Farm-paper editor identifies self-employed folks' problems with Obamacare, and hers with Congress

Farmers and other self-employed people may have special trouble maneuvering through the process of obtaining health insurance on HealthCare.gov or a state-run exchange, writes Sharon Burton, editor and publisher of The Farmer's Pride, Kentucky's statewide agricultural newspaper.

Sharon Burton

"The first thing I realized is the system doesn’t know how to deal with people who are self-employed," Burton writes. "I figure that’s just about every farmer in the commonwealth" of Kentucky, which is operating its own exchange, Kynect.

"My husband is a owner/operator commercial truck driver, so his income can fluctuate from year to year. When I adjusted our income based on that fluctuation, the system was not happy with me because I estimated our 2014 income to be different than our 2012," Burton writes, adding that her kynector, a state-paid adviser who helps people use the exchange about it, "She said she too had problems signing up anyone who was self-employed. She also warned me that we should notify Kynect if our income varied even within $1,000 or could face serious ramifications at the end of the year."

Kynect spokeswoman Gwenda Bond told Kentucky Health News, "If self-employed individuals have variable incomes there might be an extra step for them to accurately verify income. They would have to submit additional information, in some cases, because the income verification system accepts the amount reported only if it is within 10 percent of what the IRS has on file for the most recent year."

Burton adds, "There are a lot of bugs in the system. For one, if your spouse’s employer offers family coverage – even if they don’t pay any portion of it – you are not eligible for any subsidies. We all know insurance offered through companies often provides family coverage but it isn’t affordable.
Now you will be disqualified from Obamacare because that unaffordable plan is out there."

Burton has also lost patience with Congress. "The ones who voted for it spend all their time defending it, and the ones who voted against it spend their time trying to make sure it fails," she writes. "Just fix it people. Get on with it. It’s like starting a business. You have a plan, but where you end up often looks a lot different than where you start because you make changes as needed. This is a starting point; let’s move on to the next stage and stop bellyaching." (Read more)

House Democrats say they won't support Farm Bill unless unemployment benefits are extended

Farm Bill negotiators talked optimistically on Friday about getting a bill through Congress next month, despite a mountain of hurdles, but then House Democrats signaled that they will refuse to support the bill — which will almost certainly need Dem support to pass the House — unless Republicans agree to restart unemployment benefits with the Farm Bill’s savings," Greg Sargent reports for The Washington Post. Unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans will expire Dec. 28.

Chris Van Hollen

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Sargent, “Under no circumstances should we support the Farm Bill unless Republicans agree to use the savings from it to extend unemployment insurance. This is a potential pressure point. We’re going to have to resolve differences in the Farm Bill because otherwise milk prices will spike. If past is prologue, they are going to need a good chunk of Democrats to pass the Farm Bill. I’m confident that the House Democratic leadership will look for every opportunity to extend unemployment insurance, helping struggling families and the economy. The farm bill re-authorization may be the first such opportunity.”

Van Hollen "said that a 'minimum of $15 billion in savings' was expected from the Farm Bill, much of it 'from the elimination of direct subsidies,' and said it would be unconscionable not to use this money for some form of an extension of unemployment benefits [rather than deficit reduction], which would not only help 1.3 million people, but the economy, too," Sargent writes. Van Hollen told Sargent, “The priority should be to help those struggling families not only because it helps them but because it also helps local economies throughout the country." (Read more)

Environmental groups sue EPA over new Kentucky selenium rules that the coal industry supports

Four environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday against the Environmental Protection Agency over its decision last month to approve changes, favored by the coal industry, in the way Kentucky measures selenium in its water, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports. The groups said the standard "will not adequately protect fish and other wildlife in streams from selenium pollution" and are seeking "to bar the state from putting the standard into place," Bill Estep writes.

"Selenium is an element that can be released into streams during surface mining, road-building and other activities involving excavation," Estep notes. Under old regulations, "Kentucky’s water quality standard for selenium is based on the amount of the substance that’s in the water," Erica Peterson reports for WFPL Radio in Louisville. Under the new rules, "If water testing reveals levels that are above a certain benchmark, that will trigger fish-tissue testing."

The environmental groups—Kentucky Waterways Alliance, the Sierra Club, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, and Appalachian Voices, "argue that approach is wrong because it would exempt streams where there are no fish but where there may be other aquatic life," Estep writes. "The rule wouldn't protect salamanders and crayfish, for instance, the lawsuit said." Eric Chance of Appalachian Voices told Estep the new rule is "just a novel way of letting polluters off the hook for poisoning our fish and waterways."

Kentucky regulators disagreed, Estep reports: "The rules are based on sound science and will protect the state's streams, Bruce Scott, commissioner of the state Department for Environmental Protection, said in April when a legislative panel approved the change." (Read more)

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/12/13/2986887/environmentalists-sue-over-new.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/12/13/2986887/environmentalists-sue-over-new.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/12/13/2986887/environmentalists-sue-over-new.html#storylink=cpy

North Carolina town. state legislature and PETA battle over New Year's Eve possum drop

A battle is raging in a small town in Appalachian North Carolina over a traditional event that locals say is harmless fun intended to show the spirit of rural life, but that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals calls cruel and inhumane.

While thousands crowd Times Square in New York every New Year's Eve to watch a giant ball drop to the ground to signify the beginning of a new year, Brasstown, N.C., holds a similar event, replacing the ball with a live opossum. (Reese News Lab photo by Eliza Kern)

Last year, PETA successfully blocked the state from issuing a permit for the event, Valerie Bauerlein reports for The Wall Street Journal. In response, state lawmakers passed a law, signed earlier this year by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, called the Opossum Right to Work Act. "The state hopes its new law—which allows it to grant a permit for a wild animal to be held 'for scientific, educational, exhibition or other purposes'—will bolster its case in a two-year legal battle with PETA," which said that "While the new law clears up technicalities about handling wild animals, it doesn't change state standards on the humane treatment of animals."

When they passed the law, "State legislators called the opossum drop wholesome fun, an economic boost in a poor county—the event has drawn thousands of people to the small town—and an honor to the humble opossum, which is captured shortly before the drop, kept in a clear box with air holes and set free immediately afterward," Bauerlein writes. A judge is expected to make a decision soon, though town officials said the drop will go on with or without approval, with the live opossum "officially" replaced with a stuffed one. It wasn't clear if the town used a stuffed opossum last year, or went ahead and used a live one without approval. For details, click here.

Rural artist creates, curates art from Google images

Bill Guffey, an artist in Burkesville, Ky., on the Cumberland River where John Muir called it "a friendly stream," enjoys turning Google Earth Street View images into paintings. The site provides street-levels view of countless locations, and Guffey saw in it the opportunity to paint anything with a perspective "almost as good as being there in person," Cheryl Truman writes for the Lexington Herald-Leader. The first place Guffey decided to paint was a Chinese restaurant in New York City. "I thought it was an interesting building, thought I would try to paint it, and I was hooked," Guffy told Truman. "In Street View, you can find any kind of building, tree or landscape you want."

Herald-Leader photos: Anne Arsenault painted Venice (left) based on a Google Street View image of the Italian city (right).

After Guffey discovered this opportunity, he wanted to share his work, and got permission from Google. An attorney for Google even purchased 50 paintings, one from each state, and the Google itself purchased seven, three for a London office and four for California.

"Almost five years into the project, Guffey's Virtual Paintout has seen 3,900 submissions. The first month's subject was Baltimore. This month's subject is Venice," Truman writes. Click here to see the artists' work. Each piece of art includes a link to the Google image on which it is based.

Guffey likes painting using Street View because it allow him to look at locations from different distances and angles. "It's just like you're walking up and down the street, and you decide," he said. He has painted about 150 pieces based on Street View since 2008. New participants join the project each month. Guffey said, and "There are a couple of people who have been with me since nearly the first time." (Read more)

Steady drops in prices for corn and other crops expected to lower farmland values in Corn Belt

For several years farmland prices have continued to hit record levels, especially in the Corn Belt, leading to the fear of a bubble that could burst. With corn and other crop prices falling, experts say land values are likely to fall, even though farmland prices in places such as Iowa keep rising or holding steady. (Agriculture.com photo)

The Iowa Land Value Survey said Wednesday that "Iowa farmland's worth an estimated $8,716/acre, a 5.1 percent increase over the same time a year ago," Jeff Caldwell reports for Agriculture.com. "Northwest Iowa saw the highest values, with Scott County hitting a $12,413/acre average price, more than 12 percent higher than a year ago, the highest year-over-year climb in the state. But, Scott County's in an area that, though containing some of the state's highest-value land, has already seen a slight decline from a year ago, according to Iowa State University Extension farm management economist Mike Duffy, who conducts the biannual survey of land values." Duffy said record-high county land values is likely sign of a plateau.

"Iowa corn and soybean price movements are good indicators of gross farm income movement," Duffy's report says. "There was a 33 percent drop in the Iowa average corn price from October 2012 to October 2013 and there was an 11 percent drop in soybean prices over the same time period. The November estimated price for Iowa corn was 39 percent lower than the November 2012 price. Soybean prices were 11 percent lower. The odds are against a major collapse in land values. But, if projections of a new lower level for commodity prices hold, we should expect land values to drop."

Steve Bruere, president and owner of Peoples Co., a farmland brokerage based in Clive, Iowa, told Caldwell, "With the pullback in commodity prices, balance sheets are going to take a hit. Not only is the grain in the bin worth less, but the value of the farmland is directly correlated to commodity prices. If corn stays in the $4 [per bushel] neighborhood, it’s going to be challenging to maintain current rental rates, as bankers will start to pull in the reins on financing aggressive rents. Ultimately, this means lower land values." (Read more) (Iowa State University graphic; click on it for larger image)

Rural cancer patients in Vermont are more likely to retire early, less likely to go on paid disability

Rural cancer patients in Vermont are 66 percent more likely to retire at an earlier age than their urban counterparts after receiving treatment, and are 33 percent less likely to go on paid disability during treatment, finds a study by the University of Vermont published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship. The study was conducted exclusively in Vermont, with the information based on 1,555 cancer survivors in the state.

"This disparity is ascribed to the fact that rural populations tend to engage in more physically demanding jobs," says a news release from Springer, which publishes the magazine. "The types of manual labor available in rural areas rarely offer disability benefits, and therefore increase the impact of cancer diagnosis for this population. According to the Department of Labor, only 33 percent of persons employed in manual labor jobs are offered short-term disability and only 21 percent are offered long-term disability as part of their benefits. In contrast, more than half of all management or professional workers are offered some form of disability."

Lead author Michelle Snowdwn wrote: “Providers who care for rural patients must recognize that these patients may be at an increased risk for financial impact. Cancer care for these patients should incorporate counselling services related to returning to work after active treatment and assistance related to disability. It is possible that survivorship programs could lead this charge, with employment counseling becoming a standard part of this post-treatment phase of care.” (Read more)

Study questions long-term effects of energy booms

While the oil and gas boom in the West has boosted jobs in rural counties, the long-term impact of natural gas and oil production may be negative, decreasing per capita income, raising crime rates and lowering the share of adults with college educations, according to a study by Headwaters Economics, a research group that does such work in resource-extraction areas and has been skeptical of energy development.

Researchers reviewed data from 1980 to 2011, focusing on Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, which produce "more than 75 percent of crude oil and more than 95 percent of natural gas in the contiguous West," according to the study. Researchers looked at the boom period from 1980 to 1982 "because it contained the highest share of personal income from oil and gas for each of the six major oil- and gas-producing states in the U.S," and compared those counties changes in per capita income, crime, and education in 1980-2011. (Headwaters Economics graphic: Durations of above-average oil and gas income, 1980-2011)

In counties that got more than 8 percent of their personal income from oil or gas in the 1980-82 boom and specialized in the field for more than 10 years, compared to similar counties with only one year of specialization, per capita income decreased by as much as $7,000 and the percentage of adults with a college education decreased as much as 2.5 percent. "These findings are consistent with other research that shows diminished socioeconomic benefit of resource extraction at the local level over time," the researches wrote. "The findings also support the theory that a resource curse has affected local areas that are specialized in oil and gas in the six energy-producing states in the U.S. West." (Read more)

Recount shows Colorado town passed fracking ban, but judge's order says it can't certify the results

A measure to ban hydraulic fracturing for five years in the Denver suburb of Broomfield initially fell 13 votes short last month, but a recount last week revealed that it had actually passed by 20 votes, making Broomfield the fourth Colorado town to pass a fracking ban in the November elections. But then a district court judge "issued an order barring Broomfield from certifying the election results and ordered elections officials to comply with state elections law," in response to a lawsuit filed by pro-fracking group Broomfield Balanced Energy Coalition, Megan Quinn reports for the Broomfield Enterprise. (Enterprise photo by David Jennings: A Broomfield resident collects signatures in July to get the anti-fracking bill on the ballot)

In a statement issued Wednesday, the BBEC "said the group has repeatedly asked Broomfield for 'basic election information that our designated election watchers are entitled to review under state law,' including vote logs and access to what election workers talked about during alleged closed-door sessions," Quinn writes. The group said they were denied the information, and that “instead of jamming incomplete results through the … certification process, city election officials should have complied with our information request and engaged in an open process to fix what was broken, before declaring the vote count as final." 

City and County Attorney Bill Tuthill said Broomfield has given election watchers fair access to the election, Quinn writes."Because Broomfield has already certified the election results, Tuthill likened the order to ordering a gay couple not to attend a prom that already happened a week ago." Tuthill told Quinn, "At some point in time, you have to say the election is over." The town plans to file a motion with the judge to reconsider. (Read more)

Sequester cuts made some winners and some losers — such as rural Head Start children

The "sequester," an $85 billion dollar budget cut now being amended, was supposed to equally affect a broad range of federal programs, but instead, those with stored-up cash or friends in high places avoided the reductions, while other groups suffered greatly, David. A. Fahrenthold writes for The Washington Post, and uses a Kentucky Head Start student and program as an example.

Prompted after a special "supercommittee" and the rest of Congress couldn't decide on a better plan to reduce federal deficit, the sequestration was automatically reduced spending across the board. At Head Start, "officials had to eliminate services for 57,000 children," Fahrenthold reports.

Carli Hopkins, 4, rests on mother Rebecca's shoulder as she
they enjoy a story. Carli was kicked out of Head Start by
budget cuts. (Washington Post photo by Luke Sharrett)

The sequester's ground rules were supposed to protect some programs—especially those that assist low-income families—from the cuts. Somehow, Head Start didn't make the list. Richard Koan, a budget expert who worked in the Obama administration, said the list didn't seem to matter because congressional leaders didn't think they would allow the sequester to happen.

Although some organizations lobbied for exemption—and in some cases, it worked—Head Start didn't. "There is a lot of goodwill about Head Start," said Yasmina Vinci, executive director of the National Head Start Association. "And I imagine if we had just chosen to say, 'Just us! Us! Us! Us!' we might have been able to get some action." The group didn't think that was right. "We have to have a complete approach," Vinci told Fahrenthold, "because Head Start works with the whole child and the whole family." As a result of the cuts, Head Start had to cut $401 million of their federal funding for fiscal 2013.

"Congress didn't make the hard choices. . . . They avoided the hard choices at all costs," said Peggy Grant, director of a Head Start program based in Owensboro, Ky., that covers 16 mostly rural counties. "And we had to make the hard choices, again and again." They had to cut $856,232 from the budget, and budget rules didn't allow her to store money from past years, so "164 children would have to be kicked out in the middle of the school year," Farenthold writes.

Yesterday the House passed a plan to replace about $45 billion of the sequester cuts with something less pervasive. "The plan is to let House and Senate appropriators choose specific trims, saving the muscle and cutting the fat," Fahrenthold writes. (Read more) CNN reports that "top aides" for the Republican minority "said they expect the budget to pass the Senate but it could be by a razor thin margin. This could also change if momentum against the bill grows."

For her newspaper and its chain, a rural editor investigates health reform's effect on rural hospitals

In an example of good enterprise reporting, Cristina Janney, managing editor of the daily McPherson Sentinel in the town of 13,000 in central Kansas, spent four weeks researching and writing about federal health reform's effect on rural hospitals as part of a project with the paper's owner, GateHouse Media.  (Janney photo: Marcy Hospital in Moundridge has kept obstetrics although it makes no money from it. Many other rural hospitals have eliminated the department.)

Cristina Janney

In an extensive story, Janney explains how the law works, and how it affects rural hospitals, many of whom are already struggling financially, and could be hurt even further through the act, especially in a state like Kansas, which chose not to expand Medicaid. "Rural hospitals rely on Medicare payments – which primarily cover older people – for almost 45 percent of their annual income," she writes. " "Hospital administrators say they will have to change services and staffing to become more efficient and put more resources into primary care to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. Administrators also say the changes will be difficult at a time when rural hospitals already face tough economics. Rural hospitals work on a much smaller scale than their urban counterparts and so have a history of operating on small margins." (Read more)

Janney did a Q-and-A story with basic facts about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and wrote rural stories on a national level, about the struggles of Perry Memorial Hospital in Illinois and Barton Memorial Hospital in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., and how the hospitals are trying to cope with changes. Both states expanded Medicaid.

"Perry Memorial Hospital will close its obstetrics unit at the end of the year after 93 years of delivering babies," Janney writes. "The small Princeton, Ill., hospital lost $500,000 on its obstetrics program last year. Under the Affordable Care Act’s new payment rules for Medicare, which primarily covers people over 65, and previous federal budget cuts under sequestration, the hospital is also facing $1 million in federal cuts." The hospital averaged 380 deliveries a year 15 years ago, but now averages 100 per year. The nearest hospital with an obstetrics department is 25 miles away. (Read more)

The California hospital is concerned about re-admissions, "one of the measures that will be tracked and tied to payments" with hospitals facing fines "as high as 3 percent of hospitals’ billings by fiscal year 2015," Janney writes. The hospital has trained four registered nurses as health coaches to make home visits to "review the patient’s case and care, including background on the illness and medications, and to answer any questions. The health coach also helps to arrange any follow-up visits with a primary care provider or specialists, and checks back by telephone on day 2, 4, 7, 14 and 30 after discharge." (Read more)

Interactive tool predicts temperature and precipitation changes by state and county until 2100

Want to know what the weather will be like in your county in the year 2100? The U.S. Geological Survey and the College of Earth, Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University introduced an interactive tool Wednesday that predicts temperature and precipitation changes in U.S. states and counties through the rest of the century, broken up into 25-year periods, comparing 1980-2004 to 2025-49, 2050-74 and 2075-99. 

"By merging some 33 different climate models and using new NASA techniques to make them accurate at smaller geographic scales, USGS scientists said they could offer the county by county projections across the the United States for the first time," James Bruggers reports for The Courier-Journal in Louisville. "They said they hope that state and local officials and businesses will use the tool to help with adaptation planning."

Matthew Larsen, associate director for the USGS Climate and Land Use Program, said in a press release: "This product is innovative, user-friendly and invaluable for assessing and understanding climate model simulations of local and regional climate and climate change whether you’re a policy maker, a manager, a planner, an educator or another engaged U.S. citizen. The maps and summaries at the county level condense a huge volume of data into formats that are informative for planning, teaching, adaptation and mitigation purposes." (Read more) To access the tool click here. Maps show how much the average temperature and precipitation are expected to change in each county; here's the national temperature map.

Critic traces rise in of NRA's power in Congress

Robert Draper

Saturday will mark the one-year anniversary of the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 people dead, 20 of them children. While the event horrified the nation, it hasn't prompted many changes in gun laws. A measure for added background checks on Internet and gun show sales was unsuccessful in the U.S. Senate. Colorado passed stricter laws, but two state senators who voted for the bill were defeated in recall elections, and a legislator who supported background checks resigned in the face of a recall threat.

Why is it so hard to pass even a simple gun-control measure, such as added background checks? Robert Draper, a contributing writer for The New York Times, who authored a chronicle of the George W. Bush administration, writes  that the answer lies in the enormous, partly unrecognized power of the National Rifle Association. He writes that that power was born out of calls for stricter gun laws after the 1968 assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

"The 1968 Gun Control Act imposed a licensing system for purchases, mandated serial numbers on weapons, banned certain gun imports and barred felons and illicit drug users from obtaining firearms. Gun-loving legislators like Rep. John Dingell of Michigan worried that even harsher restrictions were imminent, and clamored for the NRA to wake up and enter the political arena," Draper writes. "The lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, was formed in 1975. Two years later, at a now-famous annual convention in Cincinnati, [Democrat] Dingell and other NRA allies ousted the group’s reigning executives, who saw the organization largely as a haven for gentleman hunters, and replaced them with fire-breathing Second Amendment absolutists. The new lobbying director, Harlon Carter, then led an energetic campaign to boost membership," and now the group claims 5 million members.

"The NRA scored its first major victory when Dingell and other friends on the Hill succeeded in passing the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, which restored many of the gun rights that were outlawed by the 1968 law," Draper writes. When President Bill Clinton and Congress passed a ban on assault weapons [in 1994] the NRA "targeted the bill’s proponents during the midterm elections. Many of them lost and Republicans became the majority." When Clinton pushed for universal background checks after the 1999 Columbine shootings, the NRA killed the bill. "By the time the Virginia Tech murders occurred in 2007, it was a fact of life in Washington: Any major legislation that the NRA opposed stood little to no chance of passage." 

Even after the faces of 20 six- and seven-year-old children gunned down in Newtown became regular fixtures in newspapers, the nightly news and the Internet, the NRA remained on the offensive. "Aware that the struggle would be fierce and expensive, the group offered discounts on annual and lifetime memberships," Draper writes. "In the six months after Newtown, as gun-control advocates pushed for legislation, the NRA was able to recruit more than a million new members, Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, said."

And the NRA is willing to align itself with anyone it has to if it means getting what it wants, Draper writes. David Keene, former NRA president, told Draper: “Our effectiveness is totally dependent on the fact that we reward our friends, and we stand with them. Our goal isn’t to elect Republicans. It’s to support people who support the Second Amendment.” (Read more)

Opponents say Utah's 'ag gag' law is unconstitutional, reduces food safety

"Ag-gag" is the term critics apply to state laws designed to prevent surreptitious recording of activities involving animal agriculture. Utah's law contradicts First Amendment rights and interferes with protection of U.S. food sources, 16 journalism organizations argued in a brief filed in federal court in Salt Lake City.

"The controversial law says, 'A person is guilty of agricultural operation interference if the person records an image of, or sound from, an agricultural operation under certain circumstances, obtains access to an agricultural operation under false pretenses, or obtains employment at an agricultural operation under certain circumstances with the intent to record an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation'," Troy Wilde reports for Public News Service. 

Gregg Leslie, legal-defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Wilde that the law makes it nearly impossible to expose possible cruelty and abuse. "It also affects journalists when the people who want to act as their sources when their conduct is criminalized," he said. "People have a right to know how food is handled, how animals are treated in slaughterhouses and in any other kind of facility."

The brief argues, "Journalists and organizations that conduct investigations into meat-processing facilities have long been credited with advancing the safety of the meat the public consumes. Federal inspection has drastically improved the safety of the meat in the past century, but problems within the inspection system leave a gap in food safety that journalists and animal rights organizations have filled. While no journalist has the right to trespass on private property, the overbreadth of the Utah statue poses a substantial risk of criminalizing lawful—and constitutionally protected—newsgathering activity," according to a news release from the Reporters Committee.

The plaintiffs for the case are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

Bill would set annual fees for filming on public lands, as opposed to current daily fees

National Geographic shoots in Yellowstone

It could soon be easier, and cheaper, for journalists, film crews, and filmmakers to film on public lands. A House bill would charge an annual fee of $200 for camera crews of five or fewer people, amending rules set by the Agriculture and Interior secretaries, reports Agri-Pulse, a Washington newsletter. Yellowstone National Park charges crews of three to 10 people $150 per day. Other parks charge similar fees.

The bill would prohibits the agencies "from assessing any additional fee for commercial filming activities and similar projects that occur in those areas during those hours," according to the bill's language. It would also bar them "from prohibiting, as a motorized vehicle or under any other purposes, the use of cameras or related equipment used for commercial filming activities or similar projects in accordance with this Act on federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary."

Rep. Robert Latta (R-Ohio), who introduced the bill, testified in August before a subcommittee that the current laws “place a severe burden on individual journalists and small film crews. This bill is needed to ensure that public lands are open to being filmed for enjoyment by all Americans. In some instances, small crews, such as a cameraman following an elk hunter in a national forest, [are] being treated the same as a major Hollywood production with exorbitant fees and regulations.”

A Congressional Budget Office "score released last week, however, indicates the legislation might not do as much heavy lifting as the Ohio congressman indicated," Agri-Pulse reports. CBO said it "expects that, under the bill, certain film crews would pay less than the amounts required under current law and others would pay more." Agri-Pulse is subscription only, but can be accessed by clicking here.

Farmers and food-stamp recipients in Mississippi Delta want Farm Bill to reduce uncertainty

In Belzoni, Miss., the disagreements over the Farm Bill—any version of which would cut food stamps and change farm subsidies—match those in Washington but are about real lives, not government policy. "Since 1995, farms in Humphreys County [Wikipedia map] have received about $250 million in subsidies [and] nearly half of the county's 9,100 residents receive food stamps, one of the highest rates in the nation," Ron Nixon writes for The New York Times. 

These facts draw a clear line between those who fear cuts in food stamps and those who could receive more subsidies. Both the Senate and House versions of the bill would eliminate direct payments but expand crop insurance by $10 billion a year, while the House version would take 5 million people off food stamps, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nixon writes.

No one is sure how these changes will affects Humphreys County residents, but state officials are concerned. "Anything that reduces the program further will have an impact and could result in families' going without the benefits that get them over the hump every month, particularly in a country like Humphreys," said David Nobel, the state operations director at the state Department of Human Services, which administers the food-stamp program, officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program.

Nixon lays out the farm subsidies: "Under the existing program, farmers can buy insurance that covers poor yields, declines in prices or both, allowing them to guarantee about 85 percent of their income," but the new bill would "guarantee about 90 percent of their income." Thomas Bond, a cotton grower whose onetime 8,500-acre partnership of farms has received $4 million in federal subsidies in the last seven years, said, "Farming is risky business. Farmers need a safety net." Some groups, such as the liberal Environmental Working Group and the conservative Heritage Foundation, have criticized the crop-insurance program, saying it mainly benefits insurance companies and well-to-do farmers.

All arguments aside, Bond wants Congress to pass the bill because without it, farmers find it difficult to plan for the future. "There's a lot of uncertainty, and that's not good when you're a farmer," he said. "Banks are reluctant to loan us anything when they don't know how they are going to get their money back." Uncertainly works both ways. Monica Stokes, a clerk at a local store, was cut off from $167 per month in food stamps because her income rose slightly. "People are uncertain about where their next meal might come from," she said. (Read more)

FDA wants to phase out most antibiotics used to help raise livestock; critics say it should be mandatory

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration introduced a plan Wednesday that it hopes will help livestock producers "phase out the use of medically important antimicrobials in food animals for food-production purposes, such as to enhance growth or improve feed efficiency," the agency said in a news release. "The plan would also phase in veterinary oversight of the remaining appropriate therapeutic uses of such drugs." The move is prompted by research showing that overuse of antibiotics creates resistance to the drugs, which is believed to be partly responsible for 23,000 humans dying each year from antibiotic-resistant infections. (New York Times photo by Brian Frank: Hogs in a confined feeding house)

The FDA released a report in April saying 81 percent of all the raw ground turkey the agency tested was contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, Jacque Wilson and Jen Christensen report for CNN. It also found that 69 percent of pork chops, 55 percent of ground beef, and 39 percent of chicken were contaminated. Citing the Pew Charitable Trusts, the reporters note that about 80 percent of antibiotics by weight in 2011 were sold for meat and poultry production, not human use.

Under the FDA plan, therapeutic uses of antibiotics in animals would require veterinary oversight, meaning the drugs "could be used in food-producing animals only under veterinary orders to treat, prevent or control disease," CNN reports. "Currently, the law tracks only how many antibiotics are sold; it does not mandate data collection on how many animals are given the drugs or how much. Without that information, it is hard to know where antibiotics are used."

The FDA "will ask the drugs’ manufacturers to change labels to rule out using the medicines to make animals grow," Sabrina Tavernise reports for The New York Times. "The changes are voluntary for drug companies, but FDA officials said they believed the companies would comply. Companies will have three months to tell the agency whether they will change the labels, and three years to carry out the new rules." Michael Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, told Tavernise, “Based on our outreach, we have every reason to believe that animal pharmaceutical companies will support us in this effort.” (Read more) 

The FDA states: "The plan also calls for changing the current over-the-counter status to bring the remaining appropriate therapeutic uses under veterinary oversight. Once a manufacturer voluntarily makes these changes, its medically important antimicrobial drugs can no longer be used for production purposes, and their use to treat, control, or prevent disease in animals will require veterinary oversight." The proposed rule is open for public comment for 90 days, beginning Thursday. (Read more)

UPDATE, Dec. 12: "Some lawmakers and consumer advocates contend the agency should have made the changes mandatory," The Wall Street Journal reports. "Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D.-N.Y.) called the guidance an 'inadequate response' that falls 'woefully short.' Jeff Duchin, chairman of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's public health committee, said the FDA action 'allows a lot of wiggle room, and we'd like to see them move more quickly.' . . . The FDA's guidance urges drug makers to change drug labels to allow the medicines' use only when medically necessary for livestock." (Read more) And one has to wonder if the industry will do that when animals consume 80 percent of U.S. antibiotics.

Almost 1/3 of cuts in budget deal come from Medicare payments in 2022-23; hospitals 'furious'

Looking for a way to localize the budget deal announced by congressional negotiators last night? Call up your local hospital.

David Rogers of Politico reports that hospitals are "furious with the fact that the deal offers no relief from future cuts on Medicare providers – and even extends these annual 2 percent reductions into 2022 and 2023." The cuts would be a continuation of those imposed by the "sequester" legislation that took effect when Congress failed to reach an anticipated deal on the federal deficit and taxes.

The $28 billion extension of the cuts, almost a third of the $85 billion total, "helps to dress up the package with tens of billions in savings, but at a time when hospital networks are already feeling the impact of health-care reform, there is a fear that Congress is not seeing the long term impact of these budget assumptions," Rogers writes.

Most rural hospitals are already facing Medicare cuts because reform law reduces the extra payments made to hospitals that have large percentages of Medicare patients. Those hospitals are disproportionately rural.

The deal also includes "a provision that aims to prevent fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled," Modern Healthcare reports. "According to a summary, the provision allows states to delay paying for suspect claims as long as the delay does not harm a beneficiary's access to care. It also would allow states to collect medical child support in cases where health insurance is available from a non-custodial parent and allows Medicaid to recoup costs from beneficiary-liability settlements."

Why cut Medicare payments? "Congressional staffers were not prepared to talk about the cuts on the record, but said it boiled down to Medicare providers being the least painful target. Democrats, they noted, have not traditionally been strong supporters of preserving the payments to providers, being much more concerned with maintaining funds for beneficiaries. Republicans saw extending for two years cuts that are already in the law for mandatory programs as a simple way to add deficit reduction to the replacement of sequestration for discretionary programs," Michael McAuliff reports on The Huffington Post.

Restaurants score poorly in federal study of food safety; let's publish those inspection reports

Is it safe to eat at the restaurants in your town? According to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the answer is a resounding "No." The study asked managers of several hundred restaurants in nine states about "storage and preparation of ground beef, chicken and leafy greens and the hygiene practices of food workers," Kathryn Roethel reports for the San Francisco Chronicle. "About 48 million people a year in the United States come down with food-borne illnesses, and more than half of those illnesses can be traced to food from restaurants, delis, banquet halls and schools," according to the report. (Chronicle photo by Penni Gladstone)

The study found that 80 percent of restaurants don't test ground meat with a thermometer to see if it's properly cooked, and more than 50 percent don't test chicken, Roethel writes. Sixty-two percent of workers don't wash their hands after handling raw meat, 40 percent of restaurants don't designate a specific cutting board for raw chicken, and 20 percent of workers said they worked a shift in the past year when they were sick with vomiting or diarrhea.

On the positive side, it's much safer to order a salad in a restaurant, with 93 percent of restaurants keeping "purchasing records so they could trace where their greens came from in case of an illness-related recall, and 65 percent reported rejecting shipments if greens looked decomposed," Roethel writes. "However, a majority of greens delivered to restaurants came in at temperatures above the proper 41 degrees Fahrenheit."

The study found that chain restaurants performed better than independent restaurants, Roethel writes. (Read more) To read the full report click here. Sounds to us like a good reason to run restaurant-inspection reports in the newspaper; more than a third of U.S. meals are obtained outside the home.

EPA wants definition of 'waters of the United States' to be expanded to give it more authority

The Environmental Protection Agency has sent a draft rule to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, proposing to re-define what "qualifies as a body of water for federal protection under the Clean Water Act," a move that "could spread the EPA’s jurisdiction over agricultural waters wider than ever," reports Agri-Pulse, a Washington newsletter. "While the draft rule isn’t set to be officially released before the end of the month, leaked reports on its contents and the administration’s previous actions on the definition are igniting questions about potential changes for waters on agricultural land."

Several groups have weighed in on the issue, but no two seem to agree on what waters should fall under the EPA's jurisdiction, which has been a contentious issue since a 2006 Supreme Court case that resulted in a split opinion on the reach of EPA’s regulatory authority, specifically on whether a wetland or tributary is a 'water of the United States,'" Agri-Pulse reports. "The justices wrote five separate opinions, with none commanding a majority of the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his opinion, wrote that wetlands are waters of the United States 'if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as navigable.’"

Don Parrish, regulatory director for the U.S. Farm Bureau Federation, "says the administration is morphing Kennedy’s opinion into 'any connection'," which he said is not justified, Agri-Pulse writes. The draft rule could be based on an EPA report that states: "Streams, regardless of their size or how frequently they flow, are connected to and have important effects on downstream waters. These streams supply most of the water in rivers, transport sediment and organic matter, provide habitat for many species, and take up or change nutrients that could otherwise impair downstream waters. Wetlands and open-waters in floodplains of streams and rivers and in riparian areas (transition areas between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems) are integrated with streams and rivers. They strongly influence downstream waters by affecting the flow of water, trapping and reducing nonpoint source pollution, and exchanging biological species. Finally, there is insufficient information to generalize about wetlands and open-waters located outside of riparian areas and floodplains and their connectivity to downstream waters."

Along those lines, "The Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which represents outdoorsmen and the conservation community, has its own agenda for the definition: It would like to see more protection for wetlands . . . than is now implied by EPA. Jimmy Hague, the director of the TRCP Center for Water Resources, said the organization wants 'unidirectional' waters, such as the wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region in the northern Great Plains, protected under the rule, as well as the 'bidirectional' waters and 'adjacent water bodies' highlighted in the report." Agri-Pulse is subscription only, but can be accessed by clicking here.