Toast and Water vs French Hen and Italian Wine

The health care summit this last week chaired by President Obama, offered few new insights into the problems we collectively face as a nation. Let's start with what should be obvious, doing nothing or signing the current legislation into law are both options even the mentally impaired won't consider.

Why do we have a health care problem? Let's envision America collectively eating at a restaurant. Some of us order lavish meals with a cigar to finish things off, others get by on toast with water. So long as each of us is paying for what we eat when the bill comes how much can we really complain? The problem is in this restaurant where you sit determines who picks up the check. Of course no one will stand by and let another diner go hungry, that's not the American way, we are better than that. Over time though those who continue to order toast with water and still get stuck with the tab for the French Hen and Italian wine will find the experience less rewarding.

Unfortunately as those who object to consistently having to pay for others dinning enjoyment frequent the establishment less, the restaurant has to implement new policies to break even. The new policy has a flat rate pricing structure, everything from toast and water to the five course meal costs the same. Surprisingly enough even fewer toast and water dinners frequent the restaurant, after all they only want toast and water but not at five course meal prices. The restaurant losing money due to the lack of toast and water customers is once again forced to raise prices. At this point even those dinners who pay for and enjoy the five course meals are no longer able to afford the excellent service. The restaurant at this point has the benefit of being able to ask Congress to force all Americans to eat only at this restaurant. The new plan which covers all will provide toast with water at five course meal prices.

In the next several posts we will explore some of the options available. At 17% of our economy this is not an issue we can afford to get wrong, or procrastinate indefinitely on. For those who hope to see President Obama fail on this issue, I would suggest extended training with the Taliban, you will be surrounded by others with similar goals. For those who specifically endorse the current legislation, I would suggest time travel to the Ukraine in the 1930's as collectivism was imposed upon the misinformed peasants, you will find yourself celebrating the breaking of a few eggs to make an omelet.

Blind Spot

In driver's ed, we all learned to check our blind spot periodically to prevent the inevitable consequences of entering space already occupied. On the basketball court, it was the guy we didn't see coming who stole the ball from us.

Agricultural blind spots vary by crop, livestock group, and the different practices employed in our operations. For example, the Humane Society video of downer cows caught the beef and dairy industries by surprise and led them to accept previously inconceivable regulation. When we fail to check our blind spot, we are forced to negotiate from inherently weak positions.

Currently, Idaho is attempting to change lanes without checking its blind spot. The blind spot in question regards the draconion cuts being made to our agricultural extension and research programs. We are reducing staff, closing facilities and abandoning future advances in seed genetics, pest control, storage, and marketing.

There is short-term ignorance being displayed by both legislators and university administration. The University of Idaho is in danger of ignoring its key advantage over the other state universities: research (primarily agricultural). If we continue to cut the quality and breadth of our ag research, we will lose qualified staff who will defect to institutions where they are able to research and publish findings on relevant questions. Not a lot of quality ag research can be done in an office on a computer.

The people who make up the University of Idaho community have given their life's work to establish its reputation as a first-class research and teaching intstitution. Ten years from now, if we continue on this path of attrition, we will look back and realize that decisions made in crisis have had a devastating effect on the UofI's ability to fulfill even basic expectations.

The solutions available to us are not cheap or popular; they are necessary.
1) Eliminate competition among state universities for the same programs. Boise State should not be allowed to operate a law school, and UofI should not offer an MBA. ISU should be allowed to focus on Health Sciences without competition from BSU or UofI.
2) In an effort to recruit more profitable out-of-state students, Idaho has tried to become an everyman's university. This has proven to be short-sighted. We don't ask our hooker to prepare our tax statement, and I for sure don't look to my accountant for sinful pleasures. Eliminate marginal programs and refocus our efforts on achieving excellence in areas for which we have had a traditional advantage.

If the legislature would check its higher education blind-spot, they would be horrified to see a time when the word 'adequate' is too lofty a descriptor barreling down upon them.

Breeders, they're everyone's problem

Health and Welfare has a different name for them: suppliers. These are the wonderful people who ensure that families on adoption waiting lists don't wait long. Unfortunately, there are significant social costs associated with allowing the dumbest among us to continue their procreation merry-go-round.

There are two possible solutions:
1) forced sterilization. The ethical quagmire created here just gives me a headache.
2) Economic penalties. If we completely change the tax and welfare benefit structure to encourage responsible behavior, it's quite possible we may see a reduction of children born into abject poverty and dangerous home situations.

The mistake we have made, is that our public assistance increases with the number of dependents in the home. Although it is a noble idea, even the simplest among us can see how continuing to have more children than we can afford has a narcotic effect on public assistance addicts.

You should declare your children when you sign up, and then if you have children while in the program, you will lose benefits equivalent to one dependent. If you are a slow learner, you stand to lose all your benefits.

This should not affect those who find themself in a bad way, and need a hand to get back on their feet. They will understand that they need to postpone increasing their family size until that point where they can afford the associated costs.

Again we have returned to the central thesis: stupid choices have consequences and we do not help anyone by protecting them from such.

The Industrial Education Association vs Real Reform

How is it we are free to chose such little things as what our cats name will be or what color our new car will be, but we don't find it the least bit strange we have almost no choice when it comes to something that really should matter? This does assume you consider the education of children to be of some significance. Education has come to occupy the same hallowed ground as motherhood, puppies, and apple pie. A closer look at where the education dollars really go exposes a business where a child's education is second to protecting the interests of the Education Industry.

What would it take to get beyond lip service and achieve real education reform? How about a combination of true local control coupled with free market capitalism? Here's what Real Education Reform would look like.

• State of Idaho completely takes over the financing of education. "X" number of dollars are allocated per school age child, dollar amount is the same regardless of whether it's Bear Lake or Sandpoint. Allow more dollars for special needs children.
• Parents of school age children can use these education dollars in whatever form they chose, home schooling, public school, private schools, internet schools, etc.. No one takes a more personal interest in a child's future than a parent does. Naturally would need to watch a bit so we don't have meth addicts using their home schooled child's education dollars to stay blitzed.
• Public school boards are composed only of people who have children attending that school. How the education dollars are spent is entirely at the discretion of the board. So long as that school is able to attract enough education dollars to remain open it must be meeting parental expectations. If a $120,000 superintendent and a $75,000 associate superintendent makes financial sense to the school board, and this school can attract the education dollars to remain open, who are we to question the wisdom of parents?

A funny thing happens when you give people control of money, or hold them accountable for the use of money. For starters these people tend to become quite stingy with this money, and secondly they demand something of value for their money. If Real Education Reform was implemented is it realistic to expect the bureaucracy of Industrial Education to survive the scrutiny of parents? Just as a well run business will tend to prosper, I would suspect schools meeting or exceeding the expectations of their customers (parents) would have an equally bright future. How nice it would be to make a choice that mattered.

School Districts Should Consolidate or Lose Funding

$500,000. Half a million bucks; could your mid size school district use the extra money? That is the cost for the average 3A school district to staff and maintain a district office.

State legislators (motto: where's a good abortion bill when you need one) have told us that they lack the political will to force small, inefficient school districts to consolidate. This is a lot like the mother who is bankrolling her teenager saying: 'I don't know how to stop her from dressing like a hooker.'. If you control the checkbook, you control everything; grow a spine, suck it up, and buy her a shirt that doesn't allow every neighborhood pervert to count her fat rolls. The state needs to treat these obstinate districts like the tantrum throwing teenagers they are. If you want to have a stand-alone district in a municipality with the same population as a lunch-time Denny's, fine, but you better get a job and pay for it yourself.

The state should immediately dictate minimum size requirements for districts to be eligible for state funding. The simplest method would be through a student/superintendent ratio; that's one even the state superintendents association could understand. By the way, do you really think the aforementioned association will support anything that reduces their dues-paying membership?

This will not affect sports (except for the really small schools who struggle to field an 8 man football team; they can only improve through consolidation) or the ability of small communities to have a school in their town. It will also help to temper some of the meddling local boards are famous for in one-school districts.

This is not a state intrusion on local control. It's the state saying that we cannot finance every locality's provincial narcissism; you can have whatever district your willing to pay for.

To the legislature: one party has almost total control of every corner of state government; cancel your power-lunch, find a backbone and do something that will provide near-term and long-ranging financial benefits to Idaho's education system.

A Good Joke

Three couples were presented at the Pearly Gates: Jewish, Catholic, and Mormon.

Saint Peter greeted the Jewish couple and then shook his head in obvious frustration.
'You can't come in here! All your life you've cared for nothing but money. You even went so far as to change your wife's name to Penny. Get out!'

Up came the Catholic couple.
'You're no better!' he roared, 'You do nothing but drink and when your not drinking, you think about drinking. You even married a gal named Brandy. Be gone!'

At this point the Mormon couple looked at each other and the husband said, 'Well Fanny, I don't think we've got a shot.'

I'm Gonna Win the Lottery!

After much soul-searching and consultations with my banker, I've decided to win the lottery. Even with the punitive tax on winnings, we've determined that it can only help my current state.

Once I win, I plan to live out my life's dream. I'm moving to the Wood River valley and buying the biggest lot I can afford near the folks who have made it their cause de' jour to tie up the state and federal court systems in the Pacific Northwest. They file case after case and motion after motion with the stated goal of driving some of the best agrarians we have from their anscestral homes.

Unfortunately, my family has indicated that they will not be joining me in this quest; it was all hunky-dory until they figured out that my days would most likely be spent laying on lawn chairs in my underwear. Eating Cheetos and drinking mind-numbing amounts of Mountain Dew are a given.

My new motto will be WWCED 'what would Cousin Eddie do?'. I'm gonna be a GREAT neighbor. With my newly discovered fortune, I will embark on a daily mission to file lawsuits and injunctions aimed at preventing any one of these individuals from building so much as a bully-barn on their hyper-developed land. I want the Wood River and Silver Creek to be restored to their original stream beds, and all of the willows and riverbank vegetation removed for the building and landscaping of these monstrosities must be restored to pre-1950 conditions.

Hopefully some of these individuals will get a small taste of the frustration and difficulties that result from their juvenile tactics. I will spend the whole fortune in fulfilling my harassment duties; less an adequate budget for Cheetos, Mountain Dew, and wife-beater undershirts.

CSI Refugee Center: net gain or net drain?

Apparently the Times News forgets to ask questions when it is writing in support of a cherished ideal.

According to the opinion editors, the CSI refugee center is a boon to our local economy. Are you kidding me!? They cite a quote from the director of the center claiming 3 million dollars in grant and other moneys coming to the area as a result of the center, along with providing area employers with a vital source of unskilled entry-level workers. That's exactly what we need in our area; unskilled workers w/no language skills and no true support system (i.e. church and family) outside of the refugee center.

What about the services consumed by these newcomers? The first step the center takes in helping them adjust to their new digs is to run them down to the state Health and Welfare office and sign them up for rent assistance, heating assistance, WIC, and a plethora of other programs put in place to boost up and support our state's working poor. The customers of the refugee center also compete with area residents for the limited spaces in subsidized housing. If you don't think this is a big deal, try talking with families on the waiting list for these facilities.

As far as entry-level workers, we have a great source of hard-working people with a built-in support system. Our area employers are comfortable working with them, have a basic understanding of their culture, and know that if made to feel welcome they provide an excellent pool of employees. These good people from the southern area of our continent also have proven willing to do whatever job is necessary for local agriculture operations. This has proven critical to our area's continued economic stability. There is a sense of latent racism in the refugee center's focus away from areas to the south of us.

Local school districts have a framework and staff trained and able to work with spanish-speaking students. They employ bi-lingual educators, and work very hard to adjust to the realities of a somewhat migratory population. The refugee center's obsession with Eastern Europe and non-latin countries place a staffing burden on districts for which there is no renumeration. I wonder how much of the 3 million they claim to have brought into the area went to reimburse districts for the added expense. I also wonder if the teachers are being paid bonuses for the extra work required to teach students with very unstable home lives and limited support outside of school. These students commonly require much of a teachers time to help them catch up and keep pace with their classmates.

There are many new families here as a result of the center's efforts and we have an obligation to help them progress and succeed. However, I question whether the significant burden they place on our already strained institutions is worth the dubious benefits claimed by those whose employment and financial well-being is directly tied to the center's continued operation.

Balance Idaho's Budget

Before we can solve Idaho's budget woes, we must all come together in acknowledging that stupid people must be allowed to make stupid decisions. I have made several in my life and hope to live long enough to not repeat them. We have gotten away from some of Darwin's best conclusions, and this ignorance has a stranglehold on our financial well-being.

First, legalize drugs and suspend all publicly-funded programs dealing with drug use and enforcement. This will serve two purposes; 1)the drug addicts wanting public assistance will go to a state with more programs (if you doubt this, you know nothing about how information travels in this culture); and 2) we will see an almost immediate relieving of jail crowding issues. We have got to quit criminalizing self-destructive behaviors. We should legalize them and tax them into oblivion. We cannot and should not eliminate the consequences for poor choices.

Second, remove K-12 education from its position atop the sacred-cow pile. State funding should create a scenario where school districts with lower administration costs (i.e. Cassia Co School District) receive a more favorable classification and funding formula. Funding should increase or decrease based on administration cost/student ratios. The fact that Richfield and Detrich or Murtaugh and Hansen are separate districts is asinine at best, and possibly criminal. Teachers should be the last cuts made, but they need to understand that they have a stake in the financial well-being of their respective districts. A bonus program that rewards them for performance and budget savings could be implemented w/out affecting base salaries.

These are just two ideas; later this week we will discuss more.

to Corn or not to Corn

Corn or not to Corn? That is the question.

Recently I was called by a neighbor wondering what kind of corn contracts were being offered for the 2010 growing season. He called me, because he knew that if I didn't know I would just make something up. I promptly called the three people left in So. Idaho still taking my calls. They were from very diverse areas such as Mormonville (Declo), Drytown (Hollister), and Whatview (View). Did I mention that I will attempt to insult everyone so nobody feels special when I shoot their sacred cow.

Anyway, the result of my incredibly scientific and statistically invalid polling is this: $28 +1 is the current (approximate) market for some common bean contracts, and with the cost of production tilting in beans favor, it makes absolutely no sense for anyone with this option to grow corn for less than $28. The complicating factor is that some areas absolutely suck (in a scientific sense) for growing beans. These areas also tend to have lower corn yields. In this instance, accepting less than $25 will firmly establish your identity as a high-class farm whore for your local dairyman. Now don't go getting your knickers in a bunch over the whore classification. We're all whoring for someone; some for Lamb Weston, some for FSA checks. We've all done it and we all live in glass houses; just admit it and get over it.

I support our dairymen, and believe that they have proven to be a critical economic engine in our state. That being said, I have never known one to offer $70 for hay when they can get it for $60. This is a negotiation, and as such, should be pursued w/out emotion. Make your decisions based on long-term relationships and near-term profitability.

Let's Get Started

If you're reading this, you have no life; you're probably married, drive a Ford Tarus and claim 2.3 kids. You sound like my kind of people.

I bet when you watch the news, you think to yourself; 'What a bunch of idiots.', and you know that given half a chance, you could do better. You also go through periods where you don't care what is going on, because the microeconomics of your own life require all your focus and energy. This blog is for you.

The goals of this blog are simple: 1)offer reasoned opinion w/out filters, and political restriction, (I don't care if an idea belongs to one party or the other; if it is stupid, I will say so.); 2)act as a clearing house for information related to the ag community in Idaho.

My hope is that down the road some of my heavier-drinking friends will join me in this forum. Currently that is not the case, and I am left to travel this road alone, much like the great John Brown.

I welcome comments, but have the guts and soundness of character to sign with your name. I and all who post here will.

P.S. I also reserve the right to sound off on education issues, because only allowing educators to speak to ed policy is akin to letting drunks be the sole voice in debate over liquor laws. This relates to agriculture, because property taxes tend to disproportionately affect farm owners.