“Price increases vary a lot by type of products but the increases will be as low as zero and some products we will decrease on and other increases [will be] in excess of 20 per cent.”

Prices for meat & dairy will take the lead in inflation from the looks of it.   The positive side of all this is that US meat consumption is expected to decline this year for the first time 27 years.   How wonderful for us that the food conglomerates are helping us eat healthier...

In all seriousness, most of us could probably do with eating better.  I addition to eating less meat, though, we'd also be better buying less nutrient-dead, over-processed crap in a box, but you don't see Kraft or Kellog's touting that idea too much.

HT: Urban Survival

• We do a big shopping trip every two weeks, where we buy canned goods, frozen foods, and meat. Then, the second week, we do a much smaller shopping trip where we buy produce or anything else we forgot the weekend before.
• We're trying to eat less meat. So before we go shopping, we look for recipes that include beans or quinoa or other high-protein vegetarian foods. Then we shop for whatever we need to make those recipes.
• My last tip was our new budget recipe.

But turkey sandwiches day in and day out get a little dreary. What are your favorite bring-it-from-home lunch options?

What, exactly, is a recession? How do you know when you’re in one? To cut through the political posturing that surrounds this term, we need to understand the true definition of a recession.

Recession—Any downturn in national growth that cannot be explained without admitting the responsibility of both Republicans and Democrats.

If political candidates were to acknowledge the country is in a recession, they would immediately address this by dispatching more publicity photos. In those pictures they’d appear gravely concerned and be shown with their sleeves rolled up, probably wearing a hard hat and holding a puppy.

I mean, the word “recession” is sort of a retroactive accusation, one for which there are no polled public opinions. Naturally, this condition is iffy for politicians (and those whose direct employment depends on them) to admit. It’s kind of like addressing birth control with a pregnant woman—and then discovering that you might be the father.

In college, I learned that the definition of a recession is “a decline in Gross Domestic Product for two or more consecutive quarters.” If that’s so, then clearly we’re not in a recession because “gross domestic products” are on the rise. Case in point: putrid-smelling air fresheners and disposable toilet wands.

The Business Cycle Dating Committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as (I’m not making this part up) “the time when business activity has reached its peak and starts to fall until the time when business activity bottoms out.” Obviously, it would have been too confusing to have said “the period of decline between business growth cycles.” I guess this is why these folks get paid the big bucks. But what else can be expected from a government organization that has enough spare time to form a “dating committee?”

Having once served as treasurer of my church Sunday school class, I have some finance and economic experience. What I don’t understand is the need for expensive studies to rate economic indicators like consumer confidence. All anyone has to do is check Best Buy’s plasma TV sales to get a read on that.

But for those who simply must know if we’re in a recession, here’s a list of possible signs. If three or more of these statements are true, then you can rest assured we’re in a recession:

·       You put $20 worth of gasoline in your car and the gas gauge registers less than a quarter tank full.

·       The gold in your wedding band is suddenly worth more than the stones.

·       At the last networking meeting you attended, you met six or fewer Realtors.

·       You’ve received two or more unsolicited credit card offers by mail—addressed to your dog.

·       Your 401(k) statements have begun arriving with samples of Zoloft.

·       Someone you know has traded in a Hummer for a Honda Civic. 

·       Your home is the only occupied house on your street.

·       The local Family Dollar Store is expanding.

·       You’ve cut out all nonessential travel other than trips to comb for aluminum cans.

·       The government feels sorry enough for you to return part of the money they’ve already taken from you.

·       With your economic stimulus check you paid your electric bill.

          The good news in all of this is, like the five pounds I lost earlier this year, it’s likely a temporary condition.                 

Cherries were everywhere. Handful after handful, I grabbed and pitched into my pail. At times it rained cherries, and I’d volley them off my chest and into the bucket. When a cherry missed my bucket, I found myself cursing as if a jewel fell down the drain.

Who knew two 9-quart buckets’ full would weigh in at 19 pounds? At the inexpensive u-pick cost of $2/pound (compared to the $4.50/pound retail price), I am able to cost-effectively squirrel away a winter’s worth of big, beautiful cherries…and a warm reminder of one of the great tastes of July. My cherry-pitting tool makes pitting for freezing a cinch, but I’ve kept a few pounds fresh in the fridge to savor at peak flavor.

U-pick operations offer us a great deal: the freshest, highest-quality produce at the lowest cost and an opportunity to be lifted by the bounty of harvest time, the beauty of Mother Nature, and the peace-of-mind that stems from knowing exactly where our food originates.

And whether you've always been on a strict budget or have a little more disposable income than your friends, you're still probably feeling the pinch.

Basics like milk, eggs, bread, fruit, vegetables, etc. are all sky-rocketing. Everyone's blaming it on rising fuel costs, production costs, transportation costs ...

Yet look at your Sunday grocery circular and you'll notice all the processed foods continue to remain on sale. "Two for 1!" "Buy 5 and save!" You can stock up on sugar-laden cereals, ice cream, soda, chips, frozen dinners ... but you'll be paying more for wholesome, natural foods.

And that, my friends, is a royal PITA.

Advertisers are seriously capitalizing on Americans going through tough financial times.

They realize consumers will buy these quick, cheap processed comfort foods like boxed Mac-n-Cheese and frozen lasagnas because, frankly, they feel they can't afford much else.

(As a half-random side-note: did you know carrots were, until recently, the only approved vegetable WIC recipients could get? What a travesty!)

That said, I'm not going to get into a discussion about families who mostly feed their kids fast-food, because there are so many socio-economic variables I don't want to bring up here on this blog (nor do I want to pass judgment).

The truth is, regardless of price, many people today opt for the "quicker meal" vs. the healthier meal (which might only take minutes to prepare with fresh ingredients). And that (combined with a lazy, sedentary lifestyle) is why so many Americans are overweight or obese.

My fear is that higher food costs will only further fuel the obesity pandemic ...

So how is someone who wants to invest in their health supposed to deal with these high prices?

I've found going to our local farmers' market (which raises the question: buy organic, or buy local?), isn't always the solution to cheaper healthy eats, as the growers are feeling the squeeze of high gas prices and a tough winter/spring harvest here in Michigan. In fact, most of the produce at our farmers' market are more expensive than at the grocery store. (You'd think it'd be the other way around.)

To save money and have a little fun, my husband and I picked our own blueberries this past weekend, and aside from being a great experience in a blueberry patch, it was a steal: 18 lbs. of blueberries for $30! (It's also going to be our first official annual family tradition, as it's the second 4th of July we picked berries!)

It boils down to this: regardless of rising costs, I still see my food choices as an investment in my health, and therefore I can't see myself not buying the fresh produce or lean meats I so enjoy, even as costs have risen.

Being that we're not independently wealthy, we're learning to make changes. We're just average DINKS (dual-income, no kids), so while maybe we can't afford to have cedar-planked salmon every night (who can?!), it was a nice treat this past weekend. (Plus, since we prepared it at home vs. in a restaurant, we had full quality-control of the ingredients and it was a helluva lot cheaper!)

And so to mitigate these rising prices, I've learned to cut back in other ways, such as not buying my near-daily sugar-free skim vanilla latte, only going out to eat with someone else, bringing my lunch to work (though I've always done this, I used to also go out maybe once a week and have stopped that), not buying a Diet Coke every single time I'm out ... each of those changes helps.

On the plus side, today's soaring food costs have led to some positive behavioral changes.

I've started buying a whole gallon of skim milk vs. a half-gallon because it's the same price, and it encourages me to get in that extra dairy serving (making cheesy polenta, oatmeal, or fat-free sugar-free pudding with it).

I stock up on chicken, steak, and lean ground beef when they go on sale (though my 96% lean ground beef never goes on sale). We just freeze it and eat a lot of leftovers. Now that it's summer, we'll grill on Sundays and have meals for a couple days.

We don't go out to eat quite as often, and try to make it special when we do.

I realize this is probably a no-brainer, but I read labels for more than just calories and nutritional information now. If the small canister of Quaker oats is the same price as the big one, clearly the better option is the bigger one, even if I still have half a container at home.

And I buy lots and lots of frozen vegetables, which are actually just as (if not more) nutritious as fresh vegetables.

These are just a few of the changes I've made in the past few months and there are several other ways to help dull high food costs: you can join a CSA or grow your own produce, for example.

But since that isn't as likely, the best we can do is make the best of a crummy economic situation and seriously only put things in the cart that we need.

I guess that means I don't really need those two boxes of Kashi Vive on sale, now, do I!?

Eh, there are exceptions to every rule.

How about you? How have rising food costs impacted your diet (in the literal sense of the word, not "diet" diet!) and food choices?

Of course, saying that and believing it are different, and for the country of my birth, saying that the country is in trouble and doing something about that are also two very different things.

As far as I can figure, the path for the average American is, if not now than soon, as follows:

You are born in Anytown, USA to parents who are just making ends meet, but they tell you to work hard, do well in school, and everything will be fine. You do.

You do well in all of your classes, despite the fact that your parents can't take you to museums and other educational and cultural centers because they're both working two jobs just to keep food on the table.

Of course, due to No Child Left Behind coupled with increased state and local education budget cuts, your school is losing resources and teachers at pretty fast clip, and you and your 35 fellow classmates are left with exhausted, if not very well meaning but burnt-out teachers, who have been instructed to instruct you to take a test. Can you fill in the circles? Can you spell your own name? Are you learning anything, or simply getting more answers right?

When you graduate from high school, and have been accepted to the local State university, it's only to realize that you will have to sell your soul for tuition. You will not be able to get enough money from the federal government or from scholarships, so you will have to attend school full time as well as work full time, just to go. You know you can't not go, because by now you're keenly aware that the American job market does not allow jobs for people without a college education.

You go to State U. where funding is down and tuition is up and your fellow students are stressing themselves into nervous breakdowns (you included, with your four hours of sleep a night and no down time), and spending so much time taking required courses, that, again, actual learning takes a backseat. Now it's all about following the leader. Don't think too critically. Don't try too hard, just be the best at parroting back answers at your professors and get that recommendation for that prized internship. That's the name of the game.

Finally, after five years at a four year college and a degree in computer science, you're dumped out on the street with nothing but your hopes, your dreams and $50,000 in debt to start you off.

You start looking for that dream job, but after six months you lower your expectations slightly and settle for looking for any job in your field. Then after a year, and your student loans are already overdue, you settle for a job waiting tables just to make ends meet. Of course, this doesn't help much because everyone is too broke to go out to eat. I mean, food prices themselves are already so sky-high, what sense does it make to also pay someone else to cook them for you?

You make just enough to pay your loan payments while still living at home with Mom and Dad.

And of course, you live in the suburbs, so in addition to your mounting debt from school, you also have to have your own car to get to work, which means increasing gas bills, and now the restaurant is making you pay for that polyester shirt you're forced to wear every shift.

You still try to use your days off to look for a job in your field, but because Social Security is paying less and less to seniors, those who can are working for longer and longer, hoping to put off retirement until the last possible second. Without them leaving, there are no openings. There just isn't a place for you.

Ten years after graduating college, you finally score a real job which pays an entry level salary of $35,000 and is located in a business park, miles from anywhere. You have to get a new car, because the old one just won't make the trip and you can only afford a two bed-room apartment with three other people. But you go to work, still repeating what your parents always taught you, that if you work hard, you'll be fine.

Now you're 35, and you feel you should be getting married, so you meet someone else who is in a dead-end job but wants to get married and you get engaged. You both decide that a small ceremony is best because of the high cost of everything. You don't even go on a honeymoon because you can't afford to, and for gifts you ask people for grocery and gas gift certificates.

You move out of the crappy apartment you had with your roommates, and you move into a crappier apartment with your spouse (it's smaller than your last one because there's only two of you to pay for it). You both work hard, and eventually get a slightly larger place, slightly closer to work, and you start biking to work to save money.

You have a child, and when you're child is old enough to ask you what you think he should be when he grows up, you just tell him that if he works hard, does well in school, he'll be fine. He'll be a success.

Maybe this is not the story of the average American. Maybe the real story is much, much worse, with small businesses closing, parents losing jobs, children doing drugs, and food poisoning from sick cows.

But hey, you can always move to Canada.

The website is packed with interesting features and information, including a Monthly Challenge - in June readers were encouraged to locate their nearest recycling facilities, and this month, the focus is on establishing a "functional and effective recycling system" at home.

There are also a series of informative articles, including a section about food waste, with advice about what types of food packaging are recyclable, and about how to reduce certain types of food waste.

Finally, here's an incredible fact Mrs Green mentioned in a comment here a week or two ago:

Food waste is an enormous problem in this country. Did you see Dispatches this week? An expert on there took one family’s ‘food waste’, pulled out the stuff that was still safe and edible and made an astonishing 17 dishes out of it.

If that's the extreme case, I think everyone can do something to reduce their food waste, particularly in this time of rising food costs.

The report's author, a senior World Bank economist, assessed that contrary to claims by US President George W. Bush, increased demand from India and China has not been the cause of rising food prices.

The news also suggests that the report was finished back in April, but was held back to:

avoid embarrassing the US government, which has claimed plant-derived fuels have pushed up prices by only three percent.

It all sounds to corny to me, hehehe....

Yeah, right. Same old story.

Click here for a chart showing Top 10 Urban 'Farmers'

This year's expiration of federal agriculture policies gives Congress an important opportunity to take a fresh look at the $25 billion spent annually on farm subsidies. Current farm policies are so poorly designed that they actually worsen the conditions they claim to solve. For example:

• Farm subsidies are intended to alleviate farmer poverty, but the majority of subsidies go to com­mercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million.
• Farm subsidies are intended to raise farmer incomes by remedying low crop prices. Instead, they promote overproduction and therefore lower prices further.
• Farm subsidies are intended to help struggling family farmers. Instead, they harm them by exclud­ing them from most subsidies, financing the con­solidation of family farms, and raising land values to levels that prevent young people from entering farming.
• Farm subsidies are intended to be consumer-friendly and taxpayer-friendly. Instead, they cost Americans billions each year in higher taxes and higher food costs.

Lawmakers would be hard-pressed to enact a set of policies that are more destructive to farmers, taxpay­ers, and consumers than the current farm policies. For these and other reasons, organizations represent­ing taxpayers, consumers, environmentalists, inter­national trade, Third World countries, and even farmers themselves have united around the shared conclusion that the current farm subsidy system is failing and in dire need of reform during this year's reauthorization.

A Solution Seeking a Problem

Before delving into the minutiae of farm policy, lawmakers should first determine what subsidies are intended to accomplish. When President Frank­lin D. Roosevelt introduced farm subsidies in the 1930s, Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace called them "a temporary solution to deal with an emergency."[1] That emergency was the collapsing farm incomes that afflicted the 25 percent of the population living on farms.

Today, farmers account for just 1 percent of the population, and farm household incomes are well above the national average, making the orig­inal justification irrelevant. What modern market failure or social problem is solved by farm pro­grams today? Subsidy advocates offer five flawed justifications.

Myth #1: Farmer poverty.

This is the most common-and provably incor­rect-justification. The average farm household earns $81,420 annually (29 percent above the national average); has a net worth of $838,875 (more than eight times the national average); and is located in a rural area with a low cost of living.[2] The farm industry's current 11.4 percent debt-to-asset ratio is the lowest ever measured and helps to explain why farms fail at only one-sixth the rate of non-farm businesses.[3]

Overall, net farm income totaled $279 billion between 2003 and 2006-the highest four-year total ever.[4] The farm economy is thriving, and farmer incomes are soaring.

Furthermore, farm subsidy formulas are designed to benefit large agribusinesses rather than family farmers. Most farm subsidies are distributed to commercial farmers, who have an average income of $199,975 and an average net worth of just under $2 million.[5] If farm subsidies were really about alleviating farmer poverty, lawmakers could guarantee every full-time farmer an income of 185 percent of the federal level ($38,203 for a family of four) for just over $4 billion annually-one-sixth of the current cost of farm subsidies.[6]

Myth #2: Crop disaster compensation.

While farming can be very profitable, farmers are always one weather disaster away from losing their crops, but this risk can be handled with basic crop insurance rather than with expensive annual gov­ernment subsidies. Washington does not address homeowners' risks by writing each family an annual check regardless of whether or not their homes have been damaged.

Giving farmers $25 billion in annual subsidies regardless of whether or not their crops have been damaged is no more logical. Crop insurance mar­kets, as well as futures and options markets, can bal­ance good and bad years in a way that is cost-neutral over the long run.

Myth #3: Maintaining a cheap and stable food supply.

Some contend that food markets would fluctu­ate wildly without farm subsidies. In reality, food prices of both subsidized and unsubsidized crops are relatively stable. Given that the percentage of family budgets spent on food has dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent since 1933, any potential price instability would have an increasingly small impact on family budgets.[7] Even if price stabiliza­tion was necessary, price support programs have largely been replaced by commodity subsidies that stimulate overproduction rather than stabi­lize prices.

Nor do farm subsidies contribute to lower food costs. Two-thirds of food production is unsubsi­dized and thus relatively unaffected by subsidies. Of the remaining one-third, price reductions caused by crop subsidies are balanced by conservation pro­grams that raise prices. Furthermore, food prices are based not only on crop prices, but also on food processing, transportation, and marketing costs. Bruce Babcock, professor of economics at Iowa State University, has calculated that eliminating farm subsidies would have virtually no effect on food prices.[8]

Myth #4: National security.

Proponents contend that without subsidies, American farm products would be replaced by imports, leaving the United States dangerously dependent on foreigners for food. However, the United States currently grows more food than it needs to feed itself and exports a quarter of its pro­duction.[9] The lack of subsidies has not driven all beef, poultry, pork, fruit, and vegetable production out of America, nor would it drive away production of currently subsidized crops.

Myth #5: Other countries' agricultural policies.

Europe and Japan's farm subsidies bring Ameri­can consumers food at below-market prices. Rather than enact trade barriers to prevent this, Americans should welcome the cheap imports and allow farm­ers to focus on producing the crops in which the United States has a comparative advantage. Responding with U.S. subsidies and trade barriers has the net effect of raising prices for American con­sumers and thereby limiting any progress in free-trade negotiations. Australia largely eliminated its farm subsidies in the 1970s, and after a brief adjust­ment, its farm economy flourished. New Zealand implemented a similar policy in the 1980s with the same result.[10]

Two-thirds of all farm production-including fruit, vegetables, beef, and poultry-thrives despite being ineligible for farm subsidies.[11] If any of the five justifications were valid, these farmers would be impoverished, near bankruptcy, or replaced by imports, and both the supplies and prices of fruit, vegetables, beef, and poultry would fluctuate wildly. Clearly, this has not happened. In this controlled experiment comparing subsidized and unsubsi­dized crops, the doomsday scenarios described above have not occurred for unsubsidized crops.

The most logical explanation for the persistence of farm subsidies is simple politics. Eliminating a government program is nearly impossible because recipients form interest groups that relentlessly defend their handouts. The public paying the costs is too busy going about their lives to challenge each wasteful program. Furthermore, supporters of farm subsidies often repeat the five justifications, espe­cially the myth that these policies aid struggling family farmers. The difference between perception and reality in farm policy is large.

How Farm Subsidies Lack Economic Sense

Farm subsidies serve no legitimate public pur­pose. Worse, they harm the farm economy. This section explains both how farm subsidies work and the economic incoherence embedded in U.S. farm policy. (See also the accompanying text box, "How Farm Subsidies Are Calculated.")

The Main Commodity Programs. Farm policy is extraordinarily complex. This complexity conve­niently insulates the farm policymaking process within a small group of lawmakers and interest groups who specialize in the details.

Subsidy eligibility is based on the crop. More than 90 percent of all subsidies go to just five crops-wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, and rice- while the vast majority of crops are ineligible for subsidies. Once eligibility is established, subsidies are paid per amount of the crop produced, so the largest farms automatically receive the largest checks.

Subsidies are also quite duplicative. The names of the three different commodity subsidies do not adequately describe their purposes:

• Marketing loan program. Despite being called a "loan," this program has the net effect of reim­bursing farmers for the difference between a crop's market price and the minimum level that Congress sets every five to six years.[12]
• Fixed payments. Fixed payments are given to farmers based on their farms' historical produc­tion and are unrelated to actual production.
• Countercyclical payments. This program func­tions somewhat similarly to the marketing loan program by subsidizing farmers up to a govern­ment-set target price. This rate is higher than the marketing loan rate and therefore represents an additional subsidy.

For farmers who grow the subsidized crop, these policies have the net effect of subsidizing them up from their crop's market price to its countercyclical price rate, or even higher when the market price is above the countercyclical rate and they receive fixed payments.

Remedying Low Prices with Lower Prices. Farm policy is supposed to help farmers recover income lost because of low crop prices. However, farmers can increase their subsidies by planting additional acres, which increases production and drives prices down further, thereby spurring demands for even greater subsidies. In other words, subsidies merely lower prices. This is the policy equivalent of trying to use gasoline to extin­guish a fire.

When the 1996 farm bill increased the market­ing loan rate of soybeans from $4.92 to $5.26 per bushel (which meant larger subsidies), farmers responded by planting an additional 8 million acres of soybeans, which contributed to the 33 percent decline in soybean prices over the next two years.[13] Instead of alleviating low soybean prices, the new subsidies accelerated their fall at considerable tax­payer expense. Even the U.S. Department of Agri­culture (USDA) admits that subsidy increases have induced farmers to plant millions of new acres of wheat, soybeans, cotton, and corn.[14]

In a free market, low prices serve as an important signal that supply has exceeded consumer demand and that production should shift accordingly. By shielding farmers from low market prices, farm sub­sidies induce farmers to grow whatever government will subsidize, not what consumers really want. Stephen Houston Jr., a Georgia cotton farmer, recently told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "We're just playing a game. [Market] prices don't have anything to do with what we're doing. We're just looking at the government payments."[15]

Contradictory Policies. After handing out com­modity subsidies that pay farmers to plant more crops, Washington then turns around and pays other farmers not to farm 40 million acres of crop­land each year-the equivalent of idling every farm in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. The Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to sign 10-year contracts pledging not to farm their land, is often promoted as supporting environmen­tal stewardship. In reality, removing farmland to raise crop prices has been the program's central long-term justification. Paying some farmers to plant more crops and others to plant fewer crops simply makes no sense.

Ignoring Yields. The illogic does not end there. Businesses calculate their revenues by multiplying the product's price by the quantity sold. Similarly, farmers calculate per-acre revenues by multiplying the crop price by the yield (crop volume per acre). However, farm subsidy formulas focus only on crop prices and simply plug in a historical yield measure for the quantity.

This makes little sense. Revenues depend as much on the quantity sold as on the price, and these two variables often move in opposite direc­tions. In agriculture, this leads to one of two com­mon scenarios:

• Surging yields flood the market with crops and cause prices to drop. Total revenues may increase, yet farmers still receive large subsidies simply because the price fell.
• Falling yields lead to crop shortages, pushing up prices. Total revenues may decline sharply, but farmers do not receive subsidies because Wash­ington focuses only on the price increase and assumes that farmers are thriving.

These scenarios are not merely theoretical. The American Farmland Trust has observed that a large drought in 2002 cut many Midwest corn farmers' yields in half, but many farmers did not receive sub­sidies because prices did not fall. The opposite situ­ation occurred in 2005 when very large corn yields flooded the market, driving down corn prices and inducing large corn subsidies despite healthy farm revenues.[16] Consequently, Washington often wastes taxpayer dollars by subsidizing farmers when they need it the least.

Subsidizing Both Crop Insurance and Disaster Aid. In 2000, Washington tripled crop insurance subsidies in an effort to eliminate the need for farm disaster payments. The budget-busting 2002 farm bill was also promoted as being large enough to reduce the need for disaster payments.

Yet even with generous farm programs and sub­sidized crop insurance, Congress has passed a disas­ter aid bill every year since 2000 at a total cost of $40 billion.[17] Congress has even drafted legislation offering disaster aid to farmers who refuse to pur­chase crop insurance at taxpayer-financed dis­counts. With Congress continuing to pass large disaster aid packages, what crop insurance subsi­dies are really funding is unclear.

The federal crop insurance program currently subsidizes 60 percent of all premiums for the 242 million acres that farmers have enrolled in the pro­gram. It is run by 16 private firms that accept fed­eral subsidies but must charge the prices set by Washington. Recently, an insurer that dared to offer farmers a discount was upbraided at a congressional hearing, and Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) successfully authored legislation to prohibit federal subsidies for that plan.[18]

The program seems to have been designed to aid insurance companies and harm taxpayers. Insurers are allowed to pass high-risk policies on to the gov­ernment while keeping for themselves the low-risk policies that are likely to be profitable. Conse­quently, since 1998, the participating companies have earned $3.1 billion in profits, while Washing­ton has lost $1.5 billion. Additionally, since 1998, Washington has paid nearly $20 billion in premium subsidies and more than $6 billion to cover the insurance companies' administrative costs.

All in all, the crop insurance program spends $3.34 for every $1 in paid claims-and it still has not prevented $40 billion in disaster aid.[19]

Driving Small Farmers out of Business. Farm subsidies are promoted as assistance to family farm­ers. In reality, they finance the demise of family farms and prevent young people from entering farming. Economists estimate that subsidies inflate the value of farmland by 30 percent. High farmland prices make starting a farm prohibitively expensive for younger people, who would also have other expenses, including buying expensive equipment, seeds, and pesticides. With young farmers unable to enter the industry, the average age of farmers has increased to 55.[20]

Because agribusinesses are already the most profitable, they often use their enormous farm sub­sidies to buy out smaller family farms. In what has been called the "plantation effect," family farms with less than 100 acres are being bought out by larger agribusinesses, which then convert them into tenant farms. Three-quarters of rice farms have already become tenant farms, and other types of farms are trending in that same direction.[21] Since 1945, the number of farms has dropped by two-thirds, and the average farm size has more than doubled to 441 acres.[22]

This consolidation is not necessarily harmful and may improve efficiency. Large agribusinesses are not villainous. They often succeed because they can produce large quantities of food at low prices. Fur­thermore, the blame for the tilted distribution of farm subsidies lies with Congress, which writes the laws, rather than with the agribusinesses that cash the checks that they receive because of those laws.

Nevertheless, taxpayers should not be required to finance this consolidation through farm subsi­dies. By raising land values and financing consolida­tion, farm subsidies drive out existing small farmers and prevent new farmers from entering the industry.

The Scandalous Distribution of Farm Subsidies

One can imagine the result if Washington tried to solve poverty by creating a welfare program that applied only to workers in the fast food, cleaning, and retail industries. Everyone in those occupations would receive a government check, with the richest executives receiving the largest checks and the poorest workers receiving the smallest. Workers in other industries would receive nothing, no matter how poor they were.

Obviously, such a policy would be nonsense, yet this exemplifies how farm subsidies are distributed. The government's solution to alleged farmer poverty is to subsidize growers of wheat, cotton, corn, soy­beans, and rice while giving no subsidies to produc­ers of fruit, vegetables, beef, poultry, and livestock. Because subsidies are paid per acre, the largest and most profitable farms receive the largest subsidies, while family farms receive next to nothing.

Thus, a large, profitable rice corporation can receive millions while a family vegetable farmer receives nothing. Overall, farm subsidies are distrib­uted with little regard to merit or need.

Corporate Welfare. Farm subsidies are pro­moted as helping struggling farmers, but Washing­ton could guarantee every full-time farmer an income of nearly $40,000 for just $4 billion annu­ally. Instead, farm policy is designed to aid corpo­rate agribusinesses. Among farmers eligible for subsidies, just 10 percent of recipients collect 73 percent of the subsidies-an average of $91,000 per farm. (See Chart 3.) By contrast, the average subsidy granted to the bottom 80 percent of recipients is less than $3,000 annually.[23]

According to the USDA, the majority of farm subsidies are distributed to commercial farms, which have an average household income of $199,975 and a net worth of just under $2 mil­lion.[24] Commercial farms are also among those that need subsidies the least because they are the most efficient. Former U.S. Farm Bureau President Dean Kleckner writes that the top quarter of corn farmers (usually agribusinesses with economies of scale) can produce a bushel of corn 68 percent cheaper than the bottom quarter of farms can.[25]

Multiplying this larger profit margin by their substantially larger production volume shows how large agribusinesses can be enormously profitable. Yet these agribusinesses, not small family farms, receive most of the subsidies, making farm subsi­dies America's largest corporate welfare program. (See Table 1.)

That is not all. Farm subsidies over the past decade have also been distributed to:

• Fortune 500 companies, such as John Hancock Life Insurance ($2,849,799); International Paper ($1,183,893); Westvaco ($534,210); and ChevronTexaco ($446,914).
• Celebrity "hobby farmers" such as David Rock­efeller ($553,782); Ted Turner ($206,948); and Scottie Pippen ($210,520).
• Members of Congress, who vote on farm subsidies, such as Senator Charles Grassley (R- IA, $225,041); Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR, $45,400, plus a 25 percent ownership in three firms that received $2,114,622); and Represen­tative John Salazar (D-CO, $161,084).[26]
  

Payment limits do exist on paper. Subsidies are restricted to farmers with incomes below $2.5 mil­lion, and an individual's subsidy may not exceed $180,000 per farm or $360,000 for up to three farms. However, an entire industry of lawyers exploits loop­holes, rendering these limits meaningless.

Farmers can simply divide their farms into numerous separate entities and then collect subsi­dies for each farm. For example, Tyler Farms in Arkansas has collected $37 million in farm subsi­dies since 1996 by dividing itself into 66 legally separate corporations to maximize its farm subsidies.[27] Other farmers evade payment limits by sign­ing up family members, such as the Georgia farmer who reportedly col­lected thousands in additional subsi­dies by signing up his two-year-old daughter as an additional farmer, making her eligible for up to $180,000. As Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs has con­cluded, "We have no [payment] limits today."[28]

Eligibility Restricted to a Few Crops. Only one-third of the $240 billion in annual farm production is eligible for farm subsidies. Five crops-wheat, cotton, corn, soy­beans, and rice-receive more than 90 percent of all farm subsidies. Fruits, vegetables, livestock, and poultry, which comprise two-thirds of all farm pro­duction, are generally not subsidized at all.[29] This is important for two reasons.

First, those who assert that the absence of farm subsidies would cause massive poverty, rapid price fluctuations, and the eventual demise of the agricul­tural industry have not persuasively explained why the two-thirds of the industry that operates without subsidies has experienced none of these problems.

Second, those who assert that farm subsidies are necessary to alleviate farmer poverty have not explained why Washington should favor one crop over another.

Farm Subsidies for Suburban Backyards. In 1996, lawmakers noticed that farm subsidies were only encouraging more planting and thereby fur­ther lowering prices, so they created a fixed pay­ments subsidy that would pay farmers based on what had been grown on the land historically with­out obligating them to continue planting that crop. While designed with positive intentions to reduce market distortions, these fixed payments have ended up subsidizing land that is no longer used for farming. In fact, some homeowners are now collect­ing subsidies for the grass in their backyards.

A recent Washington Post investigation discovered 75 acres of Texas farmland that had been converted into a housing development. Today, the homeown­ers on these properties (which are worth well over $300,000 each) are eligible for fixed payments for the lawn in their backyards because of its "historical rice production." Residents never asked for these subsidies and have even stated that as non-farmers they do not want the government mailing them checks.[30] Over the past 25 years, rice plantings in Texas have plummeted from 600,000 acres to 200,000, in part because people can now collect generous rice subsidies without planting rice. If Washington insists on subsidizing farming, subsi­dizing actual farmland rather than residential neigh­borhoods that were once farmland would make more sense.

Compensation Not Based on Actual Sale Prices. As explained in the text box, the marketing loan program (despite the "loan" misnomer) effec­tively pays farmers whenever crop prices fall below a government-set minimum. Amazingly, farmers are not compensated for the actual price at which they sell their crops. Instead, they can pick the market price on any day of the year and, even if they do not sell their crops at that market price, receive a sub­sidy based on it.

For example, in 2005, the marketing loan rate for corn in DeKalb County, Illinois, was $1.98 per bushel. In September, the market price fell to $1.52 per bushel, and local farmers walked into the local USDA field office and received a payment of $0.46 per bushel. The following January, when they finally sold their corn, the price had risen to $2.60 per bushel, well above the government-set minimum. The federal policy allowed farmers to keep the sub­sidies as compensation for a low market price at which they never actually sold their crops. The amounts can be substantial: DeKalb County farmer Roger Richardson received an extra $75,000 sub­sidy for crops that grossed $500,000.[31]

These are not isolated incidents. In 2006, national corn prices were only $0.05 below the $1.95 marketing loan rate. Nonetheless, corn farm­ers received an average marketing loan subsidy of $0.44 per bushel.[32] President Bush has proposed addressing this loophole by requiring that monthly average crop prices-rather than daily prices- become the basis for determining marketing loan subsidies. This would prevent a one-day drop in crop prices from causing a year-long surge in farm subsidies. Unless Congress acts, farmers will con­tinue to be compensated for low prices that never affect them.

Aid for Questionable Disasters. Lawmakers often supplement generous farm subsidies and sub­sidized crop insurance with annual disaster assis­tance packages. The Washington Post discovered that the USDA encourages disaster declarations for coun­ties without disasters and distributes disaster aid to farmers without requiring proof of any disaster.

Specifically, when the Livestock Compensation Program operated in 2002 and 2003 to compensate farmers for a drought, the majority of payments went to farmers in areas with either moderate drought or none at all. The USDA reportedly urged state and county officials to find anything that could be interpreted as a disaster and use it to qualify the county's farmers for disaster aid. Consequently, more than 2,000 of the nation's 3,141 counties were declared agriculture "disasters," including:

• Whatcom County, Washington, for a distant earthquake that registered only 3 on the local Richter scale and caused no reported damage.
• All 254 counties in Texas for "farm disasters," such as a storm two years earlier and the Space Shuttle Columbia explosion. This prompted a local farmer to tell reporters, "the livestock pro­gram is a joke, we had no losses, I don't know what Congress is thinking sometimes."
• Fifty-three of Wisconsin's 72 counties, many for a small storm that occurred two years earlier. This prompted local farmers to call the disaster aid an unjustified "waste of money."

Nor were the individual farmers required to prove any losses. Washington simply sent them disaster assistance checks based on the number of livestock that they owned. In other words, disaster aid was almost completely disconnected from actual disasters.[33]

Livestock disaster assistance is not the only example of misdirected disaster aid. When sweet potatoes became eligible for crop insurance, plant­ing quadrupled, but crop failures surged. Farmers were purposely growing sweet potato crops on unsuited land and skimping on all production costs simply to collect generous crop insurance and disas­ter aid-a practice known as "farming your insur­ance." Accordingly, the sweet potato insurance program was paying out $16 in insurance claims for every $1 paid in premiums before Congress fixed it in 2005.[34] It is reasonable to assume that this prac­tice continues to some degree in other crops.

The Overall Impact of Farm Policy

Although farm policies serve no legitimate pur­pose, they have profoundly negative effects on tax­payers, consumers, and small farmers, including:

• Higher prices. James Bovard once wrote, "For almost every farm program, there is another equal but opposite farm program or provi­sion."[35] Commodity subsidies encourage over­production and therefore lower prices. The Conservation Reserve Program encourages underproduction and thereby raises prices. Tar­iffs raise import prices. Export subsidies lower export prices. Price supports triple the price of sugar and raise the price of milk. Calculating the net effect of these contradictory programs, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that U.S. farm policy raises food prices enough to cost consumers an extra $12 billion annually-in effect, an average annual food tax of $104 per household.[36]
• High taxes. As the farm economy booms, Con­gress is expanding farm subsidies. After averag­ing less than $14 billion per year during the 1990s, annual farm subsidies have topped $25 billion in the current decade since passage of the 2002 farm bill, the most expensive farm bill in American history. All federal spending must eventually be funded by taxes. Thus, these sub­sidies cost the average household $216 in annual taxes in addition to $104 in higher food prices.
• No added rural economic growth. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City con­cluded that farm subsidies do not promote rural economic growth. Between 1992 and 2002, the vast majority of the 783 "farm dependent" coun­ties experienced job growth below the national average. In fact, more of these counties suffered outright job losses than experienced job growth exceeding the national average.[37] While critics can argue that growth would have been worse without subsidies, these policies are clearly not creating new growth centers. Farm subsidies are likely funding farm consolidations, which in turn are reducing employment on farms and in related industries.
• Small farmers driven out of business. Small family farmers are generally not eligible for sig­nificant levels of farm subsidies. Furthermore, subsidies to large commercial farms harm small farmers by (1) reducing crop prices[38] and, there­fore, farmer incomes; (2) raising the prices of farmland, thereby preventing family farmers from expanding; and (3) subsidizing agribusi­ness buyouts of family farms. Small farmers receive virtually none of the subsidies, but they must endure the market distortions and financial pain caused by these policies.
• Less trade. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Ber­nanke has stated that "the increase in trade since World War II has boosted U.S. annual incomes on the order of $10,000 per household" and that "removing all remaining barriers to trade would raise U.S. incomes anywhere from $4,000 to $12,000 per household." Yet massive tariffs and import restrictions raise food prices and make the American economy less productive. Bring­ing free trade to agriculture would also make free-trade agreements in other industries much more likely.[39]

Conclusion

If Congress takes the path of least resistance and extends current farm policies for another five years, it will have surrendered an enormous opportunity for reform. Most debates over federal programs force lawmakers to balance a program's social bene­fits with the costs of financing it, but current U.S. farm policies serve no legitimate purpose. They bur­den American families with higher taxes and higher food prices. They harm small farmers by excluding them from subsidies, raising land prices, and financing farm consolidation. They increase trade barriers that reduce incomes in America and in lesser-developed countries. They are falsely pro­moted as saving the family farm and protecting the food supply. In reality, they are America's largest cor­porate welfare program.

This year's farm bill debate will test whether Congress is serious about reform or will continue business as usual by pandering to special-interest groups that are working to protect their federal lar­gesse. Congress and President Bush should take a more sensible approach to farm policy this year. Instead of rubberstamping the status quo, they should return to the market-based approach embodied in the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act.

Click here for other charts (Powerpoint)

Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Ian Hinsdale, a former Heritage Foundation intern, contributed to this paper.

[2 ]Ted Covey et al., "Agriculture Income and Finance Outlook," AIS-84, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November 2006, pp. 40 and 48, at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AIS/
AIS-11-30-2006.pdf (June 4, 2007).

[3] Jerome M. Stam, Daniel L. Milkove, and George B. Wallace, "Indicators of Financial Stress in Agriculture Reported by Agri­cultural Banks, 1982-99," AIS-74, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, February 2000, p. 48, and Covey et al., "Agriculture Income and Finance Outlook," p. 38.

[4] Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2007), p. 342, Table B-97, at www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2007/2007_erp.pdf (June 4, 2007).

[5] Covey et al., "Agriculture Income and Finance Outlook," pp. 40, 48, and 63. Net worth data consist of weighted averages of large and very large farms' net worths.

[6] U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A Safety Net for Farm Households," Agriculture Outlook, January-February 2000, pp. 19-24. The authors estimated a cost of $7.8 billion when including everyone who reports any farm income, including "hobby farmers" who have other full-time jobs. Restricting their data to full-time farmers, defined as those working on lower-sales, higher-sales, and large family farms and the fraction of limited-resource farms that are also full-time, the total cost adds up to approximately $4 billion. The eligibility threshold for several federal income-assistance programs, such as the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, is 185 percent of the federal poverty level.

[7] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, "Food Expenditures by Families and Individuals as a Share of Disposable Personal Income data," Table 7, at www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/table7.htm (June 4, 2007).

[8] Bruce Babcock, "Money for Nothing: Acreage and Price Impacts of U.S. Commodity Policy for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Cotton, and Rice," in American Enterprise Institute, The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 2007), pp. 41-45, at www.aei.org/docLib/20070516_Summary.pdf (June 4, 2007).

[9] The U.S. runs a trade surplus in agriculture. See Economic Research Service, "Value of U.S. Trade-Agricultural, Nonagricultural, and Total-and Trade Balance, by Fiscal Year," May 2007, at www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FATUS/DATA/fynonag.xls (June 4, 2007).

[10] Julian Alston, "Lessons from Agricultural Policy Reform in Other Countries," in American Enterprise Institute, The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, pp. 83-86.

[11] Economic Research Service, "Farm Income and Costs: Farm Sector Income Forecast," February 14, 2007, at www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmincome/data/cr_t3.htm (June 4, 2007).

[12] The marketing loan program can operate in different ways. It can be a loan that must be partially repaid later in the year (called a marketing loan gain), or the benefit can be paid in a lump sum as a subsidy (called a loan deficiency payment). Despite these distinctions, the net effect is to subsidize farmers up to the marketing loan rate level.

[13] University of Tennessee, Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, "An Analytical Database of U.S. Agriculture, 1950-1999," 2001, Tables 7.1a and 7.2a.

[14] Paul C. Westcott and C. Edwin Young, "U.S. Farm Program Benefits: Links to Planting Decisions and Agricultural Markets," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Outlook, October 2000, pp. 12-13.

[15] Dan Chapman, Ken Foskett, and Megan Clarke, "How Your Tax Dollars Prop Up Big Growers and Squeeze the Little Guy," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 1, 2006.

[16] American Farmland Trust, "Farm and Food Policy for All-Farmers, Citizens and Communities," 2007.

[17] Ralph Chite, "Emergency Funding for Agriculture: A Brief History of Supplemental Appropriations, FY 1989-FY 2006," Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated July 3, 2006. Chite mentions a total of $36.5 billion, and approximately $3.5 billion was added in 2007.

[18] Gilbert Gaul, Dan Morgan, and Sarah Cohen, "Crop Insurers Pile Up Record Profits," The Washington Post, October 16, 2006.

[19] Ibid. The article includes a graphic showing gains and losses since 1998. The cost of premium subsidies and administrative costs since 1998 were calculated using the 1998-2005 totals listed in the article and then projecting forward for the 2006 and 2007 totals.

[20] John Frydenlund, "Farm Subsidies: Myth and Reality," Citizens Against Government Waste Issue Brief No. 1, April 3, 2007, at www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Farm_Bill-_
Issue_Brief_1.pdf?docID=2121 (June 4, 2007).

[21] Elizabeth Becker, "Land Rich in Subsidies, and Poor in Much Else," The New York Times, January 22, 2002, p. A14.

[22] Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Report of the President, p. 175.

[23] See Environmental Working Group, Farm Subsidy Database, at www.ewg.org/farm (June 4, 2007).

[24] Covey et al., "Agriculture Income and Finance Outlook," pp. 40, 48, and 63.

[25] Dean Kleckner, "Farm Subsidies Are Not Saving the Family Farm," updated manuscript. Copy available upon request.

[26] For a list of subsidy totals, see Environmental Working Group, Farm Subsidy Database. Corporate totals include subsidiaries. Subsidies for lawmakers are described in detail in Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., "How to Discourage Conflicts of Interest in the Federal Agriculture Subsidy Programs," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, forthcoming.

[27] John Lancaster, "More Subsidy Money Going to Fewer Farms," The Washington Post, January 24, 2002, and Environmental Working Group, Farm Subsidy Database.

[28] Dan Chapman, Ken Foskett, and Megan Clarke, "How Savvy Growers Can Double, or Triple, Subsidy Dollars," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 2, 2006.

[29] Economic Research Service, "Farm Income and Costs."

[30] Dan Morgan, Gilbert Gaul, and Sarah Cohen, "Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm," The Washington Post, July 2, 2006.

[31] Dan Morgan, Sarah Cohen, and Gilbert Gaul, "Growers Reap Benefits Even in Good Years," The Washington Post, July 3, 2006.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Gilbert Gaul, Dan Morgan, and Sarah Cohen, "No Drought Required for Federal Drought Aid," The Washington Post, July 18, 2006.

[34] Gilbert Gaul, "Farming Your Insurance," The Washington Post, October 15, 2006.

[35] James Bovard, "Farm Bill Follies of 1990," Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 135, July 12, 1990, at www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa135.html (June 8, 2007).

[36] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: At a Glance (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2006), p. 69, Table 2.12. The 2003-2005 average annual transfer from consumers was $12.285 billion.

[37] Mark Drabenstott, "Do Farm Payments Promote Rural Economic Growth?" Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Center for the Study of Rural America, The Main Street Economist, March 2005, at www.kc.frb.org/RegionalAffairs/mainstreet/MSE_0305.pdf (June 4, 2007).

[38] Although conservation programs raise prices, it is still clear that commodity subsidies reduce prices relative to what they would be with only conservation programs.

[39] Ben S. Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, "Embracing the Challenge of Free Trade: Competing and Prospering in a Global Economy," remarks at the Montana Economic Development Summit 2007, Butte, Montana, May 1, 2007, at www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/Speeches/2007/
20070501/default.htm (June 4, 2007).

This, by the way, is turning out to be one of the leaner years. We will make do, though. We always do.

Last year was a great income year for me, which afforded me some advantages for this year. Mainly in ability to stock a pantry that is just now looking depleted. My income tax refund and my $300.00 stimulus check was spent well, at the Goodwill, the thrift shop and Wal*Mart, as well as in paying ahead on some bills. This practice is always helpful.

My daughters jumped right on the bandwagon at the Goodwill, and that was where they purchased almost all of their clothes that they needed. Teenagers sizes change at times. They are great at finding deals on clothing, by the way. They are not afraid of yardales and thrift shops. This will aid them greatly in their adult lives.

Before I go any further, I would like to discuss how I will be able to pay bills when my younger daughter moves and I am no longer receiving survivors benefits for her. 

It seems reasonable to say that I will have to pay all of the bills by myself when she is no longer here. However, many of these bills will not be as high. Consider these facts:

* She uses more water than I do when showering, etc. She is a teenager after all.

* My sewer bill will go down automatically when the water bill does. I pay about twice as much for sewer as I do for water.

* I will not be using as much electricity after she leaves. Teenagers are constantly using electricity in one form or another. And there will only be one of us using the computer, so it will not be used as long each day.

* I will not use as much oil, because I will not be heating her room. I stopped heating the small bedroom when Skye moved and am now using it as a pantry. I can also turn the heat down lower. I can stand it at 60* during the day, 55* at night, but it is too cold for her at those temperatures. This savings is also reflected on my electric bill.

* Food costs will go down dramatically. I may see the most savings here.

* I do not use near as many bath and body products as she does.

I'm sure there may be things that I have missed as well.

(By the way, I will do the same thing for her that I do for her sister. I get my friends and family involved in putting together care packages for her that consist of personal care items, as well as a couple of fun items, that she can use. I, personally, only have to spend a few dollars this way. I do this a couple of times a year to help her out. Way cheaper than when she was living here.)

Also, when she moves, that is the end of the homeschooling. I can then look for something to do for work outside of the home if I have to.

Another also: I do not own a vehicle, so this is not a cost for me. However, since gas prices have risen, I do give some gas money to whoever I can get a ride to the store with when I have to go. I walk almost everywhere. It is good for me. I have lost 51 pounds over the last-and-a-half.

Okay, so here are the things that I currently do in order to be able to afford to live, even during the leaner years when my income is only around $4,000.

NOTE: I have to keep doing the same things each year, and not lose sight of the fact that my income may be lower the next year. This is part of low-income living.

These are my rules for myself. They are pretty blunt, in order for me to keep on track. This is so because I can't allow myself to slip. I must be stern with myself. Please, take no offense to the bluntness.

1. Always no what costs what, where. Always keep track of sales.

2. Always know what you will need for the next two or three years, and what projects you want to do, and what maintenance will need to be done on your home (and care if you have one). Keep an ongoing list in your purse/wallet at all times.

3. Go to yard sales and thrift shops, consignment shops, flea markets and dollar stores, but always know good quality when you see it. Also, frequent clearance aisles, racks and carts in grocery, clothing and other stores.

4. I, for only the third time in my life, will have to go for fuel assistance this year. Start looking into this during the summer months. This will not pay for your heating source for the whole winter, but will be a little bit of a help. Doing the may also, indirectly, afford you with a tiny discount in your electric and phone bills. Look into Penquis C.A.P., The Salvation Army, Crossroads Ministries, etc.

5. Use coupons, only when you can't get another brand cheaper. I mostly purchase store/generic brands. However, I am changing my diet in order to lose weight. I will be purchasing a lot more fresh produce and such. Eating (mostly) vegetarian under a nutritionists guidance. This will be a challenge, because fresh produce is generally more expensive than the cheap stuff. We have to do what we have to do.

6. Figure out what your wants and needs are. Only get your needs. Wants are just that, wants. (I do treat us to a want once in a great while, but only if I have the cash.)

7. Take anything that anyone wants to give you, even if you don't need it. You can always give what you don't want to someone who can use it, sell it in a yard sale or online, or drop it off at a thrift shop. I put things out on my lawn with big free signs. My daughters were clothed this way for many years. Keep anything that a younger child use later, and remember that you may still have more children, even if you don't think so now.

8. Find recipes for cheap meals. Also, be creative with what little bit you have on hand. Some lettuce with carrot slices and two sliced strawberries makes a great salad.

9. Use Freecycle.

10. If they put it out by the road near the trash, they no longer want it. You can ask just to be sure.

11. When people say, "What do you (or your children) want for Christmas/your Birthday?" Tell them, towels, dishcloths, a shirt, pants, books, food, a care packages of household or personal items, a comforter. Never mind the wants, go with the needs.

12. Grow what you can for food.

13. Walk everywhere you can.

14. I have gone to the food pantry each Friday for the past few weeks. Go there before going to the grocery store. Very nice, helpful people, who do not make you feel bad.

15. Work as much as you can, but put your family first. Work hard. Do not be afraid of doing something new if it will net you an income.

16. See if your landlord will give you a discount if you pay your rent early. Does not work with subsidized housing.

17. When I used to live in low-income housing, I had a wringer washer even though we weren't supposed to. It was an old electric one that just looked like a cabinet. It uses less water than me washing the clothes out by hand, which I had previously done a lot of. When I could afford to, I used the machines in the laundry room. Air dry the clothes, etc.

18. Use smaller appliances, like a slowcooker or toaster oven, rather than the stove. They use less electricity.

19. The park is free, and you can pack a lunch and drinks.

20. I do not suggest welfare unless it is necessary. It is for a lot of people now. Take it if you need it.

21. Stock-up when you can get things cheaply: Food, shampoo, etc.

22. Find recipes for homemade cleaners.

23. Look up free stuff online.

24. If you need something, let everyone know that you are looking for that item. Sit back and wait, maybe it will come to you.

Overall, just do what you have to do to survive. I made about $10,000 dollars last year but, with the rising prices, it was like I had made only half that. The only tangible thing that I got out of last year, really, was the stocked pantry, which is now mostly depleted.

Please, if you have any questions, either comment here, or email me at slb725writer@aol.com. I will be happy to try to help you with ideas on how to live in our economy. Apparently, we are officially in a recession now. Who would have thought, huh. (LOL)

Shannon

I’m now back in Nairobi after a whistle-stop tour of Kenya. The International Rescue Committee is working with refugees and their neighboring communities even here. In Eastleigh and Huruma, for example, we’re helping women’s groups with education classes, accessing legal or healthcare services, and setting up small businesses such as tailoring, selling rice and making injera (flatbread.)It’s a tough life for these women – they live in some of the most rundown and neglected areas of town. For example, Halima and her family live in a shack made of tin sheeting and wooden planks. They have no electricity and have to buy water for drinking, cooking and washing.

The IRC gave Halima a grant to start selling rice and she now has a little extra income to buy essentials such as food and school uniforms for her 3 children. She’s even been able to diversify into selling cloth, but things are far from easy. As Halima says, “It’s hard to do business in a place where there’s so much poverty. People often ask me to give them rice and let them pay later.”

Unfortunately, things have been getting worse recently not better. Rising food prices mean that Halima’s overheads are higher and her customers are buying less. But at least some rice is still selling – it’s such a staple part of the diet here that she’ll always have some customers – and being part of a women’s group means that Halima has friends who can support each other in the times ahead. ]]> http://lbaer.wordpress.com/?p=3 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:04:55 +0000 loribaer http://lbaer.wordpress.com/?p=3 There's much chatter around soaring food prices, and I haven't really noticed. No, I don't live in a bubble; I shop local, buy in season, garden, and preserve. This morning I froze two quarts of strawberries: one from our garden and the other I picked up at the farmers market from a local grower for $3/quart. In a total of about five minutes of "labor," I sliced off the stems and placed the berries on a cookie sheet, stuck them in the freezer for about 30 minutes, then dropped the hardened berries into freezer bags. The bagged berries went back to the freezer where they’ll wait for me until the fall and winter months when strawberries at the grocer will cost at least $3/pint and taste like the clam shell they come in. In the meantime, I'll use fresh strawberries during peak season straight from our garden for everything from breakfast to lunch to dinner. I'll do the same with blueberries, raspberries, cherries, and other fruits to enjoy the rich sweetness of summer in the cold of winter without breaking the budget.  Next time you walk the frozen aisle shopping for fruits, consider what you are paying for and how much a victim of higher food prices you want to become. Is it really more convenient to spend hard-earned dollars at the grocery store on packaging or fuel costs or retail profit instead of using a little foresight to shop in season and preserve the bounty in the name of quality and flavor? I'll choose quality and flavor, thank you very much, and profit the savings myself.

The Issue:

Food prices are rising due to things like high gas prices, livestock raising (waste product management), etc. Meats (Lamb, Chicken, Pork, Beef, Fish) are upwards $7, most-where, and sometimes people can only afford 2 meals a day*.

Problems:

People aren't going to like change, but if push comes to shove, they'll do it. Which brings me to....

Solutions:

Gas Prices go back down - this is probably what everyone hopes for, but... not likely.

Buy homegrown or local farmer produce - This means that you don't get what companies like [unnamed tuna canning company] does where they catch the fish in the US, ship it to Thailand to be processed and canned, and then sent back here to be redistributed. Sure it's cheaper that way, but.... not for long. Although, not all of us have tuna in out backyards, so technically it's permissible as a luxury good. Also, it's gonna help make it so that we eat more vegetables and rely less on livestocks, meats and such.

Insects - These are said to be more efficient, yield less waste products, and be quite healthy. Oh, and we're supposed to eat them. It's not that gross once it's cooked and seasoned, I had one one time (in Thailand), and it was really, really, good. When it comes down to it it's the cooking, seasoning, and taking off those spiky legs and cute dark eyes before eating, that matter. I mean who eats beef that's neither seasoned, cooked, nor with the skin taken off, anyways?

The ones I've eaten yield (per 100g/3 oz/ 99cent chips bag worth), Crickets (562 Cals, 6.7g protein), silkworm pupae (50 Cals, 9.6g protein). So, there's an option for low-calorie intakers, too, for silkworms yield less fat (in pupae stage).

Beans and Egg Whites - These are from what I hear, the healthiest forms of proteins, Egg whites (not the yolks), are supposed to yield pure and complete protein with all amino acids.

Become more efficient consumers - Creating leftovers, and not eating if you're full (this concept I haven't fully grasped) but in theory, it should work, or at least help. I've made the habit of eating food... when food is around, which doesn't entirely make sense.

Limited to 2 meals a day, if living sedentary lifestyle - Buddhist monks do this every day, no meals after 12, no snacks either. Things like liquids are permissible though. Chew gum, keep occupied, and all should be clear. No guarantees that everyone would obtain nirvana though. If hungry, do stuff to keep mind off of food, intensely addictive gaming, purposeless lectures where the professor drones on and on, reading a light novel, manga, or normal novel, exercising sometimes even helps. Wake up early for breakfast, this means sleeping earlier too, which helps for staving off those late-night snack cravings. ~est. quote from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei "The normal time to go to sleep is 20:00, and the normal time to wake up is 6:00, anything else, and one is not human." - That one perfectionist girl with the split hair.

Future:

Just to see how this affects me. Here is my favorite restaurant, Ivar's. According the Global warming articles throughout, the seafood industry is doomed, because the high acidity of Carbon Dioxide dissolved in water will begin to dissolve the Calcium Carbonate in the shells of delicious mollusks, such as mussels, clams, oysters, sea-snails, this will causes their extinction essentially (unless they can learn to get along with their predators), Chinook Salmon and the other guys will have to find a new food source, and it's not going to be pretty. Though I don't mind eating crickets, I wouldn't mind indulging in some famous seafood every now and then.

Blurb: I'm not trying to be the one to tell you guys this so, that I can indirectly save the world, I'm actually just writing this to put into order these ideas that I have in my head, this is for my reference too, I can start shopping at the Crossroads farmer's market taking the bus while going there, buying things like fresh produce and fruits, and not taking things like meat for granted, and eat less of them since they're something that's getting rarer, and I believe, that if we all try and be a little bit less wasteful, we can work to help conserve my favorite species of delicious seafood from certain extinction, and the complete reconfiguration of the entire seafood food chain. And apparently, on July 15th I'll be at the Crossroads Farmer's market to celebrate my favorite fruit, the Blueberry

, where it and it's products will be sold for $5.00.

*When I was a Buddhist novice, I was only limited to 2 meals a day (absolutely nothing solid after 12), it wasn't really that bad I didn't feel hungry, sometimes, I even had a small lunch, though usually I would try and stock up my energy reserves for the day by eating my fill during lunch, and the rest would be managed by something like Odwalla Superfoods.

Sources:

Discover Magazine "How technology will save the earth"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7434509.stm

http://www.planetscott.com/babes/nutrition.asp

Last year, on June 30, 2007, I purchased a 25-pound sack of flour at Costco. Just all-purpose flour. Nothing fancy. It cost $4.79, or $0.19 per pound.

Yesterday (June 3, 2008), I purchased the exact same product. It cost $8.49, or $0.34 per pound.

That's a 79 percent price increase in just one year.

This is why we need to grow our own veggies -- so we can continue to afford flour.

According to an article from CNN, wheat prices have soared in the past year because of:

• Ethanol. Corn is competing with wheat for field space.
• The weak dollar. Other nations are snapping up our food supply, and 59 percent of U.S. wheat is being exported.

One thing's for sure: We are experiencing weird economics like I've never experienced in my adult life. It reminds me of my parents' and grandparents' frightening cycles of the 1970s and 1930s. Hopefully, it's all a cycle, and this too shall pass. But meanwhile, be very kind to your local bakery owner, because they are feeling an intense pinch right now.

A patriotic young man fighting off the vultures of world famine coming to steal the food he has brought forth from the earth with his honest labor and toil.

These are probable precursors to the Doomsday event:

1. The possession of an arsenal of A-bombs by one of the victim countries of famine.
2. A leadership that believes it has the right to use atomic weapons to obtain food.
3. A supporting population of people who feel dispossessed of a necessity like food.
4. An essential item, probably food, water or energy, becoming difficult to acquire.
5. A dearth of an essential like water for crops and even for personal use because of another country's actions.
6. The price of food exceeding 80% of the income of most of a country's people with associated thefts becoming commonplace.
7. A religious belief in the righteousness of killing other people to save ones friends.
8. A 50% worldwide shortfall of a major food crop — wheat, rice, corn, soybeans.
9. Major theft of food supplies at sea or on highways by organized groups.
10. State sponsored theft of another country's water or food.

A Doomsday can happen at any moment because of accident, error, mistake, or simple stupidity which triggers a positive feedback cycle of hostile actions. However, the aggravating factors listed above are probable immediate precursors of that type of event happening because they increase the stress that is felt by all of the people and by their leadership. The final triggering event won't be the lack of food per se but the perception of an imminent condition where the victims feel that if they don't act immediately they will become so disadvantageously weakened as to become supine and unable to defend themselves. When they are so weak that they can't defend themselves then their enemies will step in and take what little they still possess and leave them to wither and die. They obviously can't permit that to happen and so they will attack. Because the leadership realizes the attack will provoke a counter attack they will be forced to attack massively on this first assault. If they possess atomic weapons this means that they will use them. However, when they do use them there are other nuclear states who will be tempted or perhaps even forced by circumstances to use their A-bombs and almost instantly a positive feedback cycle is in action and a general conflagration begins. Thus Doomsday is triggered by a food shortfall. The shortfall is only relative to the population's needs and so that becomes a question of temporary local overpopulation. The exact order and development will be unique to any given Doomsday event but this is the general order of development.

or....

Drought and climate change have led to a slow down in the growth of agricultural production: in Australia, wheat production plummeted by 52% between 2004 and 2006, and grain production dropped by 13% in the United States and 14% in the European Union in the same period. The use of mainly corn-based biofuels is also contributing significantly to the current shortages. Lastly, changes in eating habits in the West and in the so-called emerging markets primarily in Asia, along with rapid urbanization, have driven up demand for food, putting further strain on supply. Speculation on food commodities is also a major destabilizing factor.

There's been a warning of food riots every month, from different sources. Sounds like things may destabilize in parts of the world by the end of the year.

The middle class is being especially squeezed by the gas price crunch, and prices aren't just going up at the pump. Heating and cooling bills are rising. Food costs are rising. And retailers are generally jumping prices up because why the hell not? They're facing higher manufacturing and transportation prices for their goods ... so it's the end consumer that will be footing the bill.

All of these problems are symptoms of a generally unsustainable way of life. We are too dependent on fossil fuels for our lifestyles (big surprise). The crunch we're facing now is not the result of political instability or other temporary supply problem. It is the result of a slow and steady increase of prices over time that has no end in sight and no quick fix.

So our Government, in all its wisdom is subsidizing the production of ethanol. That's a good thing, right? Not necessarily. They are choosing to subsidize ethanol from corn, which is the least efficient method of production, costing more energy to produce than it creates ... and also putting upward pricing pressure on food prices. More efficient methods of producing ethanol include switchgrass and hemp ... but don't expect to see government subsidies for those methods any time soon. It would make too much sense. O.o (Not to mention the marijuana/hemp controversy!)

This is yet another reason that I believe true and meaningful economic recovery for this country is not going to come from the top down. We can't count on the government to know what the hell it's doing. After all, look at the current results we are experiencing as a result of laws and government that prizes the corporation over the individual, and the wealthy over the common good. Not so great, is it? In fact, there's buzz all over the internet regarding the impending doom of the United States as we know it ... possible economic collapse, possible martial law, possible governmental overthrow, possible debt enslavement of an entire population while corporations rule unchecked, definite loss of status as the world's #1 superpower, likely loss of the dollar as world reserve currency, and the list goes on.

Who knows what the future holds? I do know I'm more than a little concerned for the future of my children. I wonder what the world is going to look like when I reach my Grandmother's age, or if I'll even make it that long with all the environmental pollution, corruption of health care, and perversion of the food supply. I wonder if companies like Monsanto will succeed in their bid to enslave and make profit from all life while destroying biodiversity and genetically engineering the extinction of species through their "terminator technology" which means seeds from fruits and vegetables are sterile and will no longer grow new food. I wonder if we're ever going to change our minds about what is trash and what is treasure, cleaning up and utilizing this massive mess of plastic that is choking the ecosystems of this planet. I wonder if the government is ever going to stop putting a halt to the actual solutions that would fix things because it would hurt the profits of their biggest campaign donors.

When I started this blog, I kind of envisioned it as a place for hope and solutions. I just keep seeing these huge and overwhelming problems that are going to take so much to overcome. What we need is for everyone to chip in their two cents, and get their hands dirty working to find and implement real solutions. If we sit and wait for the government or "someone" to save us, I am quite convinced we're doomed.

So how about it? What do you think? What solutions do you see? How would you pitch in to fix the very large problems we are all facing? One by one by one is the only way change ever happens. When one by one by one, we each pitch in and add our effort, it adds up to one very large change. So let's get those brains and those hands working! Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. Make 2 fewer car trips in your week. Boycott companies with insane, profit hungry, people hurting practices. Pick up litter and stop littering. Buy whole foods and ingredients in order to cook stuff our bodies recognize how to use. Think of a new way to use something that you would otherwise just throw away. Think of a new something that can be used to address one of the massive multiple problems we all face.

Post your ideas here along with the link back to your blog, information or website so we can spread the word. As more and more people realize that our individual contribution makes an enormous difference, more will wake up to what we need to do to heal this world and ensure a future for our children and our children's children.

Wishing you ideas and motivation to save our world, and hope. Always hope.

Namaste,
Lina

The first thing to do is to recognize that the employee's worries are real. Companies that listen to their employees and make an effort to understand their issues generally build stronger loyalty than those who view their people simply as "resources." Set up mechanisms within the company to give employees a chance to discuss their problems with people who are empowered to try to resolve them.

Look for opportunities to help employees reduce their living expenses - offer incentives to vehicle pool, provide low-cost company transportation to and from the workplace, share advice on saving energy in the home and so on. No-one knows how to shave costs better than the CFO of a well run company. Help your employees apply those same lessons to their own lives.

At the same time, involve employees in the company's own cost saving initiatives. Hold internal competitions to create innovative and insightful cost saving ideas. Work with suppliers and channel partners to reduce costs. Help employees reduce their own costs and reward top performers. The more a company is able to create a community approach to dealing with increases in the cost of living, the more loyalty it is going to create among the people that it employees.

And then it dawned on me: that way flies food waste and for a frugal hedonist that way lies madness too.

Food manufacturers go to some lengths to keep us buying the fancy "deli" stuff aimed at our sophisticated palates.  This usually means adding herbs and/or garlic to enhance the flavour of the main attraction, so while blithely using the contents of the jar, might it not be a really good idea to also make use of the olive oil it's been swimming in to augment and deepen the flavours of your dish - or even the whole meal?

So if you're cooking up beef daube with olives, brown the beef in oil from the olive jar (try anchovy for an authentic southern Rhône flavour) - or start your sofrito sizzling with sun-dried tomato oil for an Italian ragù.  Try frying the aubergines in artichoke oil next time you make caponata.  Kick off a pilaf with the same; add a few drops to plain couscous, a tablespoon or two to pizza dough...

I have even been known to strain the oil into a decanter and poke in a couple of rosemary sprigs - hey presto, rosemary oil for focaccia!

Use in almost any recipe instead of your usual olive oil.  If you devote half a shelf in the fridge door to these almost empty jars and use them up quickly, not only is the extra depth of flavour well worth it, you'll be able to save up your pennies for some really special olive oil.

Home Instead Senior Care CAREGivers can help seniors manage their food budget, be sure your loved one is preparing and eating wholesome meals, and even help wit