Economists flee Agriculture Dept. after feeling punished under Trump

[PufPuf23]

Trump policies have negatively impacted farmers and rural economies. The ability of the economists of the Economic Research Service of the USDA to inform the nation of the negative impacts is being hindered. Economists are retiring or being transferred.

The Trumpian negative impacts to farmers and rural economy in general is an excellent lever for building political support in rural USA. See bolded below.

Economists flee Agriculture Dept. after feeling punished under Trump

Economists in the Agriculture Department's research branch say the Trump administration is retaliating against them for publishing reports that shed negative light on White House policies, spurring an exodus that included six of them quitting the department on a single day in late April.

The Economic Research Service — a source of closely read reports on farm income and other topics that can shape federal policy, planting decisions and commodity markets — has run afoul of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue with its findings on how farmers have been financially harmed by President Donald Trump's trade feuds, the Republican tax code rewrite and other sensitive issues, according to current and former agency employees.

The reports highlight the continued decline under Trump’s watch in farm income, which has dropped about 50 percent since 2013. Rural voters were a crucial source of support for Trump in 2016, and analysts say even a small retreat in 2020 could jeopardize the president’s standing in several battleground states.

More at: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/economists-flee-agriculture-dept-after-feeling-punished-under-trump/ar-AAB1ega?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=spartanntp

[LuckyLib]

1. Every time I read about farmers angry, demoralized, etc., I ask "And who did you vote for?"

[bluecollar2]

2. This farmer replies

Don't blame me....I voted a straight Democratic ticket.

[airmid]

3. Same here...and that wide brush is getting really old.

[bluecollar2]

6. Agreed...n/t

[PufPuf23]

7. Reaching out to rural and Red State voters is imperative for

the Democratic Party moving forward (I have included this thought in several recent DU posts).

Making rural voters is the most secure way for the Party to gain and retain control of Congress and not have disappointment in the Electoral College.

Rural USA is not monolithic; there are Democrats, Progressives, and Liberals. FDR had strong support in rural USA that has ebbed over the years. Some form of a Green New Deal is a great means to revive rural economies, much like the CCC, TVA, and various WPA in the 1930s.

[bluecollar2]

10. Unfortunately there are those who count electoral college

Votes a d so focus on population centres.

Those of us who live outside the city/suburbs dont have the ability to influence the party or its strategists in a y really meaningful way.

In some areas Democrats dont even put up candidates.+

[PufPuf23]

12. The Democratic party makes close to zero effort in my zip code in recent years

I live very remote and rural and the population is about 50% Native American.

In the 2016 election one would see Sanders and Trump signage but none for HRC. I received zero mailers or phone calls from the Democratic party but did from the Sanders and Trump. In my case this was surprising as I have been registered Democratic and only voted Democratic in my voting life beginning in 1971. One exception is voted John Anderson in 1980 POTUS primary to slow Reagan. The only cash political donation have ever made was $1000 to POTUS Obama in 2008. We are in 5th District for the county but are never visited nor otherwise engaged by state officials or even at the county-level.

Most young people are not politically engaged and do not vote nor pay much attention. I am blown away by those that voted and support Trump (as in most local older NAs). Most nearby politics are dominated by Tribal politics (two nearby Reservations and an Ancestoral Territory for a 3rd Tribe within the National Forest where I reside) and NGO groups that are both supported by and are active in influencing (neat trick of controlled opposition) the massive amount of local land in National Forest (more than 90% ownership in several million acres, much legal Wilderness or de facto wilderness by management).

[bluecollar2]

14. I understand.

The problem is that money so dominates our process that the parties have to consolidate their resources.

Republicans have pretty much abandoned major population centers, and Democrats have done the reverse.

So it goes in America...

[Kurt V.]

4. Eventually all depts will stripped to bones. and sold off to corporations

[PufPuf23]

8. The political climate leads to a decline in morale of the Federal employees

with lingering effects on the agencies.

I was a Fed from 1969 to 1985; first as a YOC in high school but that experience led me to university and what I conceived at the time as a Fed career. After university I became a professional (forester/soil scientist in USFS USDA) and then went to USFS employee grad programs for a year as a Fed employee (and became a civil engineer as well as forester), signing a contract to remain with agency for 6 more years (which was not an issue as considered myself a lifer). I grew up in a remote mountain town (where I reside now in retirement) with still only about 600 people, my Dad went as far as 8th grade so this experience had a large impact on my life and opened the World to me. I worked on several other Ranger Districts than my home town and at the historical Fed forest research lab then in Berkeley.

The USDA had a program where 10 mid career USDA employees could get a masters degree whereby the employee would be paid salary and expenses for 2 years and grants would be made to the participating university in planned research, again there would be a contract to stay with USDA for 6 years or be liable for reimbursement of (some) costs to Feds. I competed for a slot and was to start in Fall 1984 at Stanford with research regards the ecological economics of the USFS timber management program.

The USFS was targeted by Reagan, making a mockery of progressive new laws and regulations (and with time opening the agency to many lawsuits). Morale was bad and many of the more talented and ambitious younger professionals left the agencies or looked elsewhere coming out of university, others just went along with the new work climate. Unfortunately I divorced in 1984 and was not able to start in Fall 1984 because of the marriage situation. The USDA cancelled my slot and I was told by superiors that the planned research was no longer relevant to the agency. I left the USFS in 1985 (end of the 6 years I owed the agency) for an Haas School MBA and went to work in corporate management consulting.

[Kurt V.]

9. That's quite a story. Rather inspirational in fact. i was in private sector civil engineering myself

for 16 yrs. but had to get out bc we were instructed to lie to the clients far too often.

[marybourg]

5. I wonder if they're not fleeing the

Social Security Administration also. My DH died in February. It’s now May and they still haven’t straightened out my benefits, despite numerous phone calls, a visit and an appeal. Phooey!

[WyattKansas]

11. Everyone cannot figure out why Republicans are not standing up to Trump?...

It is because this is the climax to finally killing the New Deal forever and stripping the government of everything gained in the 1900s.

This is the Republican end game... They are using Trump as cover to destroy everything with him to have everything all their way only. If the United States dies and has to be re-done, then so be it, because they will be the ones deciding everything. Totalitarians don't give a shit about winning fair elections.

[PufPuf23]

13. Agree nt