Argh.

Perhaps you are right. Or perhaps, in Obama fashion, he's bringing in someone who could really have the ear of Iowa when we try to implement better policy. Time will tell.

Right. Far better to have someone in the position who has absolutely no connection to farming and agriculture as it's practiced. Maybe DofAg's where Dingell gets moved so Waxman can take over (post)modernizing the auto industry. That'd be a natural fit for Dingell.

It's a little naive to think that Vilsack will just have Iowa or even only ADM/Pioneer in mind if (IF IF IF) he manages a Cabinet-level department. His natural constituency changes, as does his boss. Is Biden in thrall to credit card companies still? Is Obama in the pocket of IL's meat-packing industry?

and the pubic health community

Your typos are rarer than Yglesias', but so much more entertaining when they happen.

I'm skeptical both that Obama will radically revise our agriculture policies -- he'll have his handfuls fighting battles on numerous other fronts -- and that Tom Vilsack is the frontrunner for Ag Sec.

Seriously, most of this cabinet-parlor game is completely empty speculation. And while Vilsack's name has come up, I *highly* doubt the Obama team is that focused on who gets to be Ag Sec right now.

Question: so if not Vilsack, who should be at the top of the list?

CQ tends to be a good source on this stuff. They're in the reporting business, not the rumor business. And it's not necessarily true that Vilsack's constituency will change here. If you think of the ag department as answering to the ag industry, then it's the same, though it suddenly includes corn companies that operate outside Iowa, too.

sigh... I just keep telling myself most of these names are just speculation and we won't really end up with these bad choices like Vilsack at AG and RFK Jr. at the EPA.

"Worse, elevating Vilsack is a sign that the Obama administration will continue treating agricultural policy as if the relevant constituency is food producers rather than food consumers."

What does that even mean? Seriously, what exactly would ag policy based on consumers look like? Because the folks buying food sure wouldn't want it to be more expensive and less plentiful. Unless by "food consumers" you mean Urban Liberals who couldn't tell the difference between a sow and a boar.

Mike

No speculating on the effect of Cabinet appointments until they are actually finalized. That's my rule.

I just keep telling myself most of these names are just speculation and we won't really end up with these bad choices like Vilsack at AG and RFK Jr. at the EPA.

To be fair, I certainly wasn't voting for Obama with the expectation that he would provide any innovative leadership in agricultural policy. It's a disappointment I was willing to accept.

If RFK, Jr. gets near the EPA or ends up as Atty General, though, I'll be livid. The Democratic party has a good thing going as "the party that accepts the reality of science," providing a nice wedge against the Republicans when it comes to getting votes of the suburban middle class. RFK, Jr. completely undermines that and makes the Dems look foolish.

Mike, a consumer- and citizen-focused agriculture policy would involve favoring such crazed lefty notions as economically viable production, consumer health, and tasty food. Goodbye, sugar tariffs, goodbye, addlepated and overpriced subsidies, hello, subsidies for sustainable ag.

And for the record, I am far, far to the left of "Urban Liberals" (Eisenhower Republicans with a hippy accent who pretend they went to Burning Man -- please), and saw my relatives slaughter a pig when I was five. We ate him, too. Tasty. Untouched by US subsidies (this was Austria, which has its own ag-policy issues). Don't talk down to people about food production unless you're sure they're all idiots.

Please, can we stop with going nuts reacting to every self-interested rumor about cabinet appointments? Vilsack or Harkin probably are the sources for this scoop. Let the man make his choices, then react.

And I don't believe CQ has any special claim to trustworthiness on these things.

"the indication here is that Obama will not upend the ag subsidy apple cart"

File that one under of course what else did you expect.

You have to choose your battles. You can't fight everyone at once. Rome wasn't built in a day. Etc. Etc. Etc.

"And corn subsidies ... create a market for ethanol that would not naturally exist."

Sigh. We've been through this before. The ethanol market is created by congressional mandate - want to buy gasoline? Then you have to buy ethanol. The direct corn subsidies do not create the ethanol market. They are unrelated.

What we should be seeing is that the ethnanol mandate is pushing up the cost of production of foods that have been cheap due to directly subsidized corn - foods like beef, chicken, and foods containing HFCS. Is that happening? I don't know. Do you? You should find out before you make these kinds of pronouncements.

Eaters?

.

I hate to say it, but I think I agree with ostap. I really, really, really hate the US' farm policy. But Obama has been very clear all along what his priorities in office would be. Health Care, stimulus and tax shifting, green energy policy, and getting the hell out of Iraq. That's a lot to have on one's plate. If he does all that and doesn't get to farm subsidy reform, I can live with that.

In fairness, Harkin and Grassley (the Iowa Senators) were leaders in the fight to reform the subsidy system in the latest farm bill. They were, as I recall, blocked by the Southern Senators. This is not to deny that they are too closely tied to the ag industry. Last year, I was at this event which Harkin had to leave early. We were told that he had to go work on the "Farm Bureau, I mean Farm Bill." My parents and I agreed it was a Freudian slip.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122101634_pf.html

Despite being the former Governor of Iowa, Vilsack has come out against subsidies in the past.

I used to say, before this election, the only subject I felt "political" towards was food. I took my eye off the ball for six months and look what happens? Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture! My husband and I are self employed; I own a tiny summer restaurant in upstate NY where we serve a limited menu based on seasonal, local food. We raise turkeys, feed our friends' pigs and chickens with scraps from our restaurant. Our business model is not an easy or profitable one in a rugged terrain whose locals can afford either an evening of drinking rounds of long neck budweisers or a dinner out, but not both. We support our local farmers who have felt the increase in demand for their produce as the U.S. becomes more aware of eating locally.
Last March my son who had graduated college in January, began volunteering for the Obama campaign in Pennsylvania. My husband and I encouraged him to keep going; we would help him in any way we could. He went to North Carolina, as a volunteer. Then Kentucky, as a volunteer. Ultimately he ended up as a staffer in NH. Again, like many parents of the kids in the army of the Obama campaign did, we helped: money, food, office supplies, gas, our car, and our time. The four days before the election we spent in a hotel in NH with friends and family who had traveled from other states to help the NH GOTV effort.
Tom Vilsack? Should I have spent my resources and time on the Slow Food movement instead of the Obama campaign? Walk into any bookstore and you'll see The Omnivore's Dilemma, Fast Food Nation, About Food, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle on the the front rack waiting to be picked off like the candy in the impulse section of the grocery store. Why? Because Americans are reading those books. The electorate is not as gullible as the GOP imagined. Do we have to accept the a continuation of corn subsidies that support the interests of "food producers rather that food eaters?" Food Eaters Unite! Change is possible. Yes, we can!

Maybe this is a Nixon/China thing. Who else could positively affect farm subsidies/ethanol policy without paying the political price other than an Iowan governor?

If Obama thinks he would have significant influence with Vilsack, I think it's a brilliant pick.

Your framing of this is odd: "Worse, elevating Vilsack is a sign that the Obama administration will continue treating agricultural policy..." The Obama administration is nowhere in the CQ article. The only people quoted are the Senator form Iowa's staff. Not only is all of this annoying rumor and innuendo (as pointed out by the other commenters here), it's rumor and innuendo based on obviously compromised sources. See this for more on the overall point, and please then see this.

Given that Obama was long in the bag for his home-state's corn producers, I'm not entirely sure this should surprise anyone, mediocre pick or no.

"Don't talk down to people about food production unless you're sure they're all idiots."

Most folks are idiots when it comes to food production and ag policy. That's because they don't understand or even consider the fundamental priorities of any rational agriculture policy - over production and price stability. Ag policy must be concerned first and most importantly with preventing shortages or wild swings in price.

There are certainly criticisms to be made of things like subsidies, but some seem to just pass over the necessity of always making sure there's plenty of food at the market and that a gallon of milk (for example) doesn't cost $3.50 today, $4.50 tomorrow, $5 the day after and then 3 bucks the day after that.

Mike

I don't really get the politics of this pick, assuming it's actually in the works.

Vilsack runs a dismal presidential campaign, can't get any support in even his home state. Then he becomes Clinton-backer-in-chief in Iowa.

What does Obama owe the guy, given his Clinton ties? And why would anyone think that Vilsack would be able to do a Nixon-to-China maneuver, given that he can't even get his home state to support him? OK, Harkin may like him, but is Harkin the only constituency out there for ag policy?

Disappointed and politically underwhelmed...

Ezra and everyone else overreacting here: please, take a deep breath. Ezra, the only evidence you provide to support your assertion that Vilsack will be a slave to corn lobby is that he is a former governor of Iowa. You made no mention of where Vilsack stands on key ag issues; there was no serious examination of his 8-year *progressive* record on ag policies as governor - Vilsack does have a record, you know. Before you automatically disqualify anyone from the state of Iowa, perhaps do a little research instead of presuming (albeit from a fine "West Wing" episode) that where someone comes from will determine how s/he will implement Obama Administration policies.

Oh, and by the way, to those who bemoan Iowa's influence on Federal ag policy: the last Secretary of Agriculture to come from Iowa was Henry Wallace, who served in FDR's administration from 1933 to 1940, before becoming Secretary of Commerce then Vice President. He ran for President in 1948 as the Progressive Party nominee, to the *left* of Harry Truman. If President-elect Obama does indeed nominate Tom Vilsack, please give him a chance.

Who elects a midwestern senator, winner of the Iowa caucuses no less, and expects progressive corn policy?

If Obama could break his word on such a fundamental thing, I'd worry that we'd be invading Iran by mid-February.

Let's be satisfied with the universal health care, Iraq withdrawal, economic stimulus, and progressive tax plan that we were promised, and try not to complain about not getting the stuff we were explicitly told not to expect.

No offense to Ezra and some of the people in this thread, but you don't seem to have any grasp of Iowa politics or the nature of agricultural influence. So statements like this worry me coming from a normally cogent voice:

"They, however, are not well represented in Iowa politics"

That is, with all do respect, entirely untrue.

I don't support Vilsack for this position either, but it is border-line insulting to see such a simplistic view of agricultural states.

Wow, Ezra eats and cooks a mean Kung Pao. That makes him highly qualified to challenge the idea of Tom Vilsack as ag secretary. Do you people under stand all that corn Iowa produces goes to feed the cows, (dairy and beef), hogs and chickens that we rely on for for our protein? I know it is incredibly wonderful if you are able to go to the farmers market and buy a $10 range-fed hen for your kung pao chicken, but the vast majority of America relies on a cheap food supply. And if you lament all the corn going to ethanol, the distilled grain from that process goes back into feeding livestock as well. I know Micheal Pollan hates the cheap food our country produces, but it has been since the Great Depression (when farm policy was created) that we have had extensive bread lines in this country. Ag policy doesn't cater to the "foodies" who worship Pollan. Ag policy caters to the underclass who are struggle because a tight budget means government aid doesn't stretch as far. Cheap food has allowed us to spend our income on other things, like books written by the Pollan's of the world.
Ag, incidentally, doesn't have the capability to feed this country if we all went organic, unless you want more imports from China. Now there is a quality source of food these days.
And this rant hasn't even gotten into defining the importance ag secretary plays in dealing with global trade issues.
Vilsack would be a quality ag secretary.

Vilsack was a bad governor, unable to enact legislation, captive to his presidential ambitions, although he has little charisma or courage. So much got done when he left and another democratic governor took his place.

Obama shouldn't be gulled into thinking he has to include some Hilary backers; he needs to nix Vilsack for someone better.

Iowa deserved better and the US does too.

Chris in Iowa: the assumption you make but do not state in your comment is that cheap food can only come out of the current system. You do understand why food is currently cheap and based on corn, don't you? It's because corn is subsidized. Hey, here's an idea: shift subsidies away from corn monocultures and towards sustainable polycultures, and guess what you will get? Cheaper end products from sustainable polycultures. That's the whole point of subsidies.

And this: "Ag, incidentally, doesn't have the capability to feed this country if we all went organic, unless you want more imports from China" is just plain wrong. Why don't you study up on what you're talking about before you start spouting off. If you're really so worried about a short supply of food, why don't you explain to us why raising corn to feed to animals that didn't evolve to eat it in the first place is the best use of our limited resources?

Finally, although there's obviously no way any of this is going to get through to you, because you're way too bitter about it for some reason, you could take a look around you and realize that it's not just "foodies who worship Pollan" who are seriously concerned about the state of the food system in our country. It's people from all walks of life, all political spectrums, and all backgrounds. We're people all over this country who are finally realizing that the current system is not just broken but irreparable. One day, you'll see the results of that with your very own eyes.

I love Arugula as much as the next guy, but can we all calm down?

Harkin has long been an ag reformer. Along with Grassley and Lugar, he is one of the most consistent champions of ag reform in the Senate.

Over strident opposition, he has worked to reform farm payments, promoted conservation and increased funding for nutrition. Some efforts have been more successful than others, but the effort has been there. Who is to say Vilsack won't do similarly?

The sky is falling meme is getting old. Fast.

Dude, the guy is from Illinois! What the hell did you expect? The hope is that other stuff happens in addition to that.

I grew up in north western Minnesota and the only reason I don't espouse the family farm crap (and in K-12 some of my friends were from family farms) is because I hate nature and would prefer the planet end up like the Imperial Capital in Star Wars, completely paved over with technology.

a lot of assumptions are erroneously being made about farm policy as well as obama, vilsack, and other midwestern politicians like harkin. one assumptions is that vilsack, as governor of iowa, would actually know a lot about agriculture. he was a rural trial lawyer not a farmer. he wasn't the ag secretary, he was the governor. who knows what he would do? he might be a visionary cause he's not so wedded to the details.

and if you've paid your dues in iowa campaigns like many of us have, you will realize that ethanol does not dictate iowa primary politics like many people say. it's one of the worst memes out there.

anyway, my guess is that obama will by and large take a do-no-harm approach to farm policy or use tight budgets to trim back where he can. focus on smaller and active farmers, more money for local food production and conservation, more nutrition programs, things like that. push around the edges. bush was actually interested in farm policy reform, congress wasn't as much. lugar was. harkin was. southern politicians weren't.

Maybe a few people have yet to consider the connection between farm subsidies and health care. Subsidies on corn products make it cheaper to eat fatty, sugary foods, so that's why poor people are fat. Fat people get sick more often. Treating sick poor people drives up the cost of health care for everybody. Not treating them, which happens, is inhumane (though acceptable to many on the political right.) If subsidies were given instead to producers of good food, poor people and the rest of us would eat better, stay thinner, get sick less, and cost less for the health care system.

Right on, bugbuster! The sooner we recognize that farm policy has a fundamental effect on both our physical health, the better off we will be. Cheap sweets (like corn syrup) take a large toll on our nation's physical health, as seen in the rapid rise of obesity and diabetes (and other secondary ailments). But it's important to recognize that our political health is threatened by the current farm policy as well. Today, traditional, monoculture farming relies heavily on petroleum-derived additives (fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides) to maintain the high yields we're all accustomed to. An earlier post emphasized how much he (as well as the rest of Americans) loves his cheap food. Cheap food is only possible with high inputs of cheap oil. Cheap oil is becoming harder to maintain. Oil production in the U.S. peaked in the 1970's. Worldwide oil production is expected to peak somewhere between 2000 and 2040, which is fast approaching. If you follow my line of reasoning, it's clear that our current foreign policy is directly related to our current farm policy. Our failing escapades in the Middle East and our growing interest in central Asia are directly related to our need for cheap oil. Such large military demands place increasing strains on our nation's political and economic health. (That's how Rome fell, after all...trying to extend their influence too far, for too long.) In the end, there are multiple reforms that need to begin taking place...farm policy being at the top of the list (we all got to eat, right?). Will Tom Vilsack be the right guy for this job? I don't know. But we need to start facing the facts soon, before it's too late.

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!

Good post! Thanks for your information!