Economists flee Agriculture Dept. after feeling punished under Trump

RYAN MCCRIMMON

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. “The administration didn’t appreciate some of our findings, so this is retaliation to harm the agency and send a message,” said one current ERS employee, who asked not to be named to avoid retribution. For example, two ERS researchers presented a paper at an economic conference in early 2018 that indicated the GOP tax overhaul would largely benefit the wealthiest farmers — generating negative press coverage that staff members said irked senior officials at USDA. Then, in August, Perdue stunned members of the roughly 300-member research service by announcing plans to bring ERS under the control of USDA’s chief economist, who reports more directly to the secretary. Equally significant, he said the USDA would move the agency out of Washington to a location closer to the U.S. heartland. Members of the agency were also caught off-guard last summer when Perdue’s office issued an internal memo directing ERS and other research branches to include disclaimers in their peer-reviewed publications stating that the findings were “preliminary” and “should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy” — seen as a way of watering down any unflattering data from the department’s own experts...For his part, Perdue has said the relocation was motivated by his desire to save taxpayer dollars, bring the research service closer to major farming regions, and help attract economists who could be deterred by Washington’s high cost of living. “I really have been a little surprised with the naysayers on this,” he said last month at a Senate Appropriations hearing, touting the move as a common-sense, cost-cutting measure...MORE

Notice the word "flee" in the title, as if they were in real danger. Why "flee" instead of leave? Because it goes well with "punished."

And just how are they being punished? They are "stunned" by being brought under the control of USDA's chief economist. 

They are in danger because of disclaimers placed in their publications?

And notice farm income has dropped fifty percent since 2013, under "Trump's watch". Why pick the year 2013, when Trump didn't take office until January 20, 2017?

Let's get to the heart of the matter:  

Perdue and Trump made clear in their budget request in March that they wanted to reduce the scope of the ERS, eliminating “low priority research” into such politically sensitive areas as food stamps and environmental issues. The White House blueprint called for slashing ERS staff levels by more than 50 percent, cutting the total number of positions from about 329 to 160.

This, in the eyes of the DC Deep Thinkers, is being "punished" and causing them to "flee". That plus the dreadful thought they might have to move to Kansas City, North Carolina or Indiana.

The real danger here, as seen through my eyes, is that one industry - agriculture - is so dependent on government statistics and reports. Until this is changed, politicians will continue to meddle with the process.