Tag: blog

Decoding the 2024 Election: Insights and Post-Election Revelations

White House closeup

Elections are a fun week for those of us working in DC in the policy arena. First, it is the equivalent of our Superbowl, and we wake up on Wednesday morning (sometimes) with winners and losers. I am a very competitive person, and I enjoy the element of competition in our democratic process. Watching vote totals, electoral college counts, and percent of counties reporting is like checking college football scores on Saturday. Second, our role of advocating for the industry in Washington DC means that we get a lot of calls and texts from members and friends asking for insights. The truth is, we likely don’t know any more than our members and friends in the heartland, but we probably obsess over it more. 

With that said, I am by no means a political expert or have the inside track that my friends, neighbors, or colleagues that actually work in politics; but proximity does allow us to come into contact with those who are. We heard from a political pundit or pollster weekly at association meetings leading up to the election. You can argue that hindsight is 20/20 vision, but by far the most impactful pundit I heard was at an Association CEO luncheon two days after the election. Former Cook Political Report and CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza provided an incredibly thoughtful post-election analysis, and I wanted to share some of the nuggets that he presented to the group. 

Cillizza’s analysis was not just insightful, but relatable and understandable to those of us who don’t live and breathe politics but are interested in better understanding a complex topic. Below are Chris’s insights into how former President (and now current President-Elect) Donald Trump pulled off such a decisive victory over Vice President Kalama Harris. His full detailed analysis is also available on his website, available here.

Key Stats for a Trump Victory

  • President Trump’s 2024 election victory saw the highest electoral vote count for a presidential candidate since President Obama won re-election in 2012.
  • President Trump increased his vote share in 48 out of 50 states compared to 2020.
  • Vice President Harris underperformed Biden’s 2020 performance in key Democratic strongholds such as New Jersey (Biden won by 16 points while Harris won by only 5), California (Biden won by 27 while Harris won by 16), and New York (Biden with 23 and Harris by 12).
  • President Trump also made significant inroads in voting blocs that have traditionally leaned towards the democratic party, including cutting Harris’s edge with voters aged 18-29 down to 8 from Biden’s 28, and cutting Biden’s 2020 lead with Hispanic voters from 33 to 6.

So how did we get there? Cillizza made it very clear that he believed Trump won the election, and Harris did not lose it. But nonetheless, Cillizza’s analysis highlighted three main factors that contributed to Harris’ loss:

1. The Economy as a Decisive Issue: Exit polls showed that two-thirds of voters identified the economy as their top concern. Within this group, Trump held a significant lead, with a 69-29 margin. Voters’ focus on economic issues proved pivotal, and many voters aligned with Trump’s policies in hopes of economic improvement.

2. Biden’s Unpopularity and Harris’s Response: Biden’s low approval ratings posed challenges for the Harris campaign. Her reluctance to differentiate herself from Biden or define her own stance became apparent during an interview on The View. When asked what she would do differently from Biden, Harris replied, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.” This response missed an opportunity to appeal to voters dissatisfied with the current administration and reinforced her association with Biden’s unpopularity.

3. The Impact of Messaging on Key Voting Groups: The Democrats centered their campaign on the importance of defending democracy, portraying Trump as a threat. However, this message resonated primarily with the left-leaning base and less so with undecided or moderate voters. This difference was especially evident in Senate races, where four states that voted for Trump also elected Democratic senators. For context, there were a combined 69 senate races in the 2016 and 2020 elections and in only one instance (Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine) did a state elect a senator and president from different parties.

Cillizza also noted that the Harris campaign heavily emphasized abortion rights, hoping this would drive voter turnout. While abortion-access ballot measures passed in seven out of ten states, Trump still won in many of these areas showing that even when voters supported abortion access, they did not necessarily align with Harris’s broader platform.

Conclusion

In the end, the 2024 presidential election underscored the importance of addressing issues that matter most to Americans. It also reminded me that TFI’s role as the voice of the fertilizer industry is not just to react to election results but to stay focused on representing the interests of our industry by working with policymakers, regardless of party, to craft sound policies that foster stability, innovation, and growth.

I hope you enjoyed diving into these insights as much as I did. There will certainly be no shortage of Monday morning quarterbacks and dissection of the 2024 election results! But for now, I’m happy to take a breather and get back to focusing on policy.

The Vital Role of WRDA: How Inland Waterways Support the Fertilizer Industry and Your Dinner Table

We’re diving into a topic that might not always grab the headlines but is crucial for a steady food supply: the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). This legislation, along with our inland waterways, plays a key role in supporting the fertilizer industry and agriculture.

What is WRDA?

The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) is pivotal U.S. legislation that authorizes and prioritizes water resource projects, including dams, levees, ports, and inland waterways. WRDA ensures that the US Army Corps of Engineers has the appropriate direction for maintaining and improving our waterway infrastructure, preventing disruptions, and supporting the agricultural industry by facilitating efficient transportation of goods like fertilizers.

Why Inland Waterways Matter

Inland waterways are the hidden highways of our transportation network, essential for moving goods smoothly across the country. For the fertilizer industry, these waterways are vital. Fertilizers are bulky and heavy, making water transport efficient and cost-effective. Regular Congressional action on WRDA bills keeps this infrastructure in top shape, ensuring fertilizers and other essentials reach farmers efficiently.

Investing in water infrastructure through WRDA isn’t just about maintaining old systems—it’s about making them more efficient and reliable. This often includes the construction of whole new lock facilities to meet modern requirements. This means smoother transport, lower costs for producers and consumers, and a stronger, more resilient economy.

The Case for Investing in Waterway Infrastructure

Many locks and dams in the U.S. are over 90 years old, some dating back to the 1930s. This aging infrastructure urgently needs maintenance and upgrades to prevent significant delays and disruptions. Portions of the inland waterway network in poor condition act as bottlenecks due to the need for unscheduled maintenance, with each day of delay depriving crops of essential nutrients, resulting in lower yields and higher costs, which can lead to higher prices for consumers. Many of our oldest locks are only half the size needed for modern tug and barge traffic.

Investing in waterway infrastructure is crucial for efficiency, safety, and economic stability. Upgrading our lock and dam systems ensures smoother, more reliable transportation, reduces costs, and enhances economic stability. WRDA plays a critical role by prioritizing essential maintenance and upgrades, transforming old systems into efficient networks.

Key WRDA Legislative Support and Benefits

TFI supports the enactment of a final WRDA bill before the end of 2024. Thankfully, both the Senate and House have passed their versions of the legislation. TFI is especially supportive of a provision advanced by the Senate which would propose changing the cost-share for waterway projects from the current 65% general revenues/35% Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) split to 75% general revenues/25% IWTF. Bringing more general revenue dollars towards inland waterway projects accelerates funding for critical construction and rehab projects, saving taxpayers money and speeding up project completion.

Addressing the maintenance backlog, estimated at billions of dollars, is an investment in our future. Well-maintained waterways enable the fertilizer industry to transport goods quickly and reliably, ensuring farmers receive supplies on time. This leads to better crop yields and stable food prices.

Positive Consequences of WRDA Reauthorization

Recent progress in advancing the WRDA bills has been remarkable, with strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. The Senate’s bill even received unanimous approval, showcasing a unified commitment to enhancing our water infrastructure. This legislative progress promises a brighter future for our waterways and the agricultural sector.

With the right policies in place, WRDA reauthorization ensures:

  1. Efficient Transport: Fertilizer moves smoothly along well-maintained waterways.
  2. Timely Delivery: Farmers receive the fertilizer they need without costly delays.
  3. Healthy Crops: Proper nutrients from fertilizer promote healthy crop growth and high yields.
  4. Stable Prices: Higher yields mean more supply, helping to stabilize food prices.
  5. Happy Consumers: Enjoy your favorite foods without breaking the bank.

Let’s Wrap It Up

WRDA and our inland waterways are critical components of the fertilizer industry’s supply chain. Investing in this infrastructure ensures that farmers get the supplies they need, crops grow efficiently, and food prices remain stable. So, next time you enjoy a fresh salad or a hearty bowl of pasta, take a moment to appreciate the complex system that helps get that food from the farm to your table. It’s all connected, and it all starts with smart investments in our waterway infrastructure. By supporting these efforts, we can keep our food system strong, our economy stable, and our communities thriving.

Balancing Act: The Essential Role of Formaldehyde in Agriculture and the Potential Impact of Proposed New EPA Regulations

Formaldehyde may not immediately spring to mind when considering agriculture, yet it plays a critical role, particularly in the production of fertilizers. Often linked with the preservation of biological specimens, formaldehyde’s agricultural importance cannot be overstated. As a naturally occurring organic compound, formaldehyde is vital for producing granular urea and slow-release urea fertilizers. However, the EPA’s newly proposed, overly conservative risk determinations on formaldehyde could drastically alter its use in agriculture, potentially leading to higher food costs and impacting crop yields.

Understanding Formaldehyde’s Agricultural Impact

Formaldehyde is crucial in producing urea and slow-release urea fertilizers. Nearly 25% of all nitrogen consumed domestically is urea. Slow-release urea fertilizers come in both solid and liquid forms and are designed to release nutrients slowly. This slow-release process reduces nitrogen runoff—limiting environmental impacts—and ensures that crops receive a steady supply of nutrients. As a result, plants are healthier and have higher yields. This method makes formaldehyde indispensable in modern agriculture, as it enhances the efficiency of plants using nitrogen and supports sustainable farming efforts.

Why Farmers Rely on Urea-Formaldehyde

  • Efficiency: This type of fertilizer releases nitrogen gradually, decreasing the need for frequent reapplication, thus reducing labor and ensuring consistent plant growth.
  • Environmental Impact: It minimizes nutrient runoff, protecting water sources and ecosystems
  • Versatility: Urea-formaldehyde fertilizers are versatile and can be tailored for use with a variety of crops, enhancing their applicability across different agricultural practices.

The Challenge of New EPA Formaldehyde Regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its draft risk determinations for formaldehyde and a draft occupational exposure value. Industry experts have criticized these proposed limits, arguing that the restrictions are too severe, don’t align with global standards, and are not justified by the best available science. In fact, the EPA’s proposed limits are even lower than the levels of formaldehyde found in half of homes in the US. Finalization of unobtainable exposure values could disrupt the production of essential agricultural products without improving safety. This situation highlights the need for realistic regulations that balance wellness with the practical needs of agriculture.

If finalized as proposed, the EPA’s unreasonable risk determination of formaldehyde use will create a tricky situation. The subsequent risk management rule will aim to eliminate unreasonable risks by imposing unachievable workplace protections or prohibited uses that completely bring challenges for agriculture, farmers, and consumers.

Challenges from stricter regulations could impact the lives of all Americans. Potential issues include:

  • Impact on Crop Yields: If farmers are unable to use urea-formaldehyde fertilizers, we could see an impact on some crop yields, which could affect food availability and prices.
  • Higher Food Prices: Increased costs in fertilizer production could lead to higher grocery prices for all Americans.

Formaldehyde may not be a familiar substance outside scientific and agricultural circles, but it’s essential for producing fertilizers that sustain our food supply. Although the industry is committed to working with agencies to promote the safety of the agriculture value chain, EPA’s proposed exposure limit is excessively strict and not based on the best available science. The challenge lies in balancing public health concerns with agricultural production needs. A more balanced approach to regulation would safeguard public health without disrupting the economic stability of farmers or impacting crop yields and food prices. By aligning these new regulations with practical agricultural practices and international standards, we can protect public health and support the foundation of America’s food system.