The real market price of cotton isn’t great, but government subsidies of almost 20 cents a pound have turned cotton into a gold mine for about 20,000 farmers in the South who make, on average, $125,000 a year.
The problem lies in the fact that overproduction of cotton in America lowers the global price of the product, hurting the livelihoods of millions of African cotton growers who earn roughly a dollar a day with which to support their families.
The World Trade Organization has found the subsidies to be illegal, yet congressional agricultural policy continues to widen the margins of global inequality.
Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post, “The cost to America of reforming cotton subsidies is low — a mite from a billionaire. The benefit to the world’s poorest people is great. As is often the case, bad economics turns out to be bad morality.â€
Posted by Kristin Mehler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
55 Comments
Corn, cotton, wheat, milk, they all are subsidized, with 10% of the “farmers” getting 70% of the money. Why? Big mega-farms, owned by huge corporations who hardly need government funds to compete.
Crop insurence should take care of bad years, but government funds, paid to mega-farms ain’t.
We have given our manufacured product base away, NOW you want to give our farm product base away.
We need to manufacture and grow everything possible in the US, if for no other reason to help with the trade balance.
We can’t give away our good paying jobs and still have the money to buy eveything we need for another nation. They already OWN US.
Two sides here.
On the one hand, I want everything Americans eat, use, etc. to be made in America by Americans. That is just patriotic self preservation.
On the other hand? I’ve little room in my heart for corporate farms and less for subsidizing the already wealthy.
Really, why are the tax dollars going to cotton farmers who don’t need them. Someone tell Bush about those Africans we are making poor. He’ll start a war, kill many, just to bring them his version of democracy.
Ok wait a second. The argument is that we’re taking jobs away from poor workers in Africa? I wonder, exactly how much cotton does it take to make a pound?
First we have to worry about illegals driving down the cost of labor, but now we have to worry about other countries driving down the cost of labor? No. We will set our own price thank you. I’m not at all willing to let Africa set the price of OUR cotton. It’d take one month for our farmers to go out of business.
Farmers are struggling, not as much as they were, but they still are and subsidies are what allowed family farms to stay in business. Major farming corps got the bulk of their land when family farmers were being shut out. I’m not willing to let them take the rest of the land too.
You Libs would say that $125,000/yr is in the Upper Class bracket, I bet.
So why do we continue this welfare for the rich program to make 20,000 cotton farmers rich?
Why, yes, Max, we would.
125,000 is in the top 15 or so percent of all American households.
They don’t deserve a government handout.
Why do “we” continue welfare-for-the-rich?
“We” don’t continue it.
The people we elect continue it, because it’s a way of buying votes from the over-represented rural areas.
It’s interesting to watch your “conservative” compartmentalized thinking, “Max.”
If the issue is health insurance for kids, the parents’ $40,000 a year income makes them too rich. But if you’re subsidizing Republic Party cotton farmers in the South, $125,000 a year is too poor.
You Cons justify invading and occupying Iraq because Saddam *might* have had WMDs and was a dictator… but you embrace Musharraf who *has* nuclear weapons and is a dictator. And you call him an “ally” after you’ve drunk the Shrub Kool-Aid and contended that “any nation that harbors terrorists is an enemy of the United States.”
It’ really hard to keep up with what you Cons really believe, because you change your “principles” at the drop of a hat.
Cons used to believe in small government. Just how has that worked out over the past 7 years? Cons used to advocate balanced budgets. Just how have they dealt with Shrub’s $3 Trillion debt? Cons came to power advocating individual freedom, then Gonzo proclaimed there’s no such thing as the right to habeas corpus.
Sorry, guys. Whatever passed for “conservatism” in the past doesn’t seem to be in play with your current political machinations.
So go ahead. Nominate pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani. But STFU about your “principles” as you do it.
Whoa! That was a keeper, MonkeyHawk.
Well done . . .
Democrat Senator Harry Reid is blocking the Amendment to the farm bill that would allow a cap of $250,000 per farmer, instead of the current $360,000 per farmer.
You Libs complain about Welfare for the Rich all the time.
Why don’t you write your Democrat Comrades who control Congress to allow for Caps on Farm subsidies to be cut down to $250,000?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Too many members of the Senate Agriculture Committee oppose tighter limits on U.S. farm subsidies to include stringent reforms in an overhaul of the farm program, the panel’s chairman said on Thursday.
Because of the need for wide support for the farm bill, “I can’t say that I will be fully satisfied with what is in the bill on payment limitations,” said chairman Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, in a statement.
One committee member, Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa, has proposed a “hard” cap of $250,000 a year per farmer and requiring at least 1,000 hours of labor or management a year to qualify for payments.
The subsidy limit now is $360,000 but can be evaded a number of ways.”Senator Grassley and I see eye-to-eye on wanting stronger payment limitations, but a number of members of the Senate Agriculture Committee strongly disagree with us,” said Harkin. “It’s clear we need bipartisan cooperation to report a new farm bill from the Committee and get it enacted still this year.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/10/19/senate_foes_nix_farm_subsidy_reform_harkin/
I’m thinking the assertion that lower US production of cotton would help African cotton farmers is probably being made by someone who never spent time in Africa. At least not outdide of a city. Africa’s problems are multifactoral, none the least of which is corruption on a scale unimaginable in the US (even in Hillary’s campaign). It is fanciful to advocate for dropping the cotton subsidy suggesting it will raise the standard of living in Africa. How silly and uninformed can you be? Perhaps there are other reasons to consider reducing or dropping the subsidy (Kansas farmers are much more informed about this than me), but the motivation presented is ridiculous.
Additionally, as Political Mom said, “First we have to worry about illegals driving down the cost of labor, but now we have to worry about other countries driving down the cost of labor? No. We will set our own price thank you.” This strange, almost masochistic globalism based in guilt for America’s industry and wealth seems to never take into account the reason for the lack of industry or success in other places. The assumption is that, if America was not so mean-spirited and would just have a little more government sanctioned self-sacrifice, the whole world, especially third world countries, would suddenly blossom and flourish. I’ve been in Africa on four different occasions. However, it took only the first trip to discover that all the money, aid and subsidy we could possibly generate, enforce and throw at them wouldn’t begin to deal with the issues there.
It’s time for Ms. Mehler and Mr. Gerson to grow up a bit and stop blaming America for the world’s ills. And now, I’m off to scrub my laptop in hopes of washing off all the pink ink.
Attack! Attack! Attack@!, “Max.”
We all know you can’t defend anything.
You got the facts wrong MonkeyBrain.
Cons opposed free healthcare for kids who’s families had up to $83,000 in income.
Capn had this right:
The people we elect continue it, because it’s a way of buying votes from the over-represented rural areas.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | November 12, 2007 at 09:57 AM
Now why don’t y’all quit holding YOUR hands out and allowing yourselves to be bought and paid for with Pork Spending from Congress!
As for Pakistan MonkeyBrain, I think we should have taken Pakistan out at the same time we took out Afghanistan. And to H with Musharaff.
It’s the lack of PRINCIPLES on both sides of the Congressional aisle that allows for runaway spending to occur.
For you who claim not to be Socialists, why don’t you stop putting your hands out and expecting Government money? And write your Congressmen and tell them to stop this $266 BILLION Farm Bill and other out of control spending!
What is Pat Roberts’ position on this? I’m thinking the entire Kansas delegation is opposing the hard caps. Probably all the midwestern delegations. Like Iowa.
Either the free market works or it doesnt. If it does, let it work. If it doesnt, then change it.
I wonder if there is any relationship between the contributions of big ag and the way the committee members vote?
I think we should have taken Pakistan out at the same time we took out Afghanistan.Posted by: Max | November 12, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I’m glad to see that your principles don’t extend to the lives of young American servicemen and women, or to the uncountable innocent civilians, who would have died in any totally unnecessary invasion of Pakistan.
SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!
HILLARY! HILLARY!
SOCIAL SECURITY! SOCIAL SECURITY!
There. Max’s posts for the day.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
“It’ really hard to keep up with what you Cons really believe, because you change your “principles” at the drop of a hat’
Know what you mean MH ,look at the corporate ceo good ole boy network. Chuck Prince loses billions of dollars at citibank gets fired gets a multi million dollar bonus. Bob Nardelli runs home depot into the ground walks away with 200 million plus, then gets hired to run chrysler. You can’t make this stuff up. Even max blogs all day at work on the company dime.
Even max blogs all day at work on the company dime.
Posted by: annie moose | November 12, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Annie how do you know this is the case? Has Max said that he is at work? Does he punch a clock or does he have the freedom to get his work done on an adaptable schedule?
Just wondering.
The Eagle got this story right, although they could have done a little better job reporting the reasons WHY Congress fails to cut this spending.
I’d like to see some details on which Congressmen are pushing for more Pork, and which ones are pushing for less Pork.
http://www.kansas.com/611/story/224416.html
Congress needs to cap farm subsidies
Why should you care about the 2007 farm bill? Because the massive, complicated bill now being debated by Congress will set federal agriculture policy — and billions in spending — for the next five years.
Well Tom, you think it’s not important to get Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the Taliban defeated?
Tom, you think it’s ok if Pakistan’s government falls and unstable forces (unfriendly to the US) gain control of 60 nuclear bombs?
Just surrender to the Taliban then Tom.
72% of farm subsidies go to 10% of the farmers. Why doesn’t the Dem Congress stop this?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate should set an annual $250,000 limit per farmer on crop subsidies, said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley on Tuesday.
Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters he would co-sponsor an amendment later this week to “put a hard cap on farm payments.” The amendment would be offered during debate on the Senate’s non-binding budget blueprint.
At present, the limit is $360,000 but can be evaded by use of so-called commodity certificates. Earlier this year, the Bush administration proposed stricter eligibility rules and a requirement for all payments be attributed to a person.
Grassley said his proposal would save $497 million over five years. The money would be split among research, land stewardship and nutrition programs.
North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan will co-sponsor the amendment, said Grassley, a Republican who has advocated the change before without success.
Some 72 percent of farm payments go to 10 percent of farmers. “Those are obviously the biggest,” said Grassley, who says the farm program should focus on medium and smaller households.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2038398920070320
Max,
If the US invades Pakistan, no matter _who_ is in control of that government, just what, precisely, do you think would be done with those nuclear weapons?
Hmm?
And again, I’m glad to see your principles don’t extend to the invasion of nations who have not attacked or threatened the US. That’s the radical-”conservative” attitude I’ve come to know and love.
Max I have to agree with you on farm subsidies. Some are a necessary evil. Some go to ‘farmers’ that live in New York city but have lots of land somewhere that they let lie fallow and the government pays them to do this. I know in Kansas this isn’t a popular position but this is bad policy and needs to be looked at. Same things with cotton crops and ‘bee farmers’. That is another farce.
David, good post.
We shouldn’t cut the farm bill just to help Africa, and I’m not sure that it would help Africa.
We should cut the farm subsidies to the rich to help America.
There’s no reason to have welfare for the rich.
The $360,000 farm subsidy Cap today is too high, and even the proposed $250,000 Cap is too high.
It’s the Hate America Lib Crowd that pushes this Save Africa from the evil American’s crap.
Ksgrm, AnnieMoose doesn’t know diddly about me.
If she wants to personally attack me and accuse me of blogging from work or doing anything else, that’s fine with me if she wastes her time in this way.
It only makes her look bad, so why should I care if she ignores the issues and personally attacks posters all day?
Max I guess that is right – this is what the left does best. Personal attacks. They think it hides the lack of substance in their posts. Wrong.
I like Senator Grassley’s idea: farm subsidies being limited to enable farm families to survive, and farm subsidies only being paid to people who do hands-on work on the land.
We can’t just eliminate subsidies, because a pure free market in the 1930’s drove millions of midwestern and southern farmers to northern cities, which could not accommodate them. Under farm subsidies, we have seen a gradual, accommodatable migration from farms to cities.
Unfortunately this has been accompanied by the purchases of exodists’ land by absentee investor-class “farmers”, who “work” their farms from “rural” offices in places like Los Angeles, Chicago and Palm Beach. Basically, they contract with tenent farmers or even just flat-out employ farm-operations personnel.
The catch is, if family farmers are subsidized, but corporate landowners are not, the subsidy recipients can sell their products at lower prices than the corporatists, which would put the corporatists out of business. Which, not surprisingly is why the corporatists are sending a lot of money to the Beltway to derail this train before it gets out of the station.
But it might be good, as it should encourage more families to stay on the land, and it might even stir a reverse-course back to the farm migration.
‘this is what the left does best. Personal attacks. They think it hides the lack of substance in their posts. Wrong.’
ouch, that hurt. But really Max when do you have time to work Kgrm I know you have your imaginary bizness and faux employees and all that support in grand style. But Max claims to work for a living ,a vice president no less.
And Annie Moose is a deadbeat living off welfare, blogging from her home – all paid for by working American taxpayers.
Too bad Annie that you can’t take care of yourself.
Don’t worry, for those who can’t or won’t work to support themselves on this Earth, there are enough Socialists who will make sure you free money.
When did I ever say I was a VP?
Max sounds more like a CFO than a VP :)
Annie Moose,
Though your comment has nothing to do with this thread, as one who works on the “executive level”, not on salary, I’ll respond and say I’m judged by the outcome of my work, not when I do it. My “work” hours add up to somewhere between 48 – 60 hours in any given week, though you might not always find me at my desk at “x” time. It’s one of the few perks of management. I simply make note of this to provide you, perhaps, another perspective in general. Different jobs have different work flow patterns. (I’m not suggesting that Max, or any other poster, fits or doesn’t fit this category, since I have no way of knowing that info.)
“Personal attacks?” — “ksgrm”?!
I have a relatively innocuous nym, which refers to “The Wizard of Oz” and my Kansas roots..,
And apparently no Con on the planet can restrin themselves from calling me “Monkey Butt,” or “Monkey Brain” or some other slur. And you accuse “the left” of “personal attacks?”
Sorry, “ksgrm,” you simply haven’t been paying attention.
I have killled threads in this forum, and others, because Right Wing-nuts have no valid argument against the points I’ve made. They don’t even try. They go off and ressurrect the “Al Gore said he invented the Internet” trope, or the “Hillary personally strangled Kathleen Wiley’s cat” fiction.
There are still Cons who assert that Saddam Hussein had WMDs precisley because no one has found them.
What passes for “conservatism” these days relies more and more on lies and fantasies.
Seems to me there’s an opportunity for political discussion to advance in this country if people would simply get real. But that doesn’t seem to be the Republic Pary agenda these days, does it?
And Annie Moose is a deadbeat living off welfare, blogging from her home – all paid for by working American taxpayers.
yeah sucks to be me, oh thanks for the volvo Max.This really great Mcmansion, high speed internet and that kick ass cruise to the western caribbean last year.Welfare is grrrrrrrrreat.Oh and Hillary let’s me keep all myyyy gunz.
Overhead for farmers and losses are H U G E. So if a farm is making 100k a year- even average, I do not consider that rich. SO are we talking PROFIT or earnings?
One piece of equipment costs nearly that.
And that farm tractor lasts 20 years Pmom.
Take that $80,000 tractor amortized over 20 years and that’s: $4,000/yr.
I have killled threads in this forum, and others, because Right Wing-nuts have no valid argument against the points I’ve made. They don’t even try. They go off and ressurrect the “Al Gore said he invented the Internet” trope, or the “Hillary personally strangled Kathleen Wiley’s cat” fiction.Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 12, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Or perhaps you go so far off topic no one can muster up a response when you are all over the board with ideological rhetoric.
Let’s see, this thread is titled:”Reform cotton subsidies”
MonkeyHawk responds with:
“Gore said he invented the Internet” trope”
“assert that Saddam Hussein had WMDs ”
“What passes for “conservatism” these days relies…”
“hat doesn’t seem to be the Republic Pary agenda…”
Just what part of that has to do with cotton subsidies? Help me out here.
>>Hillary personally strangled Kathleen Wiley’s cat”<<
I didn’t know Hillary strangled Kathleen Willey’s cat! That’s terrible! And yet another reason not to vote for her! Thanks, MoneyHawk, O Great White Hunter and Killer of Threads” for letting us know. I’m thinkin’ that Fox News is biased to the left for not letting us people know all the dish on Hillary.
Monkeyhawk you haven’t had any attacks from me. I might not agree with your opinion but recognize your right to have one.
If you can post that last post with a straight face – I might have to recind that last paragraph.
I have never defended anyone – right or left when they attack on a personal level. That said I think J R has made himself fairgame because of his relentless attacks on others. I have yet to see him exchange opinions without reverting to personal attacks. Chas also falls into that category.
This ridiculous multi posting under the same initials is just a symptom of the juvenile behavior we see daily on this blog – both left and right.
Bring on a good discussion. Lets trade ideas. Leave off the attacks on both sides. The name calling isn’t necessary.
Why do farmers need handouts? and why are farmers paid not to work? Couldn’t the fallow land be used to grow food that could be exported, or as a source for bio fuel.
Right Ksgrm. Early on in this thread, I thought there might be some agreement to kill this Pork spending welfare for the rich Farm Bill.
Even if we agree on the issue, we can’t agree to agree on the issue.
“hurting the livelihoods of millions of African cotton growers who earn roughly a dollar a day with which to support their families.”
Bleeding heart liberal statement if there ever was one. Melts nicely in your hand along with the “global warming is killing eskimo’s”, crap.
I guess the world government and strength in the United Nations is going to become a social way of life for us with Hillary.
But to the point, it if entirely consistent of me to say this corporate welfare should end, as well as all welfare for individuals – starting with that darn UNearned Income Credit.
I don’t owe you deadbeats, or you crying liberals A DIME!
Can’t you get it through your thick heads: IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY!!!!
Why do farmers need handouts? and why are farmers paid not to work? Couldn’t the fallow land be used to grow food that could be exported, or as a source for bio fuel.
Posted by: Tom Paine | November 12, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Good idea Tom Paine.
I don’t know enough how farm subsidies work to make an intelligent statement about it. I would think that “AG-land” not used for some crops could be use to bolster food markets for the hungry or as you say maybe bio fuels.
I know my grandfather used to complain that he was only a “quarter section” farmer and he didn’t grow enough crops to qualify for federal assistance. I guess that’s what he was referring to – subsidies.
See, part of the problem of “on topic” posts comes back to the Cons’ compartmentalization of issues. They can’t push their propaganda if people have to consider individual liberty *and* George WMD Bush monitoring everyone’s phone calls. They can’t be good little Republic Party minions if they’re forced to realize former AG Gonzo’s declaration that no one in America has the right to habeas corpus. The Cons can’t rail about getting the government off our backs until they come face to face with a woman’s individual reproductive rights.
But ya know something? It all fits together in the grand scheme of what this country is all about.
I understand where you’re coming from when you assert that every sperm is sacred. I don’t agree with you but I recognize that civil law long ago decided that, for legal purposes, a person is a person starting from their date of birth.
I recognize the implicit Constitutional basis for capital punishment. It’s there in black and white ink that a defendant cannot be deprived of freedom, liberty, or *life* without due process of law. My problem is that “due process” isn’t working. The evidence is overwhelming that Americans have executed innocent people.
Pardon me if I reject the Cons’ attitude of, “Let God sort ‘em out.”
The Cons’ biggest problem is their ideology. They cannot possibly come up with an approach to health care without including for-profit corporations.
The Cons can’t bring themselves to embrace any energy policy that does not protect Big Oil’s profitablity.
Coupon-clipping Cons don’t seem to understand that every quarter’s “profitability” they cash in on results in lost jobs for Americans… and eventually there will be no Americans with enough money to purchase stuff manufactured by slave labor in Asia.
If so-called “conservatives” lived up to what they proclaim, there’s a chance we Libs wouldn’t have anything to object to. But today’s Cons advocate unilateral war halfway around the world, deficit spending, corporate welfare and shredding individual rights spelled out by the Bill of Rights.
So which is it, guys? Are you *principled* conservatives or Republic Party hacks?
Your choice.
I’ll be here to disagree with you either way. Just tell me what you believe in. Here. And now.
I’ll be here to disagree with you either way. Just tell me what you believe in. Here. And now.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 12, 2007 at 03:17 PM
That pretty much sums up your uncompromising wheelbarrow of empty rhetoric, now doesn’t it. :)
Some insight from at least one farm community resident.1) Many “corporate” owned farms are in reality multi generational family farms. They incorporate for a variety of reasons. Some are stock companies, stock being issued to family members, others are chapter S corporations, at least in my county. I don;t know of any big city millionaires owning the farms in our area.
2) $125,000 isn;t much of an income, considering the investment. In reality, it is a poor return on equity or investment
3)Agricultural subisdies were put in place to aid the consumer, as much as the producer. If free markets prevail, much of the underperforming land, and even some of the good land, will be removed from production as subsidies are removed. This will cause a rise in costs for agricultural products.
4) Subsidies for not producing grains on agricultural land came about to accomplish two things(a) remove excess production and thus protect farmer income and (b)go some ways toward environment protection goals
5) Subsidies, are, in my opinion, a waste of money and give preferential treatment to a block of businessmen not available to others.
They should be eliminated, but be prepared to face the cost.
I’ll be here to disagree with you either way. Just tell me what you believe in. Here. And now.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 12, 2007 at 03:17 PM
That pretty much sums up your uncompromising wheelbarrow of empty rhetoric, now doesn’t it. :)
Posted by: Kansas | November 12, 2007 at 03:24 PM
Not really, “Kansas.”
I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck and I have a pretty good idea how you operate.
It’s significant you chose to not respond to my post with a declaration of what you supposedly believe in.
You don’t know.
You’re just an internet snarker, perfectly willing to take on any issue you deem is “Democrat” or “liberal.”
We all know full well what you’re against, but you give us no clue as to what you’re *for*.
You and “Max” and “Nathan” and “ksgrm” really have nothing to promote, you merely attack liberalism (and moderation!) with 8th Grade rhetoric.
But you have your chance, here and now, to state exactly what it is, “Kansas” you believe in.
Tell us all what your principled causes and your deeply-felt policies drive you.
So give us your platform, “Kansas.”
Here and now.
Tell us exactly what you believe in, advocate, and are committed to work for.
Here. And now.
Tell us exactly what you believe in, advocate, and are committed to work for.
Here. And now.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 12, 2007 at 05:45 PM
What does my “belief” in cotton subsidies have to do with that load of fertilizer you were trying to pass on?
Here, let me help you out MHawk. This is what I wrote previously.
“Good idea Tom Paine.
I don’t know enough how farm subsidies work to make an intelligent statement about it. I would think that “AG-land” not used for some crops could be use to bolster food markets for the hungry or as you say maybe bio fuels.
I know my grandfather used to complain that he was only a “quarter section” farmer and he didn’t grow enough crops to qualify for federal assistance. I guess that’s what he was referring to – subsidies.
Posted by: Kansas | November 12, 2007 at 01:19 PM
You take all the personal attacks snide remarks and insults and nitpicking out of the debate and I think one would find we agree more than disagree.
So, “Kansas” –
You’ve got nothing.
Regulars on this forum know pretty much what you’re against, but when you’re pressed to tell us what you’re *for,* you cower in the corner.
He’s FOR causing problems and not worthy of your notice MH.
‘kansas” is like that old smelly piece of furniture that the trash man won’t take away. You hate to keep it in the house, but you’d rather not put it on the lawn.
You take all the personal attacks snide remarks and insults and nitpicking out of the debate and I think one would find we agree more than disagree.
Posted by: Tom Paine | November 12, 2007 at 06:16 PM
That WAS my theory Tom. Then my theory got shot all to h*ll.
“‘kansas” is like that old smelly piece of furniture that the trash man won’t take away. You hate to keep it in the house, but you’d rather not put it on the lawn.”===========================Never had furniture like that. We tend to use upholstery cleaner and vacuum any excess dirt on our furniture, dust it and keep it in good maintenance.
It appears that J R has much experience with old smelly furniture.