Just as you probably have, I have spent untold hours listening to the GOP presidential candidates as well as a tremendous amount of folks representing President Obama on what I would call his "defense team." They all seem to be going round and round and round talking about spending or not spending, success or not success. About the only thing you can count on is that, every time one individual comes up with a pretty good idea about how to curb spending or how to spend money to help the country, it will be countered on the other side almost immediately.
I'm writing this column a couple of days ahead of President Obama's State of the Union Speech, but if I was guessing, I would say it will be pretty much more of the same... second verse, same song.
A situation that concerns me and many other Americans is that we are trillions of dollars in debt and with future programs in place, that number will almost double or triple in the course of ten years. It appears right now that there is about $48,950 debt on the shoulders of EACH and EVERY man, woman, and child here in America. It sounds unbearable, doesn't it? I don't seem to gather how anyone is suggesting how to pay it off.

J. Dudley Butler resigns as GIPSA administrator...
J. Dudley Butler has resigned as administrator of the Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) effective January 26. Butler, a longtime attorney from Batesville, Mississippi, took over as GIPSA administrator on May 11, 2009, after being appointed to the post by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. Butler oversaw the proposal to reform livestock and poultry markets, which became known as the "GIPSA Rule," which would've given the agency expanded authority under the Packers & Stockyards Act. The measure became highly controversial and faced criticism and opposition from livestock organizations including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), and the meat packing industry. Secretary Vilsack, who supported Butler during the controversy, thanked Butler is a statement released last week for his outstanding service. 

Candidates' Forum:
Candidates weigh impacts of regulating hydropower

Coordinated by Lisa Schmidt

This is the third installment of a monthly question-and-answer series designed to inform Western Ag Reporter readers about the opinions and potential policies of Montana's gubernatorial candidates. Nine of the twelve candidates agreed to participate in this forum. Their answers appear below. The question for the candidates was as follows: "Is hydropower a renewable resource that should be included in Montana's definition of renewable energy? Why or why not? If elected governor, would you sign legislation (if passed by the legislature) to include hydropower generated by dams regulated by the Montana PSC in the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards? Why or why not?"

Jim Lynch ( R)
Hydroelectric power is a renewable energy resource. By basic definition, renewable energy is energy derived from a naturally replenished energy source.
Montana should call all hydroelectric power projects a renewable energy resource. Regardless of the size of generating capacity, our state's hydroelectric power projects are derived from a naturally replenished energy source. All hydroelectric power projects should be afforded the same legislative considerations currently being granted to other renewable energy forms. Hydroelectric power regulated by the Montana PSC should be included in Montana's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards. The portfolio already includes hydroelectric power projects 10 mega watts or less. Montana's portfolio should be inclusionary of all renewable energy resources, not exclusionary. Furthermore, energy producers need to be afforded the opportunity to efficiently continue the development of current and future energy technologies, renewable and nonrenewable. Government should not favor one form of energy development over another. Instead, it should allow free market principles to decide.

Equal Justice vs. Social Justice

By Bill Schwarz
Deer Lodge, MT

The other day, as I was on my way to town to pick up some salt and mineral, I stopped at the mail box to get the mail. There among the bills and such was a little letter from the F.S.A. (Farm Service Agency), and I took time to look at it before I went on my way. There were several different programs that a person could sign up for, and there were two words that kind of stuck out. They were "incentive and compliance" or, in other words, "carrot and stick." Folks sometimes refer to the federal government as Big Brother, but this reminded me more of the Godfather... he's more than willing to do you a favor, but the pay back can be rough.
There was one paragraph that really caught my eye. It was entitled "Loans for the Socially Disadvantaged," and I knew right away they were talking about me. I never went to that Emily Post school of etiquette, and when I'm at a fancy dinner, I am not sure how to hold my soup spoon or what to do with my other hand. When I try to speak in public, I can feel my face getting red, and my eyes start to water. If I am speaking of something I'm passionate about, I get as choked up as a cow trying to eat a frozen beet.

Keystone Pipeline decision draws mixed responses

By Pat Hansen

President Obama's rejection of the federal permit for the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline on January 18 elicited criticism from Republicans and the business community and praise from environmental groups. 
TransCanada applied for a U.S. permit in 2008 to construct the 1,700-mile pipeline from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas, crossing six states. After three years of study, the Obama administration promised a decision by the end of the year. However in November, administration officials announced that a final decision would require more time and analysis to study potential alternate routes that would steer clear of sensitive habitats and water supplies, thus pushing a decision about the pipeline until after the 2012 election. With strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, Congress voted in December to require the Obama administration to make a decision by February 21 and either issue a permit to allow construction or explain why it was not in the national interest.
President Obama said that his rejection "was not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline" and that "it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

Thanks to Miriah Malone for sharing this nice winter photo taken in Montana's Paradise Valley.