Happy Holidays from My Rural America

Dear Friends,

I hope this holiday season finds you -- and those most important to you -- healthy, happy, and filled with hope for the year ahead. 2009 can be expected to be a very challenging time, but where there is change, there is always opportunity.

Thanks too for all your work in 2008. Sharing the facts about progressive policies and the candidates who support them will continue to be an important part of My Rural America's mission in 2009, as we build upon the work we did in 2008.

At My Rural America, we consider ourselves blessed by your friendship and wish for you, our country and the world the very best. One of our readers sent the attached “Christmas Wish” … which offers many reasons to count our blessings during these challenging times, and we've chosen to share it with you even though we don't know the original author. If one of you do, please let us know and we will give appropriate credit.

Thanks for all that you do.

Barbara Leach
President

A Perfect Pick! Vilsack goes to Washington

MY RURAL AMERICA's Media Release: TOM VILSACK ... A Perfect Pick!

(Washington, DC - December 17, 2008) Former Iowa farmer and Clinton administration U.S. Department of Agriculture appointee today called President-elect Obama’s selection of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack for Agriculture Secretary a “perfect pick.”

“As a progressive farm state governor who has led Iowa in renewable energy production, I’m confident Tom is the perfect pick for the job,” said Barbara Leach. “Like Obama, he’s committed to making this nation energy independent.” Leach, who led a USDA project that resulted in U.S. farmers saving $400 million on the cost of Federal Crop Insurance, said, “I’ve known Tom Vilsack for years, so I know first hand that Tom understands farmers, farm policy and food politics."

“What Vilsack brings first to the world of agriculture is gravitas,” added Leach, who currently is the founder and president of My Rural America, a 501(c)4 advocacy group that offers education on progressive policymaking and leadership training for rural Americans who want to learn about how national policy-making affects their families’ daily lives. “He’s got great experience and will be an equal among all the highly qualified people that President-elect Obama is putting together for his Cabinet.”

"President-elect Obama’s selection of Vilsack demonstrates that he is serious about his campaign commitments for rural development and the need for a safe and affordable food production system, including the greening of agriculture production,” concluded Leach.

FACTS YOU CAN USE -- Cultivating the Best Choice for Secretary of Agriculture

Washington and rural America are buzzing about who President-Elect Obama will name as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Will the person be a current Member of Congress, a current or past Governor, (elected) State Secretary or (an appointed) State Director of Agriculture? There is even speculation about the political party of the person to be named with some believing that USDA will be the place for a Republican member of the Obama Cabinet to emerge. Others, of course, are suggesting individuals who would re-open the Farm Bill and shift the emphasis of many USDA programs. The questions within the Obama camp seem to align around whether it is better to name a person from Midwest production agriculture, a person from the Northeast with experience in dairy, someone from sustainable agriculture, or a reformer with strong ideas around future agriculture programs and landscape for the United States.

My Rural America is following this debate as it leaks out into the national and agriculture press and rumors circulate in Washington, and has made the decision to stay neutral in President-Elect Obama's selection process. However, we do recognize how important it is that our next Secretary, and his or her Deputy Secretary, understand the breadth and depth of the job that they must perform on a domestic and global basis. MRA believes that sometimes there is need for more understanding about the numerous responsibilities of USDA on the domestic and global stage and also within the U.S. government, with all factors contributing to many aspects of our nation's economy.

So what are some of the important personal responsibilities of the Secretary of Agriculture? We believe it necessary that our next Secretary and also the Deputy Secretary have a familiarity, if not expertise, in most or all areas of USDA's responsibilities, including the following:

o Farm and Agriculture: Loans, conservation programs, commodity programs;
o Foreign Agriculture: Exports, imports, international trade negotiations such as the current DOHA Round and maintaining the agriculture attaches work on issues worldwide;
o Marketing and Grading Programs: For everything from cotton to dairy, and their interaction with other parts of the USDA;
o Feeding Programs to Enhance Nutritional Well-being of all Americans: School Lunch and especially for the less fortunate via administration of the newly named Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (now "SNAP", formerly "Food Stamps"), Women’s Infants and Children’s Program (WIC), and feeding programs for the elderly♦ and emergencies;
o Human Food Safety: For meat, poultry and egg products, and animal and plant health and safety, and capabilities to deter bioterrorism and other criminal contamination of the food supply, and to respond to them should they ever occur;
o Rural Development: Expansion of broadband Internet access, telephones, electric and funding for economic projects offering specific opportunities to rural U.S. citizens, their communities and their businesses;
o Care of our nation's natural resources: Land conservation, forests and waters, and the general environment of rural America.
o Research: USDA performs more basic and applied agricultural, biological, animal and nutritional research than any other entity in the world through its national network of laboratories, its competitive grants programs and general support of the land grant university and extension program first established by President Lincoln;
o Understanding and Balancing New Scientific and Agricultural Developments: For altering plants and animals to create products of biotechnology and transgenic animals, as well as for the fastest growing area of American agriculture – organic agriculture - will be critical; and;
o U.S. General Economy and Markets: Assistance with understanding the economic, price and market research that help keep a safe and dependable supply of food and beverages flowing to U.S. citizens as well as earning export dollars for our trade balance.

Our next Secretary of Agriculture needs to provide balance, relating closely to small farmers and family farmers, while serving as their advocate. At the same time, our next Secretary will need to deal fairly with production agriculture producers and corporate agriculture, while working to ensure accurate information reaches the commodity markets in an appropriate manner, and overall, representing U.S. interests at international negotiations on world trade agreements that impact the entire world’s environment.

USDA's Secretary must do all of this while working with the Deputy Secretary and the Agriculture Sub-Cabinet, i.e., the Under Secretaries of the seven mission areas of USDA, to administer over $100 billion allocated by the U.S. Congress and to manage more than 100,000 full-time federal employees of varying skills and training – for instance, the largest contingent of veterinarians working for a single entity in the world; Ph.D. scientists performing basic and applied research; dietitians working to improve the health of the U.S. population; and on-farm experts who can help farmers problem solve while growing everything from sesame seeds to soybeans and other major commodities to goats, cattle, hogs and chickens.

The United States and the World need a well informed, experienced individual with great interpersonal skills to work with everyone, including the smallest of local farmer/food producers to the diplomats of the developing world and the European Union. My Rural America hopes that President-Elect Obama will appoint such a person as Secretary for USDA. We urge you, a supporter of MRA, to keep these factors and qualifications in mind should you choose to endorse a candidate for Secretary of Agriculture for the United States. Our next Secretary of Agriculture must bring stature, experience and also a sense of compassion for all the people our great agriculture industry serves at home and abroad. Caren Wilcox -- Advisor to My Rural America

Our Latest Radio Ad

Check the Record Here

Wondering how your Members of Congress have voted on key rural economic issues? Use these websites to check on the following issues and more:

Veterans' Report Card, sponsored by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Pay special attention to the votes for the New GI Bill, because it is just a bit tricky to tell whether your Representative voted for it. The Bill itself is quite simple, authorizing our Afghan and Iraq war veterans as eligible to receive the same kind of educational benefits our WWII veterans. There are three votes, and to see which members tried to stop the bill, look down the column to the first two votes.

Project Vote Smart, like IAVA, is a non-partisan organizationdedicated to accurate information about how elected officials in Congress vote. We recomment you check the following votes:

• Agriculture -- Farm Bill. Look closely -- there are four votes and if your concern is that the bill President Bush vetoed is too expensive, start your analysis at 7-27-2007 because this vote shows the less expensive original Farm Bill.
• Health -- Farm Bill; Medicare; Medicaid; State Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization.
• Women's issues -- Unequal Pay Bill.
• Seniors -- Medicare; Medicaid; GI Bill Expansion and Other Domestic Provisions
• Energy -- Renewable Energy; Commodity Markets Speculation.

Obama? McCain? check the record on their rural policy proposals below. Note that McCain, like President Bush opposed the Farm Bill, and Obama supported it. Their policy proposals can be found below on their campaign websites.

Three key differences in their policy proposals are:

1. Ethanol and Energy Renewable Research -- McCain opposes; Obama supports.
2. Farm Bill in general -- McCain opposes; Obama supports.
3. Health Care -- McCain opposes SCHIP and Obama supports

McCain: RURAL

Obama: RURAL

You can also continue scrolling down this page for more information on various substantive "bread & butter" issues that affect rural families.

SCHIP... How To Find Out if Your Member of Congress Supported the Kids

Remember SCHIP? State Children's Health Insurance Program. One-third of all rural children depend upon SCHIP and Medicaid for their health care services. That's six points higher than the rate of enrollment for city kids.

We wrote about SCHIP in 2007 and then again throughout much of this year, as the majority in the House and the Senate supported it, President Bush vetoed twice, and; the House fought diligently (and failed) to over-ride the Bush vetoes. The Carsey Institute has more data about the program.

152 Members of Congress worked diligently to stop our rural children from accessing health care. All too many of these were self-identified proud conservatives who represented rural districts and quite simply, had no shame in their neglect of rural children.

Steve King (R IA-5) who was identified this week as one of the eleven worst members of Congress, in tandem with Virgil Goode (R VA-5) who doesn't have such a hot record himself as he so conveniently failed to vote for even the Farm Bill are two examples of those who neglected their District's children. King's CD is 49.4% rural and Goode's CD is 64% rural. Yet, their voting records look like they haven't even noticed.

Project Vote Smart identified King and Goode's twin voting records as follows:

• NO 1/23/08 SCHIP Reauthorization Act of 2007 Veto Over-ride Failed House 260-152
• NO 10/25/07 SCHIP Reauthorization HR 3963 Bill Passed House 365 -142
• NO 10/18/07 SCHIP Reauthorization HR 976 Bill Veto Over-ride Failed House 273-156
• NO 9/25/07 SCHIP Reauthorization HR 976 Concurrance Vote Passed House 265-159
• NO 8/1/07 State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) HR 3162 Bill Passed House 225-204
  

We've made an example out of Steve King and Virgil Goode because they've consistently failed to vote their District, but we urge you to go to Project Vote Smart and check on your own Representative and Senators ... make sure they did the right thing. In the case of King and Goode, all four of the Senators (Tom Harkin (D IA), Chuck Grassley (R IA), John Warner (R VA) and Jim Webb (D VA) from their home states laid partisanship aside for the good of the children.

PROJECT VOTE SMART

"Sound Ag Policy Vital in This Presidential Race"

Iowa Corn Growers Association President Gary Edwards spoke very clearly today, "It is not our job to tell you who you should vote for or what party you should follow, but it is our duty to stand up to promote the interests of Iowa corn growers, Iowa consumers and their future."

At My Rural America, we believe the same -- very specifically believing that it isn't our job to tell you who you should vote for. However, regarding our nation's policies, we have a little broader outlook, i.e., we believe it is our duty to stand up to promote the interests of rural Americans and their future. We don't endorse candidates here but we do present the voting records while we open the door to ways you can easily access more detailed information. We define "interests of rural Americans" as policies that affect the kitchen tables of rural families. These include :

• Jobs and the economy, including Farm Bill, where we have supported the Farm Bill and watched carefully over what Congress is doing to get our economy back on track and to keep our nation's credit from drying up;
• Health care and education, recognizing that both are necessary if our families are to be strong, resulting in our ongoing effort to support SCHIP, eliminate the doughnut hole in the prescription drug program and offer affordable health care for all;
• National security, where we have consistently shared facts on how rural America is carrying an undue burden as our nation fights the Afghan War and continues the Iraq occupation.

That's why Friday we posted a detailed story about the New GI Bill and who really made it happen, including emphasis on who opposed it, in many cases who actually worked deliberately to stop the Bill. We chose this as our first priority issue to emphasize in the coming weeks because rural citizens make up about 20 percent of U.S. population while our sons and daughters compose about 60 percent of the soldiers serving in these military actions. This undue burden that rural families have carried, and continue to carry, for more than five years is a serious one for our soldiers and our country. We believe that at a minimum we owe a strong package of benefits for those who return home. By scrolling down just past this blog, you can read more detail about The New GI Bill, and also learn more about how to find out the details of your representatives' record on the New GI Bill and other military-related policies.

Another priority issue for My Rural America is the Farm Bill. Consequently, for the first time ever, we are sharing a press release verbatim as it was written by the contributing organization:

DES MOINES, IOWA, October 17, 2008 - The Iowa Corn Growers Association voiced concern over recent public statements and positions that do not support sound agricultural policy in this Presidential race. The ICGA believes Iowa voters should understand the potential impact to Iowa's economy and overall ag stability on those positions.

"It is not our job to tell you who you should vote for or what party you should follow," said Gary Edwards, president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association "but it is our duty to stand up to promote the interests of Iowa corn growers, Iowa consumers, and their future."

"In our current economic crunch, the importance of agriculture has never been more obvious." Said Edwards. "Iowa currently has 640 million in cash reserves due to our strong ag industry, not to mention that ethanol has reduced our dependence on foreign oil, lowered gas prices at the pump, stimulated rural America, created millions of green jobs, and lowered federal farm program costs by billions."

According to the US Department of Agriculture, the ethanol industry added nearly 48 billion dollars to the nation's GDP and generated 4.6 billion in federal tax revenues. The production and use of ethanol just last year, cut oil imports by 228 million barrels as a savings of over $16 billion.

"Change is a theme for both presidential campaigns and no matter what happens this November, there will be a change. What we need to do for our corn grower members is to make sure the new President understands the importance of agriculture and agricultural products."

Current Iowa Corn
Growers Association policy positions include:

* Energy Policy: As the first environmentalists, Iowa's corn growers have worked to build market demand for our current viable source for energy independence. The ICGA supports the continuation of the 45 cent per gallon blenders' credit for ethanol, the 54 cent per gallon ethanol import tariff, the federal Renewable Fuels Standard, and other tax incentives for ethanol (such as E85) that will reduce prices at the pump for consumers.

* Farm Bill: In the farm bill, the ICGA supports a safety net for farmers that is based on revenue and not price, which supports production and market demand. ICGA policy supports farm policy that is trade compliant and supports strong conservation programs that protect our environment. ICGA also supports a crop insurance program at rate levels sufficient to induce crop insurance and designed to avoid the need for disaster assistance.

Current Presidential positions include:
Farm Policy
* McCain*: Opposes agricultural subsidies and has stated he would have vetoed the 2008 Farm Bill. Supports trade compliance.
* Obama*: Pledges to support a strong safety net for farmers. Supports crop revenue insurance program and voted for the 2008 Farm Bill. Pledges to support a permanent mechanism to encourage wide use of crop insurance.
Energy
* McCain*: Opposes tariffs and price supports for ethanol. Signed a letter urging the EPA to exercise its authority to waive the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). His presidential platform calls for an end to the RFS.
* Obama*: Pledges to continue the 45 cent blenders' tax credit and maintain the 54 cent tariff on ethanol. Pledges to increase the RFS to 60 million gallons by 2030. Pledges to support maximum funding for the Department of Energy's alternative fuels program, with a focus on E85.

* For a complete listing of the candidates positions see the attached report
card or visit www.iowacorn.org

###

The ICGA is a membership organization, lobbying on agricultural issues on behalf of its over 6,000 members. ICGA Presidential report card information is based on information gathered from the candidates. Both parties were given equal opportunity to respond to the ICGA survey questions.

Find Out Who Really Supports Our Troops

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has a 2008 Veterans Report Card on line -- interesting because it clearly details this year's votes on issues affecting our veterans, and when you read carefully, it also offers clear documentation about who repeatedly tried to stop support for our veterans and then worked to hide their original votes, i.e., voted against it before they voted for it.

2008 Veterans Report Card

For example, click into your Representative's votes on Senator Jim Webb's New GI Bill, that received strong support in the Senate on the first try, but in the US House took three votes to get it right.

We don't have space to detail every single Member of Congress here on our web page, but you'll find them by clicking Report Card. Then look carefully at the votes because the "grade" that IAVA gives them is sometimes deceiving. For example, we looked at Representative Steve King (R-IA5). King gets a CHECKMARK for voting to support a New GI Bill -- and voting for the New GI Bill is good. However, look more carefully, and you'll see that the documentation actually says:

• A New GI Bill (2nd Vote) YEA 6/19/08 ... (good vote) ... but below it are two more votes
• A Second Rate GI Bill YEA 5/23/08 ... (bad vote) ... and continuing
• A New GI Bill (1st Vote) NEA 5/15/08 ... (bad vote).
  

So yup!! Caught in the act! What King did was try to stop (5/15) the good bill, i.e., the bill supported by IAVA and then he voted (5/23) to support a bill that had much weaker benefits for our vets. Finally, he faced the reality that the Senate had voted consistently to support the New GI Bill so he voted yes when the bill was going to pass in spite of his effort.

In contrast to King's opposition and later "pile on", Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) was consistent in his position, voting twice to support the New GI Bill and also acting as a co-sponsor.

A few notes of caution: Steve King stood with some pretty strong company since he supported both President Bush and Senator John McCain as they opposed the New GI Bill, and both Bush and McCain did all they could to make it a party line vote. However, a quick look at the states of Virginia and Pennsylvania show that some Members and also Senator Barack Obama really did put our soldiers first as they reached across party lines. See below for examples:

VIRGINIA
Voting Consistently YES! Senator John W. Warner (R-VA) and Senator James H. Webb (D-VA) ... each with four consistent votes for Webb's New GI Bill ... were joined by Virginia's three Democratic House members: Robert C. Scott (VA-3); Jim Moran (VA-8) and Rick Boucher (VA-9).

Hiding their vote as they voted NO and NO and finally along-for-the-ride yes! Robert Wittman (VA-1); Thelma Drake (VA-2); J. Randy Forbes (VA-4); Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (VA-5); Bob Goodlatte (VA-6); Eric Cantor (VA-7); Frank R. Wolf (VA-10), and; Tom Davis (VA-11).

PENNSYLVANIA
Votiing consistently YES! Senator's Arlen Specter (R) and Robert P. Casey (D) stood together for our veterans, too, and in the House, the IAVA website gives two Republican House members credit for doing what right, with Phil English (PA-3) and Jim Gerlach (PA-6) getting"A" ratings for their commitment to veterans. And Democrats Robert A. Brady (PA1), Jason Altmire (PA4), Joe Sestak (PA-7), Patrick J. Murphy (PA 8); Christopher P. Carney (PA-10), Allyson Y Schwartz (PA-13), and Tim Holden (PA-17) got it right, each receiving "A+" ratings from IAVA.

Hiding their vote as they voted NO and NO and finally along-for-the-ride yes! All other PA members split with their Senators and opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' much needed New GI Bill.

See for yourself (all states) at IAVA Report Card.

Agriculture/Food/Rural Policy Platforms of the Presidential Candidates

On October 7, the Farm Foundation utilized their monthly Farm Foundation Forum to host representatives from the Obama and McCain campaigns. Their assignment was to talk about food, agriculture and rural policy in their respective campaigns.

The event -- held at the National Press Club, featured James C. Webster, an Obama Agriculture Advisory Committee member and former USDA Secretary Block, who represented the McCain Campaign. You can listen to the forum at: http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles

Originally from South Dakota, Mr. Webster recently retired as the author and founder of the Webster Ag-Letter, a well respected news letter that has documented agriculture, food and rural development policy-making in the US Congress and the Department of Agriculture.

John Block, originally from Illinois, served as Secretary of Agriculture under President Ronald Reagan.

The Farm Foundation, a publicly supported 501 (c)(3), is directed by a Board of Trustees comprised of leaders in production agriculture, related businesses and academia.

Hard Questions About Patriotism and Taxes

Thomas L. Friedman asks a tough question in his 10/8/08 column for the NY Times. Essentially, his question is: Can you love your country but be unwilling to pay the taxes that run it? ... or to put it another way, is it better to borrow money from China to buy the things you want ... or is it better to admit up front that government actions, whether its war-making or road-making takes money ... and money comes (usually) from taxes.

You could call this a conundrum or maybe a Catch 22, but overall, one just has to wonder how anyone running for a major office -- in this case Governor Sarah Palin -- can so lightly throw away all the good things that are paid for by taxes in this country. Here's the way Friedman framed his question:

"Criticizing Sarah Palin is truly shooting fish in a barrel. But given the huge attention she is getting, you can't just ignore what she has to say. And there was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: 'You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic.'"

And wisely, Friedman answered her comment/his question, saying, "Sorry, I grew up in a very middle-class family in a very middle-class suburb of Minneapolis, and my parents taught me that paying taxes, while certainly no fun, was how we paid for the police and the Army, our public universities and local schools, scientific research and Medicare for the elderly. No one said it better than Oliver Wendell Holmes: "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." Read more here.

So ... we're in the middle of an economic mess and Palin thinks it's better to borrow money from China than for us all to actually pay for what we want our government to do. Well, that lines up with how she and McCain would rather drill for oil -- note here that the U.S. only has five percent of the world's oil -- than invest in technology that over time will put the U.S. on the road to energy independence. More detail is available in "Palin's Kind of Patriotism" by Friedman.

What Farm Leaders Are Saying ...

Jerry Hagstrom, National Journal Ag Reporter, has reported that John McCain's strong opposition to the Farm Bill is still impacting how farm leaders think of McCain.

We're not surprised since we still remember that McCain went to Iowa to proudly urge the President to veto the Farm Bill, and more recently chose Independence, MO to wave the flag of opposition against ethanol and this country's path to energy independence.

Here's what some of the farm leaders are saying:

• Senator Kent Conrad: "... (McCain) has opposed the economic interests of those of us living in rural America."
• House Ag Committee Chair Collin Peterson, "He (McCain) lacks any clear knowledge or understanding about how agriculture in this country works."
• Senate Ag Committee Chair Tom Harkin, "The majority of this farm income safety net has nothing to do with holding up the price of farm commodities and thus the price consumers pay for food."

Meanwhile, House AG Committee Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte refused to comment, and Senate Ag Committee Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss has promised to teach Senator McCain all about agriculture later, i.e., next year.

We think "next year" is going to be a little late.

Economic Pressures and Health Care

We were watching last night's debate, and we "betcha" you were, too. One key difference between McCain and Obama is on health care, so for easy clarification, we recommend re-watching YouTube's "McCain Obama Differ Dramatically on Health Care."

Once you watch, a more substantive view has been offered by Paul Krugman in his recent column "Health Care Destruction" in the 10/6/08 New York Times. The column really is must reading, but Krugman's closing line is particularly scary as he says, "I agree: the McCain plan would do for health care what deregulations has done for banking. And I'm terrified." Read more here.

Count us as terrified, too.

McCain Picks Missouri to Once Again Turn His Back to Rural America

John McCain in Independence, MO this morning:

“And my administration will reduce the price of food by eliminating the subsidies for ethanol and agricultural goods. These subsidies inflate the price of food, not only for Americans but for people in poverty across the world, and I propose to abolish them.”

Lesson's Not Learned -- FDR had the solution. Can our Congress Remember?

Remember the great credit crunch of the 1980's? That was when we in the farm states got a really bad taste of our own Depression. It was called the Farm Crisis. The scars of that crisis still remain on our land ... on people's faces and along the roadsides where the empty barns and empty farmsteads still tell the story.

You may also remember the Great Depression? That was an even bigger credit crunch. Whether the depression or the 1980's credit crunch, both bear great lessons for Congress, the President and Treasury Secretary Paulson.

The lesson we were supposed to have learned as Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) pulled our country out of the Great Depression has been described in detail by South Carolina candidate for Congress (1st CD) Linda Ketner on her website. Here's how she explains the problem ... a problem that is also happening now:

"To understand the cause of this problem, we have to go back to the years leading up to the Great Depression of 1929, when: There were no walls between banks and the stock market. Credit was cheap and people were allowed to borrow money from the banks and then risk it in the stock market – and they did. Everyday people were playing the stock market and even banks were doing it with depositors’ money. It was the roaring 20’s and people were getting rich right and left. Stocks began to fall in October ‘29, banks began to call in loans because the value of the stocks dropped and no longer covered the loan amount. People couldn’t make payments so they defaulted on the loans. Because banks had been borrowing money to invest as well, their portfolio plummeted. When people came to get their money out of the banks (i.e., when there was a run on the banks), they didn’t have the cash and closed. Does any of this sound familiar?

"In 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt was elected President, he said that in order to protect ourselves “against money lenders and unchecked and unregulated Wall Street gamblers” – and to prevent the possibility of another depression, we needed to supervise and separate:

1. Banks
2. Securities
   
3. Companies and Insurance Companies.

"The Glass Stegall Act was the response and there was a clear separation of: BANKS, which were to be the guardians of public money. Low risk. Low reward. Safe. Federally insured with taxpayers dollars. And banks could not risk other people’s money in the stock market.SECURITIES for those who wanted to speculate in the market, but could not do so with other people’s money. Glass Stegall said they needed transparency, anti-trust laws, and accounting standards so that a Depression would never happen again.INSURANCE companies were the third arm that Glass Stegall separated to make sure a bank failure, or stock drop, would never risk the public’s health and property.

"Does any of this sound familiar?

"Through Democrat and Republican administrations, these protections endured (despite chipping away which started in the 80’s), until 1999 when the walls, boundaries, and safeguards came down with the Gramm, Leach, Blilly or Banking Modernization Act. "Soon these institutions became self-regulating.

"Citibank bought Travelers Insurance and Smith Barney and became Citigroup. J.P. Morgan bought Chase Manhattan. BOA bought Merrill Lynch just recently and, because they were deregulated and self-regulated, there was no supervision of what they were doing. What they were doing was making wild loans to people who had no business getting credit - with depositors’ money. Subprime loans. All the time shielding from view the transaction trail by bundling loans and selling them off in pieces and parts to speculators.

"When the first round of subprime loans and mortgages – the high risk mortgages – adjusted, the trouble began. Defaults began. Some people didn’t understand the loan agreements they signed in the first place. Some people were borrowing cheap money and flipping houses as they watched the housing bubble grow bigger and bigger. Credit card companies were hiding extraordinary charges from view that made predatory lenders look like pikers."

"But the bubble burst, as bubbles always do, and the banks didn’t get paid on their loans, their investments have gone south, and they are filing for bankruptcy.This is obviously very serious. Just as in 1929, there is nothing really to stop the spiral downward except the response time and creative problem-solving of the government now."

Ketner continues, laying out a series of solutions -- some long term and some short term -- on her blog which can be found at Economy --- Linda Ketner for Congress.

Well, Roosevelt isn't here. We wish he were, but we are where we are with our leaders working hard to "stop the spiral downward" as they try to move fast and be creative to solve the problems we've got now. See our next blog for more on this continuing story. It seems that some members of Congress, lead by Rep. Eric Cantor (R VA7), are playing political games.

Tax Cuts -- Who Really Gets the Breaks

Everybody is worried about taxes so today, we feature a series of "just the facts" items about taxes -- see column on right side of this blog which gives detail on John's McCain's original verbatim answer regarding his commitment to keep the Bush Tax Cuts, which are set to expire in 2010.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study was done when the Majority was held by the Republicans. Other conservative sources agree, e.g.,

• The Wall Street Journal (reporter Martin Vaughan) wrote that “an apt description” for McCain’s tax proposals would be to say “that the wealthy would benefit most.”
• The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies points out, McCain’s proposals are aimed at the wealthy “even more so than Bush’s'.".... “McCain’s proposals this year are consistently pretty supply-side, even more so than Bush’s were.”
• Earlier this year, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center found that McCain’s economic plan “would primarily benefit those with very high incomes.” In fact, under McCain’s plan, John and Cindy McCain would get a $300,000 tax break while middle class Americans would save only $319. The McCains save $60,016 more under McCain’s tax plan than under Bush’s.

In their more candid moments, McCain’s supporters admit that he is doubling down on Bush’s tax policies. In May, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) said that McCain’s “tax policies” would “be in effect a third Bush term.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told ABC News in June that McCain’s policies would “absolutely” be an “extension” and “enhancement” of Bush’s.

McCain Will Show Up

Breaking News ... at noon today, McCain announced he would debate tonight at Ol' Miss. And soon afterwards, McCain staff also admitted McCain spent hours in debate prep last night.

So ... we're glad that Mississippi gets its debate, and after all the preparations ... and all the theatrics about McCain closing down his campaign, we can hardly wait to watch both McCain and Obama.

The "Wall Street Journal" Calls McCain Actions "Mystifying"

"Mystifying" ... reckless ... irresponsible ... undependable ... so many adjectives ... so little time! In our book, any of these words will do to describe John's McCain's diversionary tactic. The Wall Street Journal's 9/25/08 coverage said this:

"Last we checked, the President of the United States was still George W. Bush, the Secretary of the Treasury was still Henry Paulson, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve was still Ben Bernanke, and Congress still had 533 members not running for President who are at least nominally competent to debate and pass legislation.

"So count us as mystified by Senator John McCain's decision yesterday to suspend his campaign and call for a postponement in Friday's first Presidential debate so that he and Barack Obama can work out a consensus bill to stabilize the financial system. This is supposed to be evidence of leadership?"

Just like The Wall Street Journal, we checked too ... and surprise ... surprise (evidently to Mr. McCain), George W. Bush is still President, Nancy Pelosi is still speaker ... all the leadership remains the same. Committee's haven't changed and although not happy about having to fix the problem, our Congressional leadership, i.e., our governing system, was working just like it is supposed to, with leaders both diligently and responsibly working together to fix the Wall Street "melt-down" that bears the risk of drying up credit for everyone.

In short and very simple because space and time is limited here, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson's original plan was three pages ... very simple. It basically said Treasury needs cash to shore up big bank/big investment companies who are failing. $700 Billion, more than the Iraq War & occupation together has cost to date has cost, was the ask.

• Paulson was clear and straightforward about the need and Congress realized it had to act.
• What was missing from the Paulson proposal was protections for the taxpayers.
• Barack Obama called for protections as did Democrats ... pay back to the taxpayers once the companies get stabilized; offer specific assistance to help home owners get their mortgages under control; eliminate the huge golden parachutes Wall Street "big boys" were going to get as their companies went down, and; lock in oversight to make sure all this money is used carefully and legally.
  
• The Congress -- it's leadership and key committee members -- acted. Democrats lead the way to make sure that the money wouldn't be used lightly to line the wrong people's pockets and Republicans were carefully agreeing.

At this point, according to McCain's own statements, he didn't know as as much about the economy as he should, but he thought the economy was strong, later explaining what he meant by strong, i.e., "fundamentals" but not jobs (????) which made no sense at all. Two days ago he admitted that he had not even read the Paulson proposal, and yesterday, there he was mucking things up in Washington.

Readers will remember the farm credit crisis of the 1980's, a crisis that no one in Washington acted responsibly on and for those of us who come from, or remain in, production agriculture, many of us still bear the scars from plunging land values, creditors working to call loans on all too often people that still had equity but were struggling to pay ... and people losing their land.

I think we can agree that our leadership -- Bush is still president and the leaders in Congress really are working diligently to make sure can't let that our country doesn't fail -- either in farm country or worse yet, all across this land -- again.

So what's really going on? The Wall Street Journal also said this,

"... We also understand Mr. McCain's desire to further dress his campaign in "Country First" gilding, as if patriotism and consensus are one and the same, or that getting something done is more important than getting it right."

All this "dancing around" of McCain's is more proof that McCain's judgement is less than solid ... scary, actually.

1. McCain picks Sarah Palin as VP when he barely knows her and even Laura Bush has called her without experience in foreign policy ... no foreign policy experience, can barely pronounce the names of international allies and enemies .. when we are in two wars, and the odds say that McCain himself with his four cancers and his aging issues will likely die in office.
2. McCain admits he doesn't understand the economy ... plays a whole series of political tricks at this very risky time for our whole country.
3. ?????? too many to name here, but skipping the debate surely makes the list.
   

?? This week's nomination for "mystifying" for #3 ... he's afraid to debate Obama and doing all this play-acting about being in charge to avoid having to debate international policy and how these policies are affecting our national economy.

Hello??? McCain is NOT "in charge" ... and NOT "elected" ... and may never be. We the American people deserve to hear what both Barack Obama and John McCain have to say in detail about this mess.

Wondering Why Home Owners with Dicey Mortgages Should Get Some Assistance, Too?

In short, here's the deal. First, skip over the home owner who is losing his/her house and whether they made a bad business decision. Instead, put your mind on the bigger picture, i.e., ask youself what happens to the values of your own house and other supposedly non-affected owners?

Now, you're pointed in the right direction because the danger in not bailing out troubled home owners has a direct effect on all their neighbor's values. The bottom line -- a surplus of homes coming on the market all at once drags down everyone's values. Worse yet, should some of these emergency "for sales" not get sold, the homes sit empty. No one mows the yard ... sometimes someone even breaks in ... and the end result is that values go down further. Buyers get nervous and don't want to choose a neighborhood where things look like they're on the down-hill.

Of course, it wouldn't be fair to just give a tax-payer supported break to either the in-trouble home owner or his crappy lender, so we hope you'll support things that can protect tax-payers across the board, e.g.,

1. For home owners in trouble, support for a lower interest rate but also a commitment to pay back the assistance when the home is sold some years later.
2. For the big firms that made the bad business decisions, (1) taking federal assistance should equally require a promise for pay-back, just like we would support for the homeowners caught in the rising interest rate trap, and (2) for the executives that already have been paid the big bucks, let's make sure those golden parachutes are prohibited ... or failing that, taxed at 90%.
   

Bailout Proposal Meets Bipartisan Outrage

Turmoil in the markets combined with the Bush Administration's panicked request for $700 Billion -- more than the war in Iraq has cost to date, is having an effect on voter opinion. Our lead story in our "changing every day" news service sheds the spotlight on The Washington Post's 9/24 story "Economic Fears Give Obama Clear Lead Over McCain in Poll."

We recommend additional reading:

• "Bailout Proposal Meets Bipartisan Outrage", by Lori Montgomery, Paul Kane and Neil Irwin, Washington Post
• "Alternative Solutions Diverge From Administration's Approach", by Anthony Faila and David Cho, Washington Post
• "The Words Left Unspoken in the Bailout Debate," by Steve Pearlstein, Washington Post

When you look at "Alternative Solutions ... ", pay close attention to whether home owners are going to get assistance ... or whether the big bucks will only go to the big gambling mortage investment companies, and also ask yourself whether tax papers need to guarantee the golden parachutes of failing company executives. In some cases, those parachutes are worth as much as $2.5 billion ... which seems quite a bit to us ... especially when in the words of Steve Pearlstein, none of these high rollers have let the words "I'm sorry" cross their lips.

"Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Fired Foes"

The real Sarah Palin is unveiled in the 9/13/08 issue of the New York Times. Written by Jo Becker, Peter S. Goodman and Michael Powell, we challenge you to read this story.

If in fact, you read only one thing today, read this one.

"Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Fired Foes"

Notice how she embraces secrecy.

Didn't eight years of secrecy from W and Cheney do enough damage?

Weren't Cheney's secret "oil & gas" meetings? ... and the selling of the Iraq war (when they knew their were NO weapons of mass distruction? ... and the politization of the Justice Department? ... and _________(fill in the blanks) enough?

Oooooo! Ugly Question

Lots of people have great expectations for this election, but one central question that is most difficult for the pundants to predict is, "Could Obama's inability to pull away from John McCain really come down to his skin color?"

For the record ... here at My Rural America, we believe rural citizens should make their decisions on facts that benefit rural America and ALL of America's economy, national security and individual freedoms. Oh yes!! ... and add health care and educational opportunity to that list, too.

But the question that is asked in, "What Small Town America is Saying About Obama" is whether this election is only going to be about race. The story, written by Dan Hoyle for Salon.com, is a complicated one and we urge you to read it. Overall, the way Hoyle describes the dilemna is,

"Beyond Obama's race, what I found was a more complicated set of concerns -- whether accurately informed or not -- about his religious faith, values and cultural and educational background. That is, many of these white rural voters expressed a discomfort that may have more to do with unfamiliarity about the type of person Barack Obama is, rather than with direct concerns about his race." Read more here.

Does Being Able to Dress a Moose Mean You're a Populist? Hightower Says NO!

Jim Hightower, former Texas Rail Commissioner, prolific author and consistent radio commentator writes,

"Living in a small town and being able to field dress a moose does not make Palin a populist, no matter how much pundits want to pretend it does."

Read more of Hightower's wisdom on Alternet at "Sarah Palin's Faux Populism."

It's a fact that faux populism is certainly Sarah's signature identity. What also a fact is how Sarah's been talking down to those of us who live, treasure or work for rural America. It's also outrageous -- What's turned out to be her assumption that we'll just all sit back and believe her no matter what she says. Does she think rural Americans can't read? or just that we're really, really gullible?

Over time, we'll share more examples of her less than factual nonsense, but for today, we're limiting ourselves to just one example, i.e., she started bragging in St.Paul and has not quit that she was "against that bridge to nowhere" when the reality is she was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it.

"AG Leaders Pan GOP Ethanol Stance"

Months ago in Iowa, it was John McCain who said NO to the Farm Bill, adding his voice to Bush's Farm Bill VETO. Their's was a big NO to the hope that our country could become energy independent.

Now the Republican Platform has confirmed McCain's big NO to ethanol. This platform rejection is a really BIG NO since once again it confirms McCain's opposition to our country's hopes of becoming energy independent.

Then, to add insult to injury, McCain anointed Sarah Palin, new Governor of Alaska, as his VP choice, and Sarah immediately proclaimed herself expert on energy policy, but this self-proclaimed expertise can only be considered true if "energy" is defined as "oil and gas" ... and even then, there's little evidence that her expertise is actually backed by legitimate science. Forget ethanol. Forget solar. Forget wind. Forget polar bears. Forget global warming. Just plain forget, since essentially everything we know must be forgotten except for VP Dick Cheney's early-in-the-Bush-Administration secret meeting with the oil industry. I'm not sure we know yet the names of all the oil and gas industry folks who planned and plotted, but we certainly know the results, i.e., oil industry profits were the name of the game, with the result that every time we fill up our car's gas tank or get the bill for home heating, we pay more ... and more ... and more.

Of course, Sarah has proclaimed herself a budget expert, too ... since Alaska is about the only state whose budget has gotten stronger in these days of escalating energy prices.

Jerry Hagstrom, DTN's political correspondent has written a very thoughtful piece about how even the most dedicated farm leaders who have been traditionally Republican are taking the news that once again, the conservative back door has slammed shut on the hopes of Americans who previously were still loyal to the conservatives. See Hagstrom's story at "Leaders Weigh Changes in Republican Ethanol Platform".

War Spending Helps Rural Economies -- Is That Good?

"Facing South", the Institute for Southern Studies' blog, asked the question first but we couldn't have said it better ourselves: "Is it good that war spending is helping rural economies?"

"Facing South" is based in North Carolina, but the report actually covers eight Southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia). All have seen big influxes of military money.

Certainly, money matters, but so do a lot of other things, including the "big" ones like whether our country's international reputation is better now, or better before we went into Iraq ... we say, "No." Or, do we have fewer enemies -- or more enemies -- than we did before 9-11? ... we say, "More." Or is our economy in general better or worse? ... when we answer this question, we're thinking about working families. Are jobs more secure? Is it easier to send a child to college? and more. We say, "Everything is more difficult."

You may agree, or disagree, but one way or the other, we challenge you to read, consider, and also to ask yourself hard questions. Because of the higher recruitment rate for soldiers from rural communities, our sons and daughters are dying at a 60 percent higher rate than urban families' children (Carsey Institute data).

Ask yourself too? Did your Senator or Member of Congress vote against the new GI Bill that Senator Webb and others worked so diligently to pass? President Bush opposed as did Senator McCain. The Washington Post recently offered an editorial about "What the GI's Deserve." Long story short, Bush eventually signed the bill into law but McCain continues to oppose.

Health Benefits Inspire a Rush to the Altar, or to Divorce Court

Let's just say this very clearly: Access to basic health services should NOT be based upon whether you're married or divorced.

The divorce rate for American marriages is over 50 percent these days, and the problem of how difficult it is for people to access affordable health care is making things worse. Kevin Sack wrote the story "Health Benefits Inspire a Rush to the Altar, or to Divorce Court" for the New York Times. Read it here.

Overall, it's a pretty sad state of affairs that getting good health care depends on whether you've got a spouse that has it, or for that matter, that you have to divorce your spouse in order to be poor enough to get assistance with your medical bills. This said, it brings us to some key differences regarding what the two leading presidential candidates (presumptive nominees) have to say about health care. We credit National Journal -- not the campaigns, for these differences, noting that National Journal frames the key difference as "over the scope of government involvement in America's health care system."

To put this another way, Senator McCain's plan depends primarily on tax incentives to individuals, while Senator Obama's plan pays for his proposed program by allowing President Bush's tax breaks to expire for people who earn over $250,000.

There are differences in their voting records, including:

• State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
  
• McCain voted NO; Obama voted YES .. for reauthorization and expansion in 2007
  
• Stem Cell Research
• Obama SPONSORED 2006-07 legislation -- VETOED by President Bush & OPPOSED by McCain -- that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research
  

National Journal lists SEIU, the American Hospital Association, Families USA and America's Health Insurance Plan as key supporters of Obama. National Journal does not list any organizations as advocates for McCain.

SEIU made its endorsement of Obama based upon his work in support of universal coverage, with employers, individuals and government sharing the financial burdon.

Republicans for Obama -- Jim Leach, Susan Eisenhower & More

We're fascinated.

Newsweek reported this growing story early --February 2008, calling it, "Barack + GOP = Obamacans." According to the story, Susan Eisenhower said she,

"Has no plans to officially leave the Republican Party. But in Eisenhower's view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her—energy, global warming, an aging population and America's standing in the world."

Now -- August, 2008, Republicans are organizing for Obama. Mike Glover, for the Associated Press reports, "Former Republican Congressman Endorses Obama."

The New York Times reports,

"About 20 current and former Republicans make up the group’s leadership committee, including Douglas Kmiec, a Republican who served in the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan and was a supporter of Mitt Romney during the Republican primary, and Dorothy Danforth Burlin, a Washington lawyer who is the daughter of former U.S. Senator John Danforth, another moderate Republican."

And FT.com reports, "Three Prominent Republicans endorse Obama," saying that

"Most "Obamacans", among them Susan Eisenhower, the grand-daughter of the former Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, come from the so-called realist wing of the Republican party which has fallen into deep disenchantment with George W. Bush's foreign policy."

• Most fascinating of all, is the LA Times reporting from Florida ... all about how rank & file Republicans are feeling, "Long Time Republicans Are Airing New Views."

Four Rural Americas -- Place Matters

Leave it to the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute to do a new study that helps us understand the challenges of rural America.

The report -- "Place Matters: Challenges and Opportunities in Four Rural Americas" -- identifies four separate and very different places in rural America.

• Amenity-rich areas with seashores, mountains, forests and lakes, enjoyed by vacationers, retirees and 2nd home owners.
• Declining resource-dependent areas -- regions that once prospered because of agriculture or mining, timber or manufacturing, now without enough opportunity to maintain a middle class.
• Chronically poor regions which have lacked investment and lost jobs for decades.
• Transitional, defined as regions that seem to be balancing resource-based decline but still have amenity growth.

Some of our readers may ask why all this matters? Our answer to this very important question is that Carsey's "Place Matters" further proves that rural America isn't all alike, and that policy solutions will need to be flexable as we work to address rural America's unique challenges.

When Congress Works

David Broder's July 31 column for the Washington Post offers info on the new National Housing Trust Fund, which makes a good beginning on creating affordable housing for both cities and rural areas. In "When Congress Works", Broder says,

"For far too long, the federal government has been shirking its responsibility to help the neediest Americans meet their basic housing need. Food stamp allocations have been increased repeatedly to combat hunger, in part because the farm lobby values the additional markets for its products."

Well ... yes. We agree. The farm lobby does appreciate the fact that when people are hungry, they need food ... whether they can afford it or not.

And well ... yes. Finally. The housing lobby, pushed by the home mortgage loan crisis as an extra incentive, finally got the job done, or started. Our congratulations to Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Jack Reed and Richard Shelby ... and all the other folks who helped too. Read more.

See John McCain's Everyday Shoes -- $520 per pair

Bet you already know that we don't usually advertise for NeimanMarcus on this site? ... But every rule has its exception. In this case -- our exception offers opportunity for you to find (buy?) Ferragano loafers just like John McCain's ... so you too can wear them to the State Fair or perhaps to play golf in. Just click here to see John McCain's Salvatore Ferragamo Pregiato Moccasins for a mere $520 per pair.

Isabel Wilkinson, writing for Huffington Post, has pictures of the shoes in her story. Yet another fun read can be found at CNN's site: "McCain's $520 loafers put 'elitist' shoe on the other foot".

We think "elitist" is exactly the right word. After all, McCain is the guy that thinks Farm Bills are nothing but nonsense -- voting no on every single one since the mid-'80's. That's a lot of NO NO NO's ... NO to conservation, NO to affordable housing in rural communities, NO to school lunch, NO to new water/sewer systems for small towns, NO to fresh fruits and vegetables, NO to organics, NO to food safety and NO to food security.

Al Gore: "Environmentally Responsible is Economically Responsible"

Last week, Al Gore spoke to a turn-away crowd about the U.S. (and the world) energy crisis. So many people wanted to attend that people who RSVP'd first were asked to please let the organizers know if they weren't coming so that people waiting in line could take their place.

Gore, urging a 10-year goal for our nation to make the change from carbon-based fuels to 100 percent of our electricity from clean, renewable sources, said,

"We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that has got to change."

What we liked best -- recognizing that making the switch won't be easy, is how thoroughly practical and straightforward, the mainstream media has covered Gore's challenge.

E.J. Dionne covered the story in the Washington Post with this comment, "

"It sounds like a typical, idealistic Al Gore idea. But two things about this proposal merit attention. It points a country that uses too much energy down the right path. And Gore is showing that being environmentally responsible is economically sensible."

Gore and T.Boone Pickens aren't alone in ringing the "EMERGENCY BELL." Many are others are too. Click below for more info.

• Warming is Major Threat to Humans, Says EPA
• Gore Urges Fast Energy Makeover
• Transcript: Gore Delivers Remarks on Energy and the Climate

Nation's Security on the Line: T. Boone Pickens says "Time to Stop Digging"

T. Boone Pickens spoke plainly as he testified to the Homeland Security Panel which Senator Joseph Lieberman chairs and Senator Susan Collins serves as Ranking Member.

Pickens stated:

“We are more fragile today, from a national security standpoint, than we have been since World War II. This danger stems directly from our overwhelming dependence on foreign oil, which has risen from 24 percent in 1970 to 70 percent today. What worries me, and what should worry this committee and the American people, is that much of this dependence is on oil that comes from countries that are not our friends. And in some cases, this dependence on their oil has placed the US in the position of paying for the tools these countries use to embrace, export and manifest their ideology that would like to see us fail as a democracy and as the leader of the free world.

"And further, by spending this $700 billion year importing oil– more than four times the cost of the Iraqi War -- we are strangling our economy and putting ourselves and our nation in greater harm’s way. All without our enemies ever having to raise a hand in anger. This is more than a disturbing trend line. It is a recipe for national disaster. This is a crisis that cannot be left to the next generation to solve and shame on all of us if we don’t grab this bull by the horns and wrestle it to the ground. And we must do it now. I have been traveling all around the country with a simple message – that our country is in a deep hole and it’s time to stop digging. I have a plan where we can do this in a way that actually improves our economy and our way of life, and I have to tell you the response to the plan has been tremendous.”

Click here for Picken's 5 points as reported by Business Wire:

"T. Boone Pickens to Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee: National Security Is Jeopardized by Crippling $700 Billion Dependence on Foreign Oil from Countries We Cannot Trust with our Future."

Click here for more detail on Picken's Plan.

Bush pastor: "James Dobson Does Not Speak for Me"

CBS News reports: President Bush's own pastor -- Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell who introduced Mr. Bush at the Republican National Convention in 2000 and also married Bush daughter Jenna a few weeks ago at the Bush family ranch -- has disavowed long time conservative evangelical religous leader James Dobson.

Rev. Caldwell's announcement comes in the form of a new website: jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com

Caldwell dials in for Senator Obama's weekly Friday morning prayer call (hosted by the Obama campaign) but is not an official surrogate for the campaign. Rev. Caldwell heads the 14,000 member Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston, Texas. For more on this story, click here.

Anderson Cooper at CNN also reports additional detail in his AC360 degrees column. Meanwhile, Senator Obama has reacted to Dobson's distortions, saying evangelical leader James Dobson "was making stuff up' when Dobson accused Obama of distorting the Bible.

Rural Roads Responsible for More than Half of Road Accidents

The University of Minnesota is the home of the McNamara Alumni Center which houses a new clearing house for safety on rural roads. Deputy Transportation Secretary Thomas Barrett described the situation this way,

"Rural roads carry less than half of America's traffic, but they are home to far more than half of the nation's vehicular deaths. The death rates on rural roads are almost twice what they are on urban or interstate highways."

Barrett also noted behavioral differences in rural versus city accidents. "They're more likely to take place at higher speeds. The incidence of people driving under the influence is higher. The rate of seat belt usage is lower. The lowest seat belt usage we have in this country are by drivers of pickup trucks."

kare11 in Minneapolis/St. Paul tells the full story here. From our viewpoint, the most important part is about a new "Device (that) will tell parents when their children are speeding".

The Second Amendment -- Guns and Hunters

The story "The Elusive Hunter" was actually published a couple of years ago by Newsweek, but it is still worth reading because it so clearly describes all the good things about hunting ... boys learning responsibilities, fathers and grandfathers with their sons, sportsmanship.

There is, of course, much controversy about gun ownership, perhaps best described by how people in cities are known to worry about street warfare while people in more rural regions of our country believe guns are all about sportsmanship and safety. The "Hunter" story reminded me of one time when I was in Montana visiting a ranching family there. Walking across the dining room floor, I almost tripped over the head of a bear, still firmly part of what had become a huge furry bear rug, of course. When one of the family started telling me how they came to own the bear rug, my awkwardness disappeared. The family story, of course, was about how the (gigantic) bear had been tearing off the shutters covering one of their house's windows, when the oldest son shot the bear.

Hunting ... safety ... street warfare. Isn't it funny how both sides of the rural v. urban viewpoints about guns meet in the middle about safety?

A few days ago the Supreme Court tackled this same subject. As described in the Kansas City Star, the "Supreme Court Ruling Still Allows Reasonable Restrictions" on guns.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his lead opinion. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Reacting to the ruling, Ray Schoenake, President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association had this view:

"On behalf of our many thousands of members, we applaud this decision, which is critically important for all of us who believe in gun rights. This balanced, thoughtful approach to the Second Amendment is shared by an overwhelming majority of the nation's 80 million gun owners, including AHSA's members. The Supreme Court has soundly rejected the extreme views of the N.R.A., which espouse unlimited access to any weapon. "

We agree.

LA TMES tells the story -- McCain Gambles on Drilling

The LA Times tells the story in detail: "McCain Gambling on Off Shore Drilling ... He thinks the nation's high gas price will trump concerns about protecting the environment, especially in key Midwest States".

The McCain gamble is that voters will care more about high gas prices than they do any environmental risks involved in off shore drilling. To emphasize his point, he gave his speech supporting off-shore drilling in Santa Barbara, CA which was the site of a big oil spill in 1969 that many voters still remember.

In short, the McCain gamble, as described by writers Cathleen Decker and Michael Finnegan, is intended as a campaign tactic to reach out to independent voters. As these voters make their decisions, we expect them to consider a series of facts.

1. How much oil is already open to leasing? ANSWER: 79%
2. How much natural gas is open to leasing? ANSWER: 82%
3. How many total federal acres are leased and in production now? ANSWER: 91.5% leased but only 23.7% of these acres are producing.

According to a study done by the U.S. Committee on Natural Resources, the reality is that drilling does not lower gas prices.

So what's the McCain tactic about? ANSWER -- it's a "fool ya" game. "Fool ya Midwest" is a very specific kind of dirty political game tactics that seeks to blame a "straw man" while ignoring all the facts ... in this case, facts like worldwide demand, the industrialization of China and more factors, all of which have come together to create more demand for oil products. Essentially, McCain is playing the "fool ya Midwest" in the hopes that he can scare voters into believing that this off-shore drilling is the only answer to $5 gas.

In a way, it's the same sort of game he played recently when he went to Iowa to urge the President to veto the Farm Bill, i.e., McCain was hoping to trick some city people into believing the Farm Bill was all bad, when in reality, the Farm Bill had many sections important to urban citizens ... sections like school lunch, WIC, farmers' markets, food safety and food security. That was a "fool ya" game, too .. just like now with off-shore drilling ... "fool ya" by pretending that more off-shore drilling will actually lower oil and gas prices.

Iraq & Afghan Troops Take Daily Dose of Anti-depressants

Bob Herbert reports in the NY Times: "Wounds You Can't See" some of the saddest news:

• Because the pool of volunteer soldiers is so small, our sons and daughters are called back to the war again and again, and the more they go back, the more they risk.
  

Paul Rieckhoff, Ex. Director of Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America, an advocacy group working to make it easier for our veterans to receive mental health services, says,

"This should be a top issue in the presidential race, and it should be a top issue in the news. When you come home from Iraq, you feel like you're lost in the wilderness sometimes. You feel like you don't fit in."

A new RAND study reports that 300,000 US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan have mental problems with 320,000 brain injuries inflicted so far. Many of these injuries are ones that our soldiers will suffer from all the remaining days of their lives.

And TIME Magazine reports in "America's Medicated Army" by Mark Thompson, about how our troops are running on Prozac.

We challenge you to read every word of at least two of these stories.

$5 Gasoline? One Reader's Response

We've chosen the following as a Reader Guest Op-Ed, as sent to us through the blog:

Gasoline prices are rising all over the country – now $4 going on $5 a gallon or more – and the price of diesel fuel is even higher. And who is hurting the most? Yes, rural Americans, who depend on fuel to earn a living!

Senator John McCain and President Bush say they can “solve” the problem and bring down prices by lifting the ban on drilling. Wrong!

Here are the facts: In 2007 the Bush Administration’s Department of Energy analyzed the impact on oil production and what you pay at the pump if we lifted the ban on offshore drilling. The conclusion? “No significant impact” on gas production and prices “before 2030.”

Can you wait 22 years? Is this the best McCain can offer – promising that if you vote for him maybe in 22 years you might see fuel prices stop rising?

One more fact: While you’re paying $50 or more to fill your car or truck’s gas tank, Exxon Mobil reported profits – not gross income, but profits! – reached $40 billion in 2007.

Floods ... Tragedy, Challenges and How You Can Help

The "500 year" flooding in Wisconsin and Iowa seems to be unparalleled. For Iowa, it's the second "500 year" flood in 15 years. And now, as the water moves down-river to more southern states, we can expect more tragedy.

It's a conundrum: On the one hand we read about high farm prices and how farmers have never had it so good ... on the other hand, many family farmers are already suffering from huge losses in crops damaged by floods and the disaster is also making feeding livestock more difficult for livestock producers. Overall, the disaster is likely to drive up prices for consumers at the grocery store, too. The challenge of recovery is likely to be particularly difficult since many people do not have flood insurance because their neighborhoods, individual rural homes and farmsteads are not on flood plains and have not flooded before.

Thus, we bring you opportunities to contribute to charities while we share stories and pictures about the ongoing tragedy:

"RURAL" CHARITIES YOU CAN TRUST (we will add more to this list in a later edition):

1. For Iowa or , individual tax-deductible contributions should be written to the "NCSS Charity Fund" with "Iowa Flood Relief" in the memo section. Mail checks to: State Society of Iowa, P.O. Box 40831, Arlington, VA 22204-9998.
2. For Iowa but also for other flood damaged states, donations can also be made through Willy Nelson's "Family Farm Disaster Fund -- Farm Aid." For more info, click here.
   

PICTURES AND STORIES:

• Wisconsin Flood Photos by the LaCrosse Tribune
• "In Midwest, a Threat to Crops" by Susan Salny, New York Times
  
• "Flooding Forces Evacuation ... Governor Jim Doyle orders evacuation ... 7 dams watched for potential failure" by Channel 3000, WiscTV.com
• "Floods Leave Iowa Swimming in Toxic Brew" by CBS News
• "Iowa -- Best of Flood Photos" by the Des Moines Register
• "More on Flooding -- Cedar Rapids Residents Again Turned Away" by USATODAY
• Hog Farmers Face A Perfect Storm by Ilan Brat and Joe Barrett, USATODAY
• Farms Under Water as Levee Breaks by Metro.co.uk
• Flood Waters Wash Away Homes as Freak Weather Hits U.S. by The Sydney Morning Herald.