Rural Voters Are Increasingly Wary Of Trump's Lies

The crackpot illegitimate "president" was in Iowa the other day. At his rally there he said "I’m not going to lose in this state. I don’t think I’m going to lose in any other state." Yep, he's lost his mind. The newest numbers from the Morning Consult Trump tracker show his net approval in Iowa has decreased by 18 points since he moved his fat ass into the White House. His approval rating in Iowa is just 44% and his disapproval is 53%-- so a net negative of 9 points. He hasn't gained ground in a single state anywhere in the country and, besides Iowa, he's underwater in 7 other states he won in 2016:

• Michigan- minus 15
• Wisconsin- minus 10
• Pennsylvania- minus 6
• Ohio- minus 3
• Arizona- minus 3
• Georgia- minus 2
• Alaska- minus 2

And the favorable/unfavorable numbers in Florida and North Carolina, both of which he won is 2016, are exactly even.He may not think he's going to lose in any other state, but his disapproval numbers are through the roof in many states-- minus 35 in Vermont, minus 31 in Massachusetts, minus 28 in California and Hawaii, minus 25 in New York and Washington, minus 24 in Maryland, minus 21 in Illinois, minus 20 in Connecticut... If he thinks he's going to win those states, he needs to stop using the drugs he's using. And his unpopularity extends into the farm states. He tried scaring farmers while he was in Iowa by telling them their farms will go to hell if he doesn't win.

And yet... hours after he said it, Reuters reported that farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: "U.S. farm bankruptcy rates jumped 20% in 2019-- to an eight-year high-- as financial woes in the U.S. agricultural economy continued in spite of massive federal bail-out funding."

Farmers across the nation also have retired or sold their farms because of the financial strains, changing the face of Midwestern towns and concentrating the business in fewer hands.

“I just had a farmer contact me last week, telling me he can’t get financing for his inputs this year and he doesn’t know what to do,” said Charles E. Covey, a bankruptcy attorney based in Peoria, Illinois.

Chapter 12 is a part of the federal bankruptcy code that is designed for family farmers and fishermen to restructure their debts. It was created during the 1980s farm crisis as a simple court procedure to let family farmers keep operating while working out a plan to repay lenders.

The increase in cases had been somewhat expected, bankruptcy experts and agricultural economists said, as farmers face trade battles, ever-mounting farm debt, prolonged low commodity prices, volatile weather patterns and a fatal pig disease that has decimated China’s herd.

Even billions of dollars spent over the past two years in government agricultural assistance has not stemmed the bleeding.

Nearly one-third of projected U.S. net farm income in 2019 came from government aid and taxpayer-subsidized commodity insurance payments, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The court data indicates those supports did help prevent a more serious economic fallout, said John Newton, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Some of the biggest bankruptcy rate increases were seen in regions, such as apple growers in the Pacific Northwest, that did not receive much or any of the latest round of trade aid from the Trump administration.

The bankruptcy data “signals that things have not turned around,” said John Newton, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. “We still have supply and demand uncertainty. If we see prolonged low prices, I wouldn’t expect this trend to slow down.”

And voters in farm states have figured this out. Trump's approval numbers are down since inauguration in every single farm state-- no exceptions. Here are a few:

• Nebraska- down 22 points
• Montana- down 21 points
• Arkansas- down 20 points
• eorgia- down 20 points
• Kentucky- down 20 points
• Mississippi- down 20 points
• Iowa- down 18 points
• North Carolina- down 18 points
• Kansas- down 17 points
• South Dakota- down 16 points
• Minnesota- down 14 points
• Idaho- down 13 points
• Missouri- down 13 points

Conservatives Are Stomping Out Family Farms-- And Not Just Republican Conservatives Either

You know what's bipartisan in DC? Agricultural policy-- and it sucks, for farmers, for rural communities and for consumers. Jeff Hauser and Eleanor Eagan, reporting for Washington Monthly, have no doubt that the Trump Regime is up to no good when it comes to family farms, but they point out that it isn't just Trump and the Republicans. "The administration is letting agribusiness run amok, they wrote. But, they ask, where is the congressional oversight?

Collin Peterson is one of the most conservative, Republican-like Democrats-- an extreme right Blue Dog in a Trumpist district-- in Congress. Right up against the Dakotas-- from the border of Manitoba across from Kittson County, down to Pipestone County in the south-- his vast rural district has a PVI of R+12, the reddest district held by any Democrat in the House. And he holds it by playing ball with the GOP. Trump beat Hillary by over 20 points in the district, 61.8% to 31.0%. Ironically, while Trump swept MN-07, Bernie did better than Hillary-- and everyone else-- on caucus day in 2016.

• Bernie- 6,608
• Ted Cruz- 4,326
• Hillary- 3,852
• Señor Trumpanzee- 3,401

Voters wanted change-- and they knew who was offering it for real.

Last year Amy Klobuchar did well in MN-07 but neither Tina Smith, also running for the Senate, nor Tim Walz, the Democrats' successful gubernatorial candidate, did. Collin Peterson won again, though-- 146,672 (52.1%) to 134,668 (47.9%). In 2016 Peterson beat the same GOP opponent, Dave Hughes by about the same margin, having raised $1,201,913 compared to Hughes' $19,836. Much of Peterson's big fundraising advantage cames, as it always does, from agribusiness. In 2018 Peterson raised $1,425,449 (and was forced to spend more than he raised) but Hughes raised much more than he had in 2016-- $232,724. It will be a miracle if Peterson survives next year. There are 5 Republicans competing to take him on and two of them, Noel Collins (a self-funder) and Michelle Fischbach (the party favorite) have raised6 figures. Hughes is giving it another shot but isn't raising significant money. There's also a Democrat primarying Collins, Stephen Emery but he's not raising any money and he's actually challenging Peterson from the right as a Pelosi lapdog!

Here's Emery's schpiel:

He has presided over the rise of the mega corporate farm and multi-national agriculture corporation and demise of our rural communities and family farms.

He voted to allow illegal immigrants to vote in our elections!

He says he’s the most bi-partisan member of Congress, but he votes with Nancy Pelsosi almost all of the time and gives his money to extremely liberal causes that oppose the issues he says he supports.

Nancy Pelosi effectively is the Representative for the Minnesota Seventh Congressional District. The first thing Collin Peterson does after he is elected is to vote for Nancy Pelosi. He helps put her in charge of the machinery of Congress. He knows that much of what occurs there is procedural and through committees, so the leader wields incredible power. She has a say as to who serves on which committee, and how, and if, bills move through the House. Furthermore, he knows that Congress works essentially through a two party system, and they tend to vote in groups, so what the leader pushes to a large measure determines what the result will be.

So, it doesn’t matter how he votes on any particular bill, because he votes “yes” on Nancy Pelosi’s initiatives when he voted for her to lead the Democrats in Congress, and that is the vote that matters. Has his vote against a Pelosi initiative ever meant the difference of whether it passes? I don’t think so, and so it is always a safe, meaningless vote-- except for his re-electability.

So, regardless of how Collin Peterson otherwise may vote, a vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and gun control;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for the Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare and poorer medical care;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and sodomy and biological males in women’s showers and bathrooms;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and Islam and Muslims and illegal aliens sweeping across the nation and voting in our elections! The rise of the Islamist has occurred on his watch and he hasn’t done anything to address it!;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for the Nancy Pelosi and more and more in-your-face control by the United Nations over our lives;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and extreme environmentalism.

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and Planned Parenthood and the butchering of babies and the sale of baby parts;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and mega corporate farming and disenfranchising our children from remaining on the land and continuing farming which is the most common form of free enterprise;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and more and more welfare that the nation can’t support and that isn’t good for the welfare recipient or the taxpayer, and a complete collapse of our economy due to run-away debt;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and this massive tax and spend program that is wrapped around this lie called man-made global warming.

We need different, and far better, representation in Washington, D.C.

The people who established this nation intended for a continual rotation of citizens for elective positions, not career politicians like Collin Peterson. Let’s value private enterprise and personal responsibility. Let’s spend within our means and not create more debt for our children and grandchildren.

Most of it's a bunch of crazy Republican talking points-- except for the first complaint: "He has presided over the rise of the mega corporate farm and multi-national agriculture corporation and demise of our rural communities and family farms." There is where he has a valid point.

As we mentioned a couple of weeks ago Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, told Wisconsin dairy farmers that "In America, the big get bigger and the small go out. I don’t think in America we, for any small business, we have a guaranteed income or guaranteed profitability." In other words, wrote Hauser and Eagan, "he was telling the farmers: you’re probably screwed and there’s nothing you can do about it."

Contrary to Perdue’s claims, the deaths of small farms are not a result of natural forces. They are a consequence of explicit policy choices that have allowed for the rampant consolidation and disinvestment that are crushing rural communities. Only two decades ago, there were 600 companies that sold seed. Today, there are only four. It’s no wonder that the cost of seeds and plant corn has risen 329 percent in that time period, with similar increases for other crops.

Perdue hasn’t just failed to recognize the root causes of farmers’ pain; he has actively aided the forces responsible for it. From his first days in office, he has turned the full power of the USDA against farmers and rural communities on behalf of Big Agriculture, betraying one of the constituencies most vital to Trump’s 2016 win.

None of this should surprise anyone. What should be genuinely shocking, however, is that Congressman Collin Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota and the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, has been practically silent about these attacks. Over the past nine months, he has only convened one full committee hearing. And while his panel heard testimony from Perdue in February, Peterson has yet to call him back despite his committing numerous transgressions since, including his continued efforts to impose work requirements on access to food stamps and pressing ahead to relocate the department’s research wing out of D.C.

Peterson, who declined our request for comment, has failed to fulfill his obligation to protect farmers and rural communities. That is not only bad on the substance, but it is a missed opportunity for Democrats to win back support among American farmers, who overwhelmingly pulled the lever for Trump in 2016.

In recent years, consolidated agribusinesses have translated their rising profits into formidable political power. They have successfully weakened or killed many measures that would have limited their control over farmers’ lives and livelihoods, including fighting laws that would give farmers the right to repair their own equipment, something that overzealous copyright protections have prevented them from doing. When these and other nasty practices get too much attention, Big Ag wields its considerable weight to silence critics, whether that means getting a newspaper cartoonist fired or suing the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to close a public comment period on a proposed merger.

Over the past few decades, Democrats have too often either supported the policies that got us here, or fallen short in resisting them. In 2008, Barack Obama made fighting consolidation a feature of his agricultural policy platform. But once in power, he failed to act decisively on those promises. His administration hesitated to enact proposed regulations that would have made it easier for contract farmers to sue packing and processing companies for unfair practices. Then, it found itself unable to move forward once Republicans took the House in 2010.

As with most things, however, the Trump administration has taken a bad problem and made it worse. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice approved a merger between two agricultural industry giants, Monsanto and Bayer, allowing for the creation of a new behemoth. And those Obama-era contracting rules? They were eventually approved in 2016, but Perdue promptly scrapped them after taking power. Worse yet, Perdue’s USDA has walked back enforcement of many of the remaining rules to protect contract farmers.

This is all without mentioning what’s at the forefront of people’s minds when they think about Trump’s impact on farmers: trade policy. Yet as these examples should make clear, the harm this administration is inflicting on farmers goes well beyond trade.

Unfortunately, House Democrats have done little to draw attention to Trump’s deleterious agricultural policies When they do respond by holding a hearing, like over the decision to move the USDA’s Economic Research Service to Kansas City, they fail to confront those responsible for their actions, or take definitive actions to stop them.

Meanwhile, in the same time span that Peterson only convened one full committee hearing, Agriculture’s six subcommittees have held a combined 19 hearings, seven of which involved testimony from USDA officials. The Committee has issued zero subpoenas to corporate or governmental actors.

Peterson should reverse course and start from the top. The USDA is a big department with a diverse set of important responsibilities, ranging from protecting farming and rural economies, to ensuring food safety and administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

...Democrats need to perform meaningful oversight of the Trump administration’s assault on American farmers. Impeachment doesn’t obviate the need for skeptical oversight. It underscores it. Oversight is, put simply, a basic fulfillment of Congress’ governing obligations. It can uncover abuse, create pressure for change, and facilitate the development of much needed policy alternatives. And, as an added bonus, the political upside seems clear.

This strategy might seem somewhat unorthodox. It contravenes the gospel that Democrats can only win agricultural districts by espousing a quiet, inoffensive centrism. But that would cede control of the political debate to Trump. If Democrats only play on the president’s terms, the conversation will always shift away from the real issue.

Democrats must therefore redefine the debate on agriculture policy through rigorous oversight. In rural America, they have to demonstrate their willingness to take on political corruption of all shades, and to challenge corporate America’s chokehold over the political process.

Yet Democrats have been surprisingly unwilling to take on one of the most unifying issues across the electorate: how the system is rigged to hurt ordinary people and boost big corporations.

Trump has created an opportunity for Democrats to take up this message in virtually every area of policy, but now especially with farmers. House Democrats have a unique opening to prove to rural voters that they are serious about taking on structural inequities. All they have to do is highlight and push back against the administration’s efforts to enrich corporations at the expense of small farmers. In other words, they have to simply do their jobs.

J.D. Scholten, who the day after Perdue's talk with the Wisconsin day farmers, termed his comments "a middle finger to family farmers," is running for Congress in Iowa's 4th district, the only one still in GOP hands, the only one held by a white nationalist (Steve King). King was kicked off the House Agriculture Committee by Paul Ryan for his repeated inflammatory racist comments. No one doubts that on the first day of Scholten's appearance as a member of Congress, Pelosi will make sure IA-04 is represented on that committee again. "American farmers are struggling to get by," he told me yesterday, "forced to work one, two, or more jobs off the farm to make ends meet. We, the Democratic Party, are supposed to be the party of the working class-- we’re supposed to be voice of the voiceless, the champion for those who have been left behind. As corporations further consolidate and control the markets, the Democratic Party has a responsibility to speak out and fight for workers. This administration has manipulated the trade war for the gain of Trump’s donors, abused the RFS to the benefit of big oil, dismantled the USDA, has hurt worker safety, and much more-- but we’ve given rural America no viable alternative. It’s past time for Democrats to show up: to prove that we’re trustworthy, honest and willing to fight for working people. Only then, can we elect a fighter who is willing to stand for everyday people rather than someone who can max out on a donation check."

The gospel that Democrats can only win agricultural districts by espousing a quiet, inoffensive centrism? Not J.D. Scholten. Take a look at Bernie's rural development agenda. That's about as far as you can get from inoffensive centrism. But Peterson's congressional district wasn't the only rural district where Bernie trounced Hillary.

Take the vast rural district in northeast California (CA-01). There are 11 counties. Last year, corporate Democrat Dianne Feinstein lost every one of them. Gavin Newsom, also a corporatist, lost 10 of the 11. Bernie did a lot better in 2016-- and Audrey Denney, a progressive running on much of Bernie's populist program won the biggest county in the district, Butte, and well as Nevada County. Bernie won 9 of the 11 counties and won the mostly rural and small town congressional district convincingly. Here were Bernie's numbers:

• Butte- 58.9%
• Shasta- 50.0%
• Nevada- 59.8%
• Placer- 42.0%
• Tehama- 49.6%
• Siskiyou- 58.0%
• Plumas- 53.7%
• Lassen- 50.8%
• Modoc- 50.7%
• Sierra- 55.8%
• Glenn- 48.8%

Audrey Denney is taking on Trump enabler Doug LaMalfa again this cycle. She told us that "the Trump Administration policies are directly hurting farmers all over the country. According to the American Farm Bureau, farm bankruptcy filings for 2019 through June were up 13% from 2018 and loan delinquency rates are on the rise. North State farmers are asking for trade policies that expand markets and immigration reform that helps them get the labor they need. Congressman LaMalfa-- a farmer himself-- has failed to be an advocate for the industry he represents. I’ve worked in agriculture education my entire career and can’t wait to fight for North State farmers and ranchers when they send me to DC... Every year it becomes harder and harder for farmer and ranchers to make their work pencil. Tariffs are adding increasing pressure on farmers’ already razor thin profit margins-- add this to an inability to find and retain skilled labor-- and many North State farmers are really hurting. Every multi-generational family famers’ nightmare is being the generation that loses the farm. My family lived that reality with the 2008 recession-- this is a personal issue for me."





Kathy Ellis is running in one of the reddest rural districts in America, located in the southeast corner of Missouri. Farmers and the small towns that depend on agriculture to sustain them are hurting there. "Agribusiness has taken over rural communities like mine," she told us today. "Between climate change damaging crops and the impact of Trump's tariffs, farmers are left without options other than to sell to Agribusiness Companies. It takes away local control of these farms and it damages our local economy. And to make matters worse, our current representative not only doesn't stop this, he also takes thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from these companies. He's not working on behalf of farmers. He's working on behalf of Big Agriculture, and it must stop."

Progressive North Carolina pastor Jason Butler looks at the problem beyond mere congressional policy. "Perception," he said, "is reality and the reality is: DC Democrats don’t really seem to care about the rural community. If they did-- as this article points out-- they’d step up and do something. Trump has created incredible openings in the rural community through damaging trade wars and damaging farming policies-- but corporate Democrats aren’t countering it. Instead, we too, seem bent on blaming the rural community for electing and sustaining Trump. On one hand, we are telling the rural community that we (Democrats) will help you more, but on the other hand we are blaming them for our current situation. No one wants to be part of a group that looks down on them-- even if they will help them more. I think the Democrats' problem goes much deeper than farming policy-- it goes into the reality that we don’t appreciate the rural American experience. We used to-- but we don’t anymore. And while Republican policy does not help them, and even hurts them-- they value (or pretend to value) rural life and rural values. And at the end of the day, all of us want to belong to a group of people that value us and our experience. Winning the trust of the rural community won’t be easy, and will take some time-- but here is where we should start-- places like this: making sure we stand up for farmers-- big and small, making sure we are boldly pushing policies that sustain and empower rural life, and holding this administration accountable for its lack of rural support."

Will Farmers Squeezed By Trump's Trade War Vote For Democrats On Tuesday?

No one ever accused the DCCC of being able to chew gum and walk at the same time. This cycle the catastrophic loser organization is totally obsessed with suburban districts and, generally speaking, ignoring rural voters. That's a shame, because many rural voters are open an alternative to Trump rubber stamps. Yesterday McClatchy reported that "many of those feeling the greatest pain from tariffs the United States and China have put on $50 billion of goods are rural Trump voters... Family farmers have lost billions in profits as a whole. They hate the tariffs," but many Trump supporters "don’t appear to be jumping ship. At least not yet." Not yet in deep red Missouri-- but in other areas people in the farm economy are figuring just how bad Trump and his policies and his enablers are for them and their families.

Progressive Democrat Audrey Denney has been working with farmers "one at a time," she told us, during her 10 month campaign in rural northeast California (CA-01 an R+11 Trump district that only gave Hillary 36% of its vote), "learning about how the administration's policies are harming them-- and what they need from a Representative. I’m confident a fair amount of the agricultural community will be casting their ballots for our campaign this November."

Yesterday she was endorsed by the conservative editorial board of the Chico Enterprise Record-- which "hasn’t endorsed a Democrat for Congress for decades, probably all the way back to conservative Democrat Buzz Johnson in the 1970s." The editors wrote that they "don’t take the endorsement lightly." This huge rural district, they feel, needs new representation in Washington:

We certainly hope LaMalfa realizes Trump is uninformed when he blames California wildfires on environmentalists and a lack of water. Does LaMalfa really think it would be good to raise Shasta Dam and displace homes, roads and bridges? He has no problem sending more north state water to the San Joaquin Valley at the expense of the delta? He doesn’t realize that Trump’s tariff war with China and other trade partners is hurting farmers right here? Or that Congress’ inability to enact any sort of immigration reform means some north state farmers can’t find workers to help harvest the crop? Or that it’s better to work with our neighbors in the Mexican government to secure our borders than to alienate them? Or that Trump’s racist dog whistles aimed at blacks, Hispanics and Muslims are offensive to people right here in his district?

Last night James Thompson, a progressive Democrat running in the Wichita area of Kansas, told us that "This Halloween, our soybean farmers are not getting any treats but they all are feeling tricked. One ag producer here in the fourth district of Kansas lost $200,000 because of the Trump tariffs, but will only recover $50,000 because of the bailout. Ag producers, particularly family farms, are feeling the effects of the disastrous tariffs. Unfortunately, many will still vote straight line Republican even though they are voting against there own interests in doing so. Fortunately, many in rural communities have had enough and are also crossing the aisle to vote for me. Ag producers, veterans, small business owners, teachers, and seniors should all be voting for Democrats because Republicans are hurting all of them."

Last year, the United States exported about $20 billion of agricultural products to China of which soybeans accounted for more than half of that amount.

Trump’s 25 percent tariffs are mainly aimed at curbing imports from China, but Beijing retaliated with taxes on an equal amount of U.S. products, including soybeans and pork.

Soybean prices fell by about 20 percent after the tariffs were enacted, and have dropped from a high of $10 a bushel to about $8.50 today.

Trump insists he can save American jobs and factories by reworking trade deals. He’s making that case directly to sensitive farmers caught in the crossfire with Beijing during the final campaign stretch largely through corn and soybean country, including two stops in Missouri.

“Don’t forget, we’re the piggybank that everybody wants to steal from,” Trump told farmers attending the Future Farmers of America’s annual convention in Indianapolis on Saturday. “Everybody. We have all the cards, but nobody has ever chosen to use those cards. Honestly, nobody has ever known that we had the cards. They never got it. But we get it now.”

To ease the impact of the tariffs-- and keep the rural vote-- Trump announced a $12 billion bailout for farmers earlier this year. Trump will visit Columbia, Mo., on Thursday and Cape Girardeau next week where he’ll throw his support behind Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley in one of the most hotly contested Senate races. Trump sees the chance to defeat Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill as one of the best opportunities to pick up a key Democratic seat.

But the tariffs are the wild card in this year’s election.

Only 28 percent of Missouri registered voters think the Trump tariffs and barriers to imports will protect American jobs and help the U.S. economy, according to a recent NBC News/Marist poll. Forty-four percent says it will hurt the U.S. economy and raise the cost of consumer goods.

Mix in other factors such as the absence of a farm bill and unpredictable weather-- Missouri experienced a long drought this year-- and farming is a high risk industry. Farm income has dropped more than 50 percent in the last five years, according to the American Farm Bureau.

“So farmers are getting squeezed on both sides,” said Brian Kuehl, executive director of Farmers for Free Trade.

David Keith moved from New Jersey to Racine last year to manage Randy Bryce's congressional campaign. Neither he nor Randy is a farmer or part of the farm economy. David told us that, as an "ironworker who has spent the last 20 years making a living by literally working with his hands Randy feels a kinship with the people who work as hard and are as dedicated to the farmers he's met in the district." David told us that "Randy's seen what extremists' policies do to his bottom line and his ability to get by, take care of his family, and have a shot at staying in the middle class. Randy and the farming community in Southeast Wisconsin know that Washington DC-- Trump included-- is full of bullshit artists who put profit and politics ahead of people... just like Paul Ryan and Bryan Steil. Farmers and all working people alike will be coming together next Tuesday to make history, and elect a regular working person to Washington. All working families will benefit, rural and urban."

Mike Siegel, progressive Democrat challenging reactionary Congressman Michael McCaul in TX-10, told us this afternoon that "The Republicans are testing whether they can motivate rural voters with fear, even while Trump's policies cause the same constituents to go hungry. I am in seven rural counties offering a program of Medicare-for-All, a living wage, and infrastructure investment including high-speed Internet. My opponent, Michael McCaul, wants to talk about a couple thousand refugees who are thousands of miles away and may never even reach the US border. What remains to be seen is whether imaginary enemies are more persuasive than real-life needs. Regardless of the outcome of this election, Texas Democrats will need to continue to conduct rural outreach beyond November 6, to build on the amazing foundation laid by this election cycle. We have put in place relationships and infrastructure that will lead to lasting change in the years ahead, so long as we continue to do the detailed work of showing up, listening, and offering real solutions to the problems of rural America."

Leah Douglas, writing for Mother Jones last month noted how important the traditionally Republican farm vote is for Jess King in southern Pennsylvania. This is family farm country and the GOP hasn't been looking out for their interests.

Her campaign is built on a small army of volunteers who knock on doors, make calls, and engage with voters in person—an old-school effort in an age of PACs and polls. King’s supporters all say the same thing about the candidate: She listens to what people say they need, and builds those needs into her policy priorities. That level of attention is particularly meaningful to local farmers, who feel forgotten by federal policy and neglected by local officials. King is proud that her average campaign donation is $35, and claims that her campaign has mobilized more people than any other Democratic campaign in the district’s history.

The result is something of a local phenomenon. Diane House, a retired teacher who has lived in Lancaster for 30 years and is involved in the local Democratic party, says that there is more excitement for King than for any Democrat who’s ever run for Congress in the area. “She’s there for all of us,” House says. “It’s a kind of Jess movement.”

But the odds of her winning are still long. While Lancaster City, a town of some 60,000, is reliably Democratic, the surrounding rural areas are not. If King is to win, it will require a critical mass of farmers to break with tradition and embrace her upstart candidacy-- a shift that, for many, would be tantamount to assuming a new identity.

...[E]conomic strain has led some farmers to reconsider their vote as the midterms approach. “Farmers are feeling disillusioned with politicians,” says Mike Eby, a local dairy farmer and board chair of the National Dairy Producers Organization. He says they’ve “woken up to the reality” that major agriculture lobbies, and the Republican officials they fund, aren’t always working purely in the interest of the farmer.

“There’s been a lot of propaganda out there for many years” from Republicans who say they represent farmers, he says. “What they actually represent is Big Ag.” The current trend of low prices has driven him and other farmers to “start asking the real questions”-- including why Republicans aren’t challenging corporate control in dairy processing, or why they haven’t backed immigration policies that secure labor for the region’s farmers.

Those questions provide an opening for Jess King, whose candidacy is anything but conventional for Lancaster County. “I love blowing up paradigms as a progressive Mennonite running for Congress,” she said at the October event. A longtime advocate for small-business owners, King often says that both parties have sold out to corporate interests and that she aims to give voice to “average working folks.”

Her agricultural platform calls for stronger antitrust enforcement in the heavily consolidated dairy sector, streamlining agricultural regulations, and providing incentives for conservation efforts like cover cropping and farmland preservation. King says farmers have told her that their top issues are access to healthcare and retaining immigrant workers. Her platform supports a pathway to citizenship for immigrants and Medicare for all.

...Smucker’s agricultural platform leans on policies-- such as repealing the Environmental Protection Agency’s updated scope of the Clean Water Act and providing incentives for landowners to protect endangered species rather than relying on federal regulations-- that can seem out of step with the problems consuming farmers in his district. His platform doesn’t mention either the dairy-price crisis or the broader problem of low commodity prices. None of the 14 bills he has introduced since taking office are related to agricultural production.

The Poor People Who Voted For Trump And For Republicans May Soon Learn What That Means To Their Families

Going into 2017, the Christian Science Monitor reminded its readers that boosting low wages has become less controversial as conservatives looked elsewhere to inflict their deadly ideology on working families. 19 states are about to see a rise in the minimum wage, causing the pay of more than 4 million workers go upon one fell swoop. Conservatives still make the same discredited, utrterly false argument about the minimum wage they’ve been making since the Black Plague decimated the English working class in 1348, prompting King Edward III to set a maximum wage, making it illegal to pay laborers too much. Real minimum wage proposals gained steam in the early 1800s and the first minimum wage laws were passed in 1894 (New Zealand), 1896 (Australia) and 1909 (England). The first national minimum wage law came to the U.S. in 1938, accompanied by predictions of the end of the world by conservative politicians and the businessmen who finance their shameful careers. They were wrong, of course, but that hasn’t discouraged conservatives to roll out the same arguments and baseless scare tactics every time there was an attempt to increase the minimum wage.

Debates surrounding the pros and cons of minimum wage raises have reverberated through society in “Fight for $15” protests and state capitals around the nation. While those on the left have said wage hikes will pull some of the nation’s most vulnerable low-income workers out of poverty, conservatives have argued that increased costs for businesses will hamper the economy and have harmful fallout for the very workers they purpport to help.

But in 2017, several reliably red states will join liberal havens like Massachusetts and California in increasing wages for their workers after voters approved ballot initiatives. In others, indexing will provide the increases.

Altogether some 4.4 million workers are expected to see their hourly wages go up.

In places like Arizona, where voters chose to send President-elect Donald Trump to the Oval Office, they also voted for wage increases, crossing over partisan lines to take on an issue from a more traditionally liberal perspective.

…In cities around the country that set the trend of increasing wages, fears of price shock or businesses losses have proved largely unfounded, with localities seeing little impact on their economies. Still, more conservative state governments, like that in Arizona, are pushing back, with state’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry filing a lawsuit to challenge the increase, which is slated to raise the minimum wage from $8.05 to $10. On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to temporarily block the measure.

Low-wage workers largely have activists to thank for the change, but note there’s still a long way to go. As states and cities move to raise their wages, the contrast between places still abiding by the federal minimum of $7.25 last raised in 2009 becomes more pronounced.

Seattle recently raised the minimum wage-- conservatives were ready to perform the last rights. Instead, standards of living have risen and unemployment rates-- rather than the sky-- have fallen. Take look:

A few days ago, Kali Holloway, demonstrated one of the places conservatives are seeking to harm the working class instead— the food stamps program. Fox News, the far right’s fake news source, is, as usual, the mouthpiece for plutocracy, greed and hatred. “Pathologizing poverty,” she wrote, “has been a long-term, ongoing—and sadly, highly successful—project of the right in this country.” She cites Wisconsin Koch puppet Scott Walker and his recent appeal to Trump to allow his beaten-down state to drug-test food-stamp recipients, as well as another Wisconsinite, Paul Ryan, and his plans to make it harder, nationally, to qualify for aid. As has always been the case with conservatives, “the goal is to punish and stigmatize the poor while eliminating programs that help lift them out of poverty.”

As the el Presidente-elect Señor Trumpanzee made clear in another one of his idiotic tweets yesterday, Fox is the Republican Party’s vision of state TV, something Holloway remarked on as well, reminding her readers it “essentially functions as the media arm of the Republican Party, and on Wednesday it did its part to undermine a program that helps 44 million poor Americans. To that transparent end, an episode of Fox & Friends featured a segment titled, “Food Stamp Fraud at All-Time High: Is It Time to End the Program?” The piece goes on to claim that USDA figures reveal “$70 million of taxpayer money was wasted in 2016 due to food stamp fraud.” Kevin Drum’s response: Fox News Screws Up It’s Latest Lie. Fox’s point was basically a question “Food Stamp Fraud at All-Time High: Is It Time to End the Program?”

Now, the obvious response to this is twofold. First, they're just lying, aren't they? And second, this is like a headline that says, "Traffic Deaths at All-Time High: Should We Ban Cars?"

But at this point the story takes a strange turn. First, I have no idea where Fox's $70 million figure comes from—and I looked pretty hard for it. The Fox graphic attributes it to "2016 USDA," but as near as I can tell the USDA has no numbers for SNAP fraud more recent than 2011.

But that's not all: $70 million is a startlingly low figure. In the most recent fiscal year, SNAP cost $71 billion, which means that fraud accounted for a minuscule 0.098 percent of the program budget. Even if this is an all-time high, the Fox high command can't believe this is anything but a spectacular bureaucratic success.

And it would be, if it were true. But it's not. If you look at inaccurate SNAP payments to states, the error rate since 2005 has decreased from 6 percent of the budget to less than 4 percent. However, this isn't fraud anyway: It's just an error rate, and most of the errors are eventually corrected. SNAP "trafficking"—exchanging SNAP benefits for cash—is fraud, but it's been declining steadily too, from 3.8 percent in 1993 to 1.3 percent in 2011 (the most recent year for which we have records):

So in any normal sense, the Fox story was a lie. SNAP fraud isn't at an all-time high. It's been declining for years. But here's the thing: The fraud rate in 2011 may have been low, but this was in the aftermath of the Great Recession, when total SNAP payments were very high. So although the percentage is low, the dollar value of fraud clocked in at $988 million. Fox could have used this far higher number, which is, in fact, an all-time high. It's only an all-time high because SNAP was helping far more people, but still. In the Fox newsroom, that would hardly matter.

Bottom line: Yes, Fox is lying in any ordinary sense of the word. But they're also vastly understating the amount of SNAP fraud. Even when they're trying to deceive their audience, it turns out, they're also incompetent.

And this is where Paul Ryan comes in. He and the Republicans, as PBS reported recently, have a plan and they are busy laying the groundwork for a fresh effort to “overhaul” the food stamp program during Trump’s presidency, with new work and stricter eligibility requirements for millions of people.

Right-wing freak Mike Conaway (R-TX) is the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and he’s leading Ryan’s jihad against food stamps, although he noted that the GOP doesn’t want to eliminate the program (which would not be in the interests of the agricultural conglomerates that fund Conway’s shady career). Conaway has taken $2,167,352 in legalistic bribes from AgriBusiness. Democrats don’t even run against him in his central Texas district that includes Midland, Odessa and San Angelo. This cycle his only opponent was a Libertarian. Conaway was reelected with 89.5% of the vote. You think that might influence his priorities? Here’s the list of the 10 most corrupt members of the Agriculture Committee with the amounts of legalistic bribery they have taken in the 2016 cycle.

• Mike Conaway (R-TX) $701,773
• Jeff Denham (R-CA) $539,848
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) $484,950
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $467,524
• David Rouzer (R-NC)- $417,831
• Rodney Davis (R-IL) $381,754
• Dan Newhouse- (R-WA) $346,442
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $276,475
• Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)- $256,089
• Rick Crawford (R-AR)- $255,300

Ryan would love to abolish the program entirely, but understands that isn’t going to happen in the real world, at least not in one fell swoop.

Food stamp policy is included in a wide-ranging farm bill every five years; the next one is due in 2018. It also could be part of a larger effort headed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to tackle a welfare or entitlement overhaul, if that should happen in the next Congress.

Still, food stamp changes always have been a hard sell in Congress.

Democrats almost unilaterally oppose any changes. Some Republicans from poorer districts are also wary. The 1996 welfare law added some new work requirements, but Congress declined to convert federal food stamp dollars into block grants for the states, a move that would cut spending for the program.

In 2013, House Republican leaders tried to cut the program by 5 percent annually by passing broad work requirements as part of the last farm bill. The House bill also included drug testing for recipients.

The then-Democratic Senate balked, though, and the final bill included a much smaller cut and no allowances for drug testing. Conaway said he’s open to any of those policies, but suggested that block granting the program — a past priority for Ryan — or drug testing recipients are not his priorities.

“We don’t want to be helping folks on drugs, but then again, folks on drugs have children,” Conaway said.

One thing can be sure, though— for as long as the Republicans control the House: more pain and suffering is headed towards the poor. In the end, isn’t that the heart, the soul and the essence of modern conservatism?

If Fast Track Passes, Anything Attached to a "Trade" Treaty Will Pass

Click image to enlarge; click here to contribute to Russ Feingold and other Blue America candidates

by Gaius Publius

We recently discussed the "Fast Track" method by which Dodd-Frank legislation can be overturned without going through anything like the normal Congressional process. Under Fast Track, "trade" bills cannot be filibustered in the Senate, can't be amended in either house, are subject to limited debate and must receive a simple up-or-down vote.

As Russ Feingold says, it's a rigged process.

The method that could be used to overturn Dodd-Frank — attach the rollback requirement to a "trade" treaty negotiated by the president alone, then fast-track it through Congress — could also be used to move anything though Congress, so long as it can be attached to a trade treaty, even a bilateral one between the U.S. and just one other country. Any other country. Togo. Nauru.

How to Fast-Track a Law You Don't Like

Let's take a hypothetical example. Say some U.S. president receives large campaign contributions from the imported meat industry — that's a pretty big industry, by the way, so they have lots of what it takes to make large contributions with.

Now let's say — in a completely unrelated development — this industry wanted to sweeten CEO income and industry sales by asking the U.S. president to get rid of "country-of-origin labeling" laws (called COOL in the world of acronyms). The thinking goes like this:

• Many countries, like China, have weaker meat inspection laws than the U.S.
   
• That makes their beef and pork cheaper to import and sell.
   
• This means more profit for the importers.
   
• But consumers are suspicious of imported meat, because they know about the inspection problem.
   
• This means less profit for the importers.
   
• So ... just make it illegal to tell people where any meat is from.

How could a future president, who coincidentally supports the profit goals of this industry, get "country-of-origin labeling" laws overturned, almost by executive action? She could add a requirement to any trade treaty that these laws be repealed, then fast-track this treaty through Congress. No amendments, no filibuster, little debate, just an up-or-down vote on the whole treaty. Done deal. All she needs is Fast Track.

Fast Track legislation (so far) always "sunsets" (expires). This one is written to expire in three years, but could be renewed for another three. Simon Johnson thinks if this Fast Track bill passes, its renewal for the full six years is nearly certain; he notes that "terms of renewal are almost automatic."

Six years is a fairly large window within which to make a president queen of all she surveys, so long as she can put it in a "trade" treaty.

Those Country-of-Origin Labeling Laws ... They're Already Gone

Actually I was being playful with my hypothetical "country-of-origin labeling" example. Those laws already exist, and they're already set for repeal because of the trade treaty that established the WTO. From Food Safety News:

WTO Rejects U.S. Appeal of COOL Ruling

The World Trade Organization has rejected a U.S. appeal of its decision that country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on meat unfairly discriminates against meat imports and give the advantage to domestic meat products.

The final ruling launches a WTO process to determine the level of retaliatory tariffs Canada and Mexico can impose on the U.S., and the U.S. will have to revise or repeal the COOL law in order to avoid such sanctions. Opponents of COOL are hoping for a swift repeal, while proponents are saying it’s not yet time to act.

The WTO report released in October was the second time that body has ruled against the U.S. in the dispute. After passing mandatory COOL rules in 2008, the U.S. amended COOL in 2012 following an earlier WTO ruling against it.

Last November, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack told the 2014 National Association of Farm Broadcasting convention that there is no additional regulatory fix for COOL that would be consistent with U.S. law as it exists and would also satisfy the WTO.

According to Politico (no link; subscription required):

The WTO announced Monday morning that its seven-member Appellate Body found that a previous panel — investigating whether the U.S. had implemented a 2012 ruling on COOL — was mostly correct in its finding that the regulations give United States livestock producers an unfair advantage over producers from Canada and Mexico when it comes to doing business in the United States by imposing extra costs associated with separating animals. ...

Geneva, Canada and Mexico will most likely act quickly to ask that arbitrators work to determine how much they can retaliate based on their losses, most likely by raising tariffs. A panel would then have 60 days to set the amount, though the two sides will likely discuss a settlement to preclude that from happening.

That means the United States has at least two months to determine its next course of action. However, for his part, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway said he is “not interested in waiting on the next step.”

Conaway said last week he plans to introduce a bill soon after the ruling to do away with USDA’s COOL requirements for beef, pork and poultry, saying he will introduce it “just as quickly as we can to get it out of legislative counsel.”

Domestic meat suppliers want the laws in place, but importers don't and Congress is eager to respond to the WTO requirement — all in the name of "free" trade. This is what critics like Elizabeth Warren mean when they talk about "loss of sovereignty." Repeal of these laws could happen before Memorial Day, according to the rest of the article. Who said DC was gridlocked?

Anti-TPP Rep. Mark Pocan's statement in response (my emphasis):

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (WI-02) issued the following statement on today¹s final ruling by the World Trade Organization (WTO) against a popular U.S. country-of-origin meat labeling (COOL) policy, which requires labeling of pork and beef sold in the United States to inform consumers the country in which the animals were born, raised and slaughtered:

“Today's ruling is a clear example of how bad trade agreements hurt America's sovereignty and weaken consumer and environmental policies enacted to protect our health and well-being. From the roll back of U.S. Clean Air Act regulations to altered auto fuel efficiency standards and even possible changes to our financial regulations, bad trade deals negotiated in secret have consistently shown why it is important to get trade agreements done right, not fast.

“With the Trans-Pacific Partnership encompassing more than 40 percent of the world¹s economy we have to get it right and ensure we do not put the health and safety of the American people at risk. Congress should not grant fast track authority and rubber stamp the largest trade deal since NAFTA, when we don¹t know enough about the TPP and its potential consequences on our communities.”

The COOL policy was created when Congress enacted mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat in the 2008 farm bill and was signed in to law by President George W. Bush. Today’s ruling is not subject to further appeal.

"Today's ruling is not subject to further appeal," not in a U.S. court nor in any appeals court higher than the WTO. This could happen to any law attached to any trade treaty under Fast Track.



And lest we forget, recall where the original example got started — with the hypothetical push-for-profit of some industry leaders and their ability to ... "discuss" their concerns with the president ahead of a trade deal.

GP

But What About Fracking, Governor Brown?

That much water gets you half a glass of oil (image source)

by Gaius Publius

As regular readers know, I've been on about California water lately — in particular, the drought, the rationing and the so-called "free" market way of dealing with it. In general, we're in favor of government-mandated rationing here at La Maison chez nous, but rationing for all, not just for the plebs. With that in mind, note this (my emphasis throughout):

What About Fracking, Governor Brown?

When Californian Governor Jerry Brown announced wide ranging water restrictions for California last week, the news went global.

The headlines reported how this was the first time in California’s history that such drastic measures had been introduced. And here was a Governor who was prepared to tackle the devastating four-year drought head on. ...

It was all very choreographed. Brown’s press conference took place on a barren, brown slope in the Sierra Nevada mountains, where snow fall is a record low levels.

And it is not just the snow which has gone. The whole state is in the middle of its worst drought for centuries. There is no end in sight, with scientists warning the region may be entering a “mega-drought” which could last for decades.

“Today, we are standing on dry grass where there should be five feet (1.5 meters) of snow,” Brown said. “This historic drought demands unprecedented action …  As Californians, we must pull together and save water in every way possible.”

What Brown proposed was unprecedented, in that he was attempting to reduce water usage across urban California by twenty five per cent.

That was the good news, the emergency-recognizing mandate. But what about saving water "in every way possible"? Not so much:

But his plan is flawed in that it does not “save water in every way possible”. The main focus of Brown’s water reduction plan is to reduce urban water usage. He did not mention the state’s guzzling fracking industry and the even more water-hungry agricultural sector.

"Did not mention" means "put no restrictions on." Common Dreams: "Brown’s mandate, announced Wednesday, directs cities and communities to cut down their water consumption by 25 percent, but does not make any requirements of the state’s numerous oil companies, including those which practice the water-heavy fracking method of extraction, nor of large-scale farming operations."

Fracking means Big Oil, like Occidental Petroleum and the like. Agriculture means millionaire growers and, increasingly, billionaire bankers. Let's look at them one by one.

Is Brown Transferring Urban Water to Millionaire Bankers and Growers?

As we noted earlier, agriculture consumes "80 percent of California’s developed water but account[s] for only 2 percent of the state’s GDP." Why do growers consume so much water? Because money. Because, for example, wealthy almond growers are making a killing exporting the state's water (via almond shipments) so they can be even more wealthy. And wealth tends to own the political process, even in California.

That's Nuts: Almond Boom Strains California Water Supply

Asia’s love of nuts is draining California dry.

Amid one of the worst droughts in the state’s history, farmers are scrambling to find enough water to irrigate lucrative almond trees they planted after abandoning other, less thirsty crops.

Why’s there such a market for California nuts? As incomes in countries such as China, South Korea, and India have risen, so has demand for nuts that formerly were out of reach for many Asians. Added to the mix are Wall Street firms who, smelling a quick buck, are paying top dollar for vegetable farms and converting them to orchards....

In 2011, almonds surpassed grapes as California’s second largest agricultural product, and the crop “now attracts more money per acre than any other type of parcel in California's Central Valley," Heather Davis, the senior managing director for global private markets at financial services firm TIAA-CREF, explained in an August 2013 investment note.

The firm, which has $569 billion under management, did not own a single farm before 2007. Today it owns more than 500, including 35,000 acres in California as of 2012, and is one of the top five almond producers in the world. The nuts, Davis wrote, are an "attractive long-term investment theme."

So to my question above, Is Brown transferring urban water to millionaire bankers and growers? — the answer, of course, is yes. The LA Times:

Standing in a brown field that would normally be smothered in several feet of snow, Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday ordered cities and towns across California to cut water use by 25% as part of a sweeping set of mandatory drought restrictions, the first in state history. ...

The order focused on urban life even though agriculture accounts for roughly three quarters of Californians' water usage. Cities have to stop watering the median strips that run down the middle of roads. The state will partner with local agencies to remove 50 million square feet of grass — the equivalent of about 1,150 football fields — and replace it with drought-tolerant landscaping.

State agencies will create a temporary rebate program to encourage homeowners to replace water-guzzling appliances with high-efficiency ones. Golf courses, campuses and cemeteries must cut their water use. New developments will have to install drip or microspray systems if they irrigate with drinking water. Water agencies will discourage water waste with higher rates and fees.

The order aims to reduce the amount of water used statewide in urban areas in 2013 by 25%.

You don't have to care that agriculture is drinking up urban water savings. California residents will do that for you; they will care, and care increasingly. This is what happens when the rich break the social contract. It breaks for everyone else as well.

What About Fracking, Governor Brown?

Fracking, like almond-growing, is also notoriously thirsty. Just one example:

“At the height of California oil production in 1985, oil companies in Kern County pumped 1.1 billion barrels of water underground to extract 256 million barrels of oil—a ratio of roughly four and a half barrels of water for every barrel of oil,” according to Miller. “In 2008, Kern producers injected nearly 1.3 billion barrels of water to extract 162 million barrels of oil—a ratio of nearly eight barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.”

Again, by that measure, the ratio is eight to one — eight barrels of water produces one barrel of oil. Whom does fracking benefit? The owners of Big Oil:

Clean Water Action has the scoop on which companies have the biggest stakes in the Monterey [California] Shale [oil fields]:

Occidental Corporation (Oxy) is the largest holder of land/mineral rights in California, holding rights to drill over 1.6 million acres of land in the Monterey Shale. In a presentation to shareholders in 2010, Oxy officials stated that “in 10 years, California shale could become Oxy’s largest business unit.”

Venoco Inc. has one of the largest stakes in the Monterey Shale with rights to drill in over 300,000 acres. There are more than 10 billion barrels of oil available for extraction at its current sites. In its 2011 report to shareholders, the company stated that it continues to expand its onshore Monterey acreage lease holdings across three basins: Santa Maria, Salinas Valley, and San Joaquin (which includes the Sevier discovery). ...

And so on. Why does fracking, like big agriculture, get a pass? Maybe this is the reason:

The oil and gas industry gives millions of dollars to California’s elected officials to ensure their interests are served in Sacramento. Governor Brown is one of these recipients, having accepted at least $2,014,570.22 [$2 million] from fossil fuel interests since his race for Attorney General in 2006.

As the public awakens to the dangers of fracking in California, the fossil fuel industry is spending as much money as it takes to protect their dirty interests. Billions of barrels of untapped oil are sitting in the Monterey Shale and Big Oil is pushing to make sure it all stays on the table.

State campaign finance laws prohibit any company or individual from contributing more than $27,200 per candidate, per election — but many of these companies have found loopholes that let them flood the system with their petro-dollars, making sure our elected leaders, and Governor Brown in particular, protect their interests.

The fossil fuel corporations and associated industries at the top of the dirty money pile include: Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Southern California Edison, Valero Energy, Tesoro Corp, Plains Exploration and Production, Venoco, Conoco Phillips, and Aera Energy (owned jointly by Shell and ExxonMobil). 

So the opening question comes back at the bottom: So what about fracking, Governor Brown? And what about agriculture as well? It's not just us asking, we in the nation waiting our turn. It's your own residents, on whom you're putting the squeeze so ... it has to be said this way ... wealth can be served. The tighter the squeeze, the more urgently the question will be asked. The Social Contract, the glue that holds a society cooperatively together, can be bent, but only so far. At some point it breaks.

When the Social Contract Breaks from Above, It Breaks from Below As Well

This has been a theme of mine for years, but it's never not true. When the wealthy strip-mine a nation this thoroughly, the residents rebel, and they don't always rebel "pretty." In fact, rebellion is pretty ugly stuff. No one, certainly not I, wants to live through this:

When the Social Contract breaks from above,
it breaks from below as well

But it's not my choice to stop the predation; it's someone else's. Governor Brown could start the ball rolling in the other direction — the populist one — by recognizing the needs of all the people, not just those with money. After all, constantly bowing to money is almost trite these days, isn't it?

GP