From his comments, it looks like he has food safety on the radar, which bodes well.

I don't see any remarks on farm subsidies, however, and that's probably what irks me the most. I'm starting to hate the phrase "outside the box," but I'll use it anyway: I think the Vilsack needs to demonstrate an ability to think "outside the box" by not continuing the self-defeating cycle of subsidies for corn --- for feed purposes or ethanol. And if he truly believes in continuing farm subsidies, I'd like him to at least be able to recognize the problems and articulate a plausible reason why he's not going to rock the boat.

Current mood: Mildly perturbed :-/

another appointment
on the questionable/disturbing/controversial list.

why?????????????????????

I'm somewhat disappointed (I was hoping for Tom Buig, whose name came up quite often over the past few weeks). Still, just because there were better options don't mean that Vilsack's bad, and in my experience people coming at the problem from the perspective of food consumers (and often food consumers who've only starting thinking about ag recently) have a somewhat narrow understanding of what goes on in aggie-land. Someone serious about food production in the US would be writing about Doha, for example. Trade is a huge, huge issue in agricultural policy-making.

Anyway, on the plus side Vilack has said good things about changing the way we subsidize agriculture in the US and basically seems pretty moderate as shills for big agriculture go. I haven't noticed the same level of concern from soi-disant "progressives" about Obama shilling for big ag and the ethanol industry, but whatev. Vilsack is also very good on labeling (both COOL and organic-type labeling) and pretty good on livestock. I think he's probably better than not for family farming.

More background here:
http://www.farmpolicy.com/?p=954
http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/view/blog/getBlog.do?blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc1e3c259d011e42b865440046
http://www.cfra.org/blog/2008/12/16/vilsack-appointed-ag-secretary-interview-redux

I posted on this as well, but I think there's another angle worth a thought. I wonder if Vilsack wasn't telling the truth to the Register when he said he wasn't under consideration. I can see Obama going back to Vilsack based on dissatisfaction over his other choices and/or an inability to get the farm lobby to swallow more reformist picks (remember their rumored resistance even to Vilsack).

Given Obama's amazing needle-threading instincts with Shinseki and Chu, it's hard to believe he would have abandoned them for Ag. I'm not suggesting that Vilsack is a closet reformer. I'm just saying the politics of the situation might have led Obama to him in a way that doesn't necessary indicate what Obama's policy priorities really are. I'm hoping we find out more at the press conference today.

jacqueline, I just posted a rather lengthy response that included the URLs for some discussion in the ag community, which is to say that comment was moderated and it's a crapshoot whether or not Ezra will send it through.

But to answer your question directly, Vilsack's policies are very much in line with Obama's. In fact, I'd argue that Obama is worse on corn than Vilsack is, where "worse" means "mindless but harmful subsidies for corn production for ethanol." At least Vilsack has made it very clear that he sees ethanol as a transitional technology. I don't believe Obama has.

What are your specific objections to the nomination?

As a proud Iowan, I feel obliged to inform you that in addition to soybeans, corn, and pork, we also lead in the production of eggs.

Vilsack is a very conventional choice, and makes plenty of sense considering Obama's rural platform. He (Vilsack) cares about climate change, school lunch, food safety, ethanol, expanding trade for farmers. I hope tlaskawy is right that this doesn't reflect Obama's policy priorities, but I don't see any reason for that: Obama has never given me the impression that he's engaged with and interested in food politics.

What is surprising is that this pick makes it highly unlikely we'll see any southerners in the Cabinet. The remaining picks are Transportation and Labor, neither of which screams "southerner".

When was the last time we had a cabinet without a single southerner? Hoover, it looks like.

Obama has never given me the impression that he's engaged with and interested in food politics.
Aside from his infamous comments about the price of organic arugula, he expounded on food politics in this interview with Joe Klein in October. Sample quote: "I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil."

Yeah, I remember that, and there's some good stuff in his rural platform (about helping young farmers buy their first farms, expanding support for organic certification, etc) but he's been willing to lay down some serious political capital on climate change, opposing the war, etc - the food thing is a line in one interview, and while it gives me warm fuzzies, it's not a policy commitment and it hasn't been reflected in his policy commitment. I think a lot of us (me included) are so excited about Obama in general that we want to be excited about him from the perspective of all of our issues. And he just hasn't been there on food issues. Maybe he'll get there, but he's not there yet.

Let me put my tin hat on and engage in some conspiracy theorizing:

Appointing Vilsack will give Obama cover for eliminating ag subsidies, especially wasteful ethanol subsidies, and reforming the ag industry.

Otherwise, this was a terrible pick.

tinhat, I didn't understand any of your comments. Specifically, I don't know what you mean by "give cover" (it's widely understood that there will be major changes to the way food production is subsidized in the near future, regardless of who was elected president and regardless of how they staffed the USDA - that's not a secret. I have no idea what you mean by "reform the ag industry," and I don't know why you think Vilsack was a terrible pick.

Farming, according to people like Vilsak, means cramming animals into a barn that is nothing less than a factory that produces numerous pollutants that contaminate all our air and water.
I'm a rural Minnesotan who is BEGGING people around this nation to get better acquainted with where their food comes from and how food subsidies have made an unholy mess of agriculture not just in the US but around the world. Start here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/36207.html

As I said to Ezra's prior lamentations on a possible Secretary Vilsack, this sky is falling meme borders on the absurd. So is the geographical guilt by association.

Ag policy is a mess, but there is no guarantee that Vilsack will be a simple shil for more factory farms. Harkin and Grassley, in their own ways, have been much more progressive than most farm state Senators (of either party) on farm issues.

Look at Harkin: he was killed in the last farm bill by both parties for his efforts to promote conservation and limit crop subsidies. He did this despite Iowa getting the most farm payments of any state.

Yet without Harkin the farm will would be an even bigger mess. There would be very little conservation money (and all of it for shit ponds), nothing innovative on nutrition.  There wouldn't be $35 million to expand or promote farmers markets (Harkin started the farmers market promotion program).  No money for a new center to figure out how to get local produce into underserved areas. 

I am a rural cheesehead who has seen messed up farm policy firsthand. That said, just as only a Republican could go to China, it is going to take a farm stater to change agriculture something that requires more than a love for arugula and books by Pollan

Here's his bio from his alma mater's website, Hamilton College:

http://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?id=14979