enemies won't be able to have as much leverage over us by disrupting food imports.)"

Walker said that he's worried ISIS is coming for his family and yours. Why not leverage that into dough for voters in Iowa? The security bucket = dough for Iowa.


Phil 314 said...

Has the phrase "thrown under the bus" jumped the shark?

Phil 314 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cynicus said...

I don't think fast enough for twitter, or even blogs. I think of something useful to say after I think for a week. Unless I'm being snarky. I don't have a problem with farm subsidies because we all have to eat, so we all get something out of stabilizing the price of bread and milk and having plenty of it. Like someone quoted recently you'll never start a revolution when the peasants can afford steak. Ethanol subsidies should go. They are driving up the price of food.

gadfly said...

sez Madisonman:

The corn growers and ethanol producers need to be cut off of all subsidies.

Ethanol producers, yes. Corn growers no. I think there is still a place for subsidies for small family farms. Especially this year, which I think will be dry.
_________________________
Iowa ranks 2nd in the nation in farm subsidies - $25 Billion since 1995 - and I will give you a hint - the pig and dairy farmers aren't getting much because over $20 billion covered crops, corn and soy beans by far the most subsidized by a very large margin.

Have you ever met a poor farmer?

Revenant said...

The family farm in my wife's family, down in Illinois, is 600 acres -- is that small?

It is above-average, actually.

Revenant said...

Has the phrase "thrown under the bus" jumped the shark?

No, but it is definitely old hat.

sojerofgod said...

gadfly said: "Have you ever met a poor farmer?"

Actually yes. I know several. I also know a few who went broke. One lost his right index finger in a corn auger. Another broke a leg trying to free a log from a running cotton picker. several who run cattle who are so poorly you would call the aspca if you saw a dog so thin.

there are plenty and to spare.

Michael K said...

"Many couldn't tell you how to become a farmer if you asked them- I know this from personal experience as I HAVE asked several and they really just kind of stammered about."

My family had a farm in Illinois that was homesteaded by my grandmother's father about 1863. It was 140 acres, about what a man and a mule could do in 1863. It was the only one left in the family after the others were all bought up in the 1920s by a family whose son went to ag school. It was standing joke in the family, "Go to school to farm ? What a fool !"

Except that family now owns all the farmland in that county where my great grandfather and his sons once owned nearly all the farmland. They started so poor that they sent their son to college to learn how to farm.

They finally bought my great grandfather's farm.

alan markus said...

I live in an area where most of the farms of my youth have been converted into subdivisions. Started out being 1-acre lots, then people in the townships started getting nervous about the increasing population density, so they imposed 5 and even 10 acre minimum lot sizes. So, besides the costs of capitalizing a new farm operation (buildings, equipment, livestock,etc), imagine trying to buy that land back after it has been developed. Part of farm policy has been to maintain production capacity - you can't live off of land that has been converted to McMansions.

rastajenk said...

I think it was her overuse of "f***ing" that did her in. It only takes a tiny bit of discipline to avoid typing it in the first place, and giving it a second thought before sending it out. And she didn't have it.

Revenant said...

Part of farm policy has been to maintain production capacity - you can't live off of land that has been converted to McMansions.

Farm subsidies come to around $1 per acre. The average price of farmland is $2900 per acre. The idea that federal farm policy is what keeps people from converting land to "McMansions" is silly.

I wish people would stop pretending that market forces don't apply to farming.

Revenant said...

I think it was her overuse of "f***ing" that did her in.

What "did her in" was criticizing Iowa's importance in the primaries. The pansies of the Iowa GOP demanded her head on a platter, and Walker promptly served it up.

Anonymous said...

Freeman Hunt wrote;

1) I thought we were all supposed to assume that Walker is okay with ethanol subsidies right up until the moment the Iowa primary polls close.

This does appear to be the type of candidacy Walker is running.

Ugh. He'll evolve on corn subsidies overnight.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Revenant wrote:
"Farm subsidies come to around $1 per acre. The average price of farmland is $2900 per acre."
You are comparing the total value of the land ($2900) to an annual subsidy payment ($1). That ain't kosher.

Revenant said...

"Farm subsidies come to around $1 per acre. The average price of farmland is $2900 per acre."

You are comparing the total value of the land ($2900) to an annual subsidy payment ($1). That ain't kosher

What's not kosher about it? Explain your reasoning.

RecChief said...

Ethanol producers, yes. Corn growers no. I think there is still a place for subsidies for small family farms. Especially this year, which I think will be dry.

Coming from a farming family, I think I should point out that corn growers take their grain to an ethanol plant. either way, your tax dollars are subsidizing ethanol production. Look, when farmers with several thousand acres owned or rented are paying $17,000 per acre (that's development price!)to grow corn on, and paying cash, there is something wrong with the subsidies as structured. The subsidies are paid out based on acreage, so my family's 320 acres might receive a few thousand dollars, where the guy with 8,000 (that's not uncommon around here) gets 20 times that. And people decry the disappearance of small family farms.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Annual return on farmland rented in the Midwest is about 3%, or $100/acre for land valued at $2900/acre. A $1/yr subsidy would add about 1% to net return per year. That is significant. If you are renting out your 1,000 acres to Green Giant for $30k/year, the subsidy would add $300 to your return.

Michael The Magnificent said...

I can see from the comments here that many of you guys aren't familiar with farming.

Let me clue you into something.

I own a software company that has been producing software products for the printing and publishing industry for 20+ years.

Bought a magazine lately? No? Well guess what, that makes life rather rough for me.

Given your example, instead of adjusting/adapting/overcoming by branching out into other industries, I should employ some politicians to either force you all to buy magazines you have no interest in buying (a la Obamacare), or rob my neighbors in order to line my pockets (a la the Farm Bill).

A thief is a thief. Save your rationalizations.

RecChief said...

Revenant said...
Part of farm policy has been to maintain production capacity - you can't live off of land that has been converted to McMansions.



I wish people would stop pretending that market forces don't apply to farming.


Market forces do apply. That's why subsidies, like all artificial price supports, distort market forces. What farm subsidies do is make it economically viable to plant corn over corn, that is corn, two or more years in a row on the same field. Farmers do this by knifing in nitrogen, rather than having an intelligent crop rotation scheme. With wide ranging effects, not the least of which is nitrogen runoff. And there are more.

Once again Rev, you speak in tones of authority without actually knowing anything about the subject.

RecChief said...

2900 an acre? jesus, that data is old or takes into account ground that is so poor yielding that it makes more sense to rent it out as hunting ground. there is a brisk business for southern iowa farms being bought by out of staters solely for the purpose of hunting deer.

Lewis Wetzel said...

In central America, the North American hunger for ethanol has driven up the price of farmland. Poor farmers often sell out to large landowners who can raise the capital to buy the poor farmers' land and convert it to ethanol producing crops. The poor farmer spends the windfall, then becomes a laborer on the land he used to own -- or emigrates to the US.
WTF?

Lewis Wetzel said...

RecChief, I got my 3% return number from Indiana stats, and I think that number is sound across the Midwest, but I do not know where Revenant got his $2900/acre from.
The valid number is the percentage of annual return on farmland that is made up of federal subsidies.
Subsidy supporters often try to have it both ways -- they insist that the subsidy is so small it does not affect market price, but also insist that subsidies are vital to affect a positive change in market price.
It's a bit like Krugman's theory of a carbon tax. It will be unnoticeable to consumers, yet change their behavior and make them less willing to use fossil fuels.

Revenant said...

Once again Rev, you speak in tones of authority without actually knowing anything about the subject.

An amusing conclusion to a paragraph of off-topic babbling. Obviously subsidies also affect decisions about what to grow and how -- but I was replying to a person concerned about farmland being sold for housing.

My comment, re: market forces, referred to the fact that people act as if a person's decision to farm on land or use it for housing wasn't based on supply and demand. We don't need subsidies to get people to farm instead of building housing -- if too many of them opt for the latter, the increased profits from the former will encourage things to swing the other way.

I've wiped things off my ass that are smarter than you, Rec; best not to try correcting me. :)

Revenant said...

Annual return on farmland rented in the Midwest is about 3%, or $100/acre for land valued at $2900/acre.

We're talking about the decision of whether to use land for farming or use it for housing. That decision isn't being made by the person who rents the land -- it is being made by the person who *owns* the land.

You have a $2.9 million dollars worth of land, i.e. 1000 acres. If you use it for farming, you pull in $100,000 per year. If you sell it, you pull in $2.9 million this year. Making $101,000 per year instead is not going to significantly impact your decision one way or the other.

A $1/yr subsidy would add about 1% to net return per year. That is significant.

Sure, which is why farmers fight to keep the subsidy. What it isn't, is significant enough that agribusiness would abandon farming without it.

Revenant said...

I do not know where Revenant got his $2900/acre from.

I got it from here. The numbers come from the USDA, supposedly.

The value for crop land is higher ($4000), but I went with the average.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"That decision isn't being made by the person who rents the land -- it is being made by the person who *owns* the land."

How much do you know about economics, Revenant? Do you understand what a commodity product is in economic terms? In a commodity market, an individual producer cannot alter market price.
Farming is all about dollars. ROI. If the farmer forgets, or becomes too sentimental about maximizing his ROI, the bank will remind him.
Farmers are often prevented from selling land to build housing because local land use laws forbid it.
The document you link to gives the average value for all cropland in the US, not land in Iowa suitable for growing ethanol crops.
I'm not sure you understand that comparing a $1/year subsidy per acre is not a valid comparison to the purchase price of an acre of land. You've got to compare annual subsidies to annual ROI.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Renevant said... What's not kosher about it? Explain your reasoning.

I believe Terry is pointing out that your example equates a stock with a flow.
Wikipedia - Stock and Flow

HoodlumDoodlum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoodlumDoodlum said...

MadisonMan said... My wife and her sis once tried to convince the farm manager to plant edamame. I imagine the look they got could be called withering.

You intend the wife and sister to be the butt of this joke, right?

Clyde said...

She's no worse gaffe-wise than our esteemed vice president, and much more attractive. Let's face it, on most days, Biden probably does more than that before breakfast. But he's a Dem, so he gets a pass.

chickelit said...

The world indeed be a better place if we could all live in cities and run software companies. Who needs food? As Patton quipped: "My men can eat their belts but my tanks need gas."

Althouse, your regulars are getting boring and predictable.

rcommal said...

Hey, I lived in Iowa for more than 17 years (and still owned property and therefore paid taxes and fees and etc. for a year-ish thereafter), and when I was there I had the temerity to say out loud, for example, and to ordinary people there: "Ethanol is a boondoggle."

So that's one thing. Another thing is that Liz Mair was a dumb hire on the part of Gov. Walker.

rcommal said...

What an entirely self-inflicted wound, on account of trying to short-cut a way to being "hip-per," or something. It puts me in mind of the hiring of, for example, McEwan and Marcotte by another campaign.

Except, in this case, I have to wonder (way, way more): Why the heck why? And why at this early point in time, campaign-wise?

Just askin'.

rcommal said...

Who advised Gov. Walker to hire Liz Mair?

rcommal said...

Honest opinion is one thing. Snarky-assed is another

rcommal said...

Clyde:

1. Liz Mair is no Joe Biden.

2. Joe Biden is no Liz Mair.

Do try to get your mind wrapped around at least the very idea of notions like that.

Also:

1. Iowa is no Delaware.

2. Delaware is no Iowa.

; )

rcommal said...

"Have you ever met a poor farmer?"

Hmm. Is that a trick question? My mom was born and raised on an Indiana farm (by farmer parents who were, themselves, raised by farmer parents, in turn themselves raised by farmer parents, even unto the old countries in which their forebears were raised, as farmers,before and after some of them came to America in the latter 19th century).

I knew my mom's mom well, and she died at the start of her 90s (I was in my mid-30s at the time). When I was a true youngster, I met relatives who were born years earlier before she was. They were farmers/of farming families, too.

What a variety! And what a history of farming that didn't start just recently!

Brando said...

Walker's got to get his act together, or he's going to feed the impression his opponents will want to make that he is too green and will stumble out of the gate as Perry did in 2011. It'd benefit from him to slow down and plot this out with strategists to vet people like Mair before hiring them and have good responses ready when the media asks unexpected questions.

Once Mair was hired, and this Twitter "scandal" came out, the smart move would have been to keep her on and let it blow over (he could say her comments don't reflect his own opinions, and state what his own opinions are, and note that his campaign will be bringing on a range of voices to better inform him). Comments a staffer made a year before joining the campaign won't be what sinks him in Iowa. Huckabee's appeal among relgious voters or the strength of other candidates might sink him, but this wouldn't have.

Firing her, though, just made him look easily pressured and at the same time as though he can't vet people properly. It made a minor situation worse.

iowan2 said...

Farm ground in Iowa topped out 2 to 3 years ago at $15000/ per acre.
Corn can be sold today for $3.60 per bu. yield is 250 bu per acre for that good ground. do the math and let me know how rich you are

Known Unknown said...

Subsidies of any kind are bad, as they distort the market. I would say this for any industry.

Known Unknown said...

Has the phrase "thrown under the bus" jumped the shark?

Fonzie is driving the bus.

Bob R said...

I'm more put off by Walker's flip flop on ethanol than by the Mair firing. The only reason you hire a political flack is political expediency. Their only job is to help you win. If they are doing you harm, they have to go. She can come back on the team when the morons from Iowa are out of the picture.

Tom said...

The folks I know who work in politics hate the stupid electorate. Total. Distain.

Known Unknown said...

The folks I know who work in politics hate the stupid electorate. Total. Distain.

Can you blame them?

ken in tx said...

US farm subsidies are intended to keep farmers from growing Too Much, not keep food prices down. The aim is price stability. If they overproduce, prices go down and marginal producers go out of business, which creates a shortage next season, and prices go back up. Repeat ad infinitum. This is what the subsidies are supposed to prevent.

It works, sort of, but only because there is no price or cost put on the innovations and lost opportunities which the system stifles.