“We’ve had to change our definition of a victory,” said Colin Woodall, executive director of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). Victories used to be defined by the margin of votes. These days, it’s a matter of how much time can be bought to educate and try to sway opinion before votes are taken.

Woodall was addressing participants at last spring’s annual meeting of the Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers Association.

So goes life when so few law makers and administrators at the federal level have any idea how agriculture works.

So goes life in an age when a single political party holds sway in both the Administrative and Legislative branches of government.

Voters of every stripe have to be stunned with how willing government has been to amass debt and insinuate itself into areas of life previously reserved for individual citizens first and then their states.

Consider last year’s astounding economic bail-out and stimulus package at a cost of $787.2 billion, on top of $152 billion in 2008. Consider Health Care Reform (see Rights for Me page 22) tagged at $940 billion.

When Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was elected to the U.S. Senate last winter—a surprising turn of events—to serve out the term left by the death of the iconic Democrat Ted Kennedy, there were plenty of folks who thought the Congressional train would slow. That was because, if Senate Republicans stuck together, Brown meant the Senate Democrats no longer held the 60 magical votes that make for a supermajority.

In the simplest terms, the 60-vote supermajority is necessary to invoke cloture, a process by which Senate debate can be limited and a vote forced. Without it, the minority party can filibuster along, adding amendments, calling for debate and the like.

But there are ways around it, in certain circumstances. In the case of Health Care Reform, the Democrats utilized another parliamentary tactic called Reconciliation which can be used only in limited circumstances, including bills that pertain to spending. So, arguably, the 60th vote didn’t matter much.

If the Laws don’t get you, the regulations will
Closer to home, an assortment of proposed legislation threatens the ability of cattle producers, and other businesses, to remain economically viable.

There’s the pending bill in the House of Representative seeking to remove the word “navigable” from the Lean Water Act. If successful, that would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to regulate all water everywhere on the farm and ranch, from a mud puddle to watersheds.

There’s immigration reform, where the current lack of action seems to be as harmful as not (see You STILL Ain’t from Around Here page 30).

There’s the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA) introduced by U.S. Representative, Louise Slaughter (D-NY). That bill would eliminate the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics (considered important for human health) in livestock. According to a position statement from the American Veterinary Medical Association, in opposition to the bill: “The AVMA opposes this legislation because it would increase animal disease and death—an unfortunate and unintended consequence—without assurance of improving human health. The legislation proposes to eliminate “non-therapeutic” uses of antimicrobials which would disallow disease prevention and potentially control uses. This broad based ban is contrary to the practice of veterinary medicine and is not risk-based. AVMA urges Congress make decisions based upon science when considering legislation concerning the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture.”

This and other proposed legislation impacting the cattle business is before considering how federal agencies are writing their own laws through regulation.

In fact, you could rationally argue that federal agencies are being less than bashful about usurping legislative prerogative by issuing regulations that do more than some laws can. The EPA serves as the quintessential role model with their designation of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) as a public health threat (see Under My Thumb-Part II).

EPA also holds the keys to the allowable blend rate for ethanol in gasoline—currently 10%. Any increase—odds are it will go up this fall—further disjoints grain and livestock markets.

Likewise, EPA helms the Clean Air Act—that’s what they’re standing behind for GHG regulation—and the Clean Water Act.

Another Stab at Regulating Livestock Markets
There are other agencies and pending regulations that could so as much damage.

For instance, there is the USDA rule-making process that has fostered the on-again, off-again National Animal Identification System (NAIS). Neither voluntary nor mandatory it floated in limbo until USDA passed the buck to states last fall as an unfunded mandate. In other words, “States, you figure out how to do it, and how to fund it, because traceability will be required for interstate commerce.”

Most pressing, is the latest potential attack on free markets within the cattle industry.

USDA announced in June proposed rule making, as required by the 2008 Farm Bill, for competition in livestock markets. You may have heard of joint meetings hosted by USDA and the Justice Department in that regard.

“Concerns about a lack of fairness and commonsense treatment for livestock and poultry producers have gone unaddressed far too long,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in announcing the rule issued by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). “This proposed rule will help ensure a level playing field for producers by providing additional protections against unfair practices and addressing new market conditions not covered by existing rules.”

Keep in mind, there are already a bevy of rules enforced by GIPSA to protect livestock producers.

Many of the concerns raised by USDA are the same old straw men that have been yammered about for years. For instance, there’s consolidation, concentration and captive supplies in the cattle business—all of which have been proven by credible studies to benefit rather than hinder both producers and consumers.

“While we’re still looking at the details of the proposal, in general, we have serious concerns with any efforts to increase government intrusion in the marketplace,” says Steve Foglesong, NCBA president. “Cattle producers support free-market principles and we deserve the right to enter into private negotiations between willing buyers and sellers—just like other sectors of American business. NCBA will fight to protect the use of contract and alternative marketing arrangements in the cattle industry to satisfy the demands of our consumers.”

According to the USDA, “During farm bill discussions in 2007, over 200 organizations across the country urged Congress to include a livestock title to improve market fairness and competition for producers. Additionally, USDA identified other areas where new rulemaking is needed to ensure the marketplace is fair and competitive for producers. Many of the concerns addressed in the rule were raised during the dozens of Administration Rural Tour stops attended by Secretary Vilsack last year, and the joint USDA-Department of Justice Competition Workshops held this year. Additionally, GIPSA held three public meetings in 2008 to gather comments, information, and recommendations from interested parties.”

Incidentally, the aforementioned Competition Workshops are not complete. The one for cattle and beef is scheduled for August 27 in Fort Collins, CO—four days after the comment period is scheduled to close for the new rules.

GIPSA will consider comments about the proposed rule received by August 23, 2010. Copies of the proposed rule and additional information can be found at: http://www.gipsa.usda.gov by clicking on Federal Register.

“At the end of the day, we’re not just cattle producers, we’re beef producers; and the success of our business relies on our ability to meet specific consumer demand at the local retail meat case, while at the same time get rewarded for the value we add to our cattle,” Foglesong says. “We encourage USDA to closely involve producer input throughout every step of the rule-making process to make sure the final rule supports commerce that’s fair, open and transparent without undue government intrusion that would hinder producers’ ability to market cattle when, how and where they want to.”

Change in the Air
In and out of the cattle business, it’s unsurprising that would-be voters appear more fed up with Congress and the current administration than normal, even when considering the recent Great Recession.

According to the daily Presidential Approval Index issued by Rasmussen Reports™, Obama’s approval continues to slide. The index is calculated by subtracting the number of likely voters polled who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s performance from those who Strongly Approve. This index ranged from +7 to -2 last June. Through the month of June this year (through June 22) the index ranged from -13 to -20.

Viewed through a different prism, according to the Gallup organization in June, 59% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they were more enthusiastic about voting in this November’s elections than past elections. That’s the highest average in a mid-term election year for either party since the folks at Gallup began asking the question in 1994.

During the NCBA convention last winter, I asked Woodall, given such a strong political tide of opposition to the cattle business, whether it was more or less important for individual producers to make their opinions known to their elected representatives, and whether there was a more effective way to be involved. “It’s more important every single day because there are fewer and fewer of us,” Woodall said. “If we don’t tell our story, there are lots of other people who will tell it for us. It’s of critical importance that producers have contact with their representatives.”