.
Congress Likes Higher Food Prices - The Dollar Stretcher
Welcome to Dollar Stretcher Community Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

The Dollar Stretcher

The Dollar Stretcher blog will explore people and money.

Congress Likes Higher Food Prices

It's fairly obvious to anyone who's not sleepwalking that higher food and fuel prices are really hurting most Americans. Everyday I get emails from folks who are struggling with these two bills. For many people it's a real serious problem. 

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I figured that our elected representatives would recognize the problem and try to do something about it. Boy, was I wrong. Not only did they ignore the food price inflation, but they actually found a way to make it worse! They just don't seem to understand what it's like for you and I to work to support our families. Last week provided an excellent example. On May 14th, the House passed a $307 Billion farm bill.

Now, I like farmers as much as anyone. In fact, Foremans were Wisconsin dairy farmers. I was raised in the city, but spent lots of time visiting relatives who made their living on small family farms. So I have the utmost respect for someone who plants something and nurtures it as it grows bigger. And, I want to help those people wherever I can. But, this bill doesn't do that. It assumes that you and I are too stupid to go beyond the name 'farm bill'. We must be too dumb to recognize that it's not the small farmer who's being protected. It's the large agri-business corporation and others who have little (or nothing) to do with farming as you and I would think of it.

First, look at the cutoff. A couple with a yearly income of $1.5 million can receive farm subsidies. Call me Scrooge, but I'd say that families making more than, oh, say $500,000 per year probably doesn't need subsidies paid for by you and I. One group reports that only 8% of the producers will get 78% of the money here

Still think it could be a good piece of legislation? Take a look at your grocery bill. You'll find that bread, milk and meat have all increased in price. Dramatically. Why? In large part because ethanol is consuming grains that normally would go to feed us. Higher prices indicate that there's more demand for corn than we can produce. Now you might think that Washington would get the idea that their ethanol mandates should be relaxed until the supply of corn can catch up with the demand. Guess again.  So why is the government subsidizing ethanol production?  Seems a little like pouring gas on the fire of higher food prices. 

Then you have the old Congressional shell game. That's where they include spending that has nothing to do with the main bill. After all, who wants to be against the family farm? So let's throw in some money for horse racing and timber interests. Those dummies back home will never know the difference!

Rational people might have said that this was a good time to limit a farm bill to helping those family farmers who truly need help. "Farm net income is up 56% in the last 2 years" (source: NY Times)  There's "$40 billion in subsidies to commodity farmers who already enjoy record prices." (source: SF Chronicle) We could have had a farm bill that took care of the small family farm without causing additional grocery inflation. But, that wouldn't have pleased all the special interests.

Guess I'm just mad. You and I are dealing with higher energy and food prices. Instead of doing something to help, our elected representatives (from both parties) are busy spending our money buying favors for themselves. Adding 'earmarks' to every bill in sight. I really believe that it's time to put Washington on a budget. And, force them to keep it. Whoever said that they should be allowed to 'earmark' anything? I don't recall voting on it. 

Much of the economic trouble that you and I face today is due to the clowns (and I use the term intentionally) in Washington that we call elected representatives. They set us up for this fall. And, unless a camera is present they really don't seem to care to much about how much it hurts us. After all, things are booming in the beltway. No recession there!

I was raised to respect the people who led our country. But, it's really hard to respect someone when you know that their back pockets are filled with money that at best was unearned, and, at worst could be called bribe money. Maybe it's time to let them know how little respect they've earned.

So the next time your elected representative says they're against special interests ask them how they voted on the farm bill. There were 318 yes votes (and only 106 no's) in the House.  The Senate voted 85-15. This isn't a partisan Democrat/Republican issue. This is a question whether we can trust the crazies on the Potomac not to bankrupt both the government and you and I. If they voted 'yes' on this bill, it's probably time to vote 'no' on their re-election this November.

Keep on Stretching those Dollars!

Gary 

 

 

 

Comments

 

dmc_2008 said:

I agree. Gas and food prices are squeezing everyone! It's especially hard now because just when I realized I had to cut back, it is darn near impossible.

I don't know where then end is, I don't see much hope?  How far will it go and will it stay like this?

Nervous!

May 24, 2008 4:43 PM
 

haverwench said:

Er, beg pardon, but what about the increases in food stamp benefits for millions of Americans?  How about the increased funding for food banks and other emergency food distributors?  How about the healthy-snack program for students?

It's certainly an oversimplification to claim that the farm bill caters to "special interests" (agribusiness) while deliberately ignoring the problems of ordinary working Americans.  Of the bill's $307 billion price tag (over five years), only $35 billion is for commodity programs such as crop subsidies.  About $209 billion, by contrast, is for programs to feed the poor.

So no, quite frankly, I'm not prepared to "throw the bums out" just for supporting this bill.  Many of those who voted for it, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, acknowledged that it was flawed but couldn't bring themselves to oppose it when it contained so many important provisions that could help Americans in need.  I certainly can't condemn that decision.

(Source: "Reaching Well Beyond the Farm," New York Times, May 20, 2008: www.nytimes.com/.../20farm.html)

May 26, 2008 8:33 PM
 

deberryfarm said:

Hi,

I just wanted to do a little "rebuttal" from a farmer about your farm bill comments.  My family has a small fresh produce farm - and we do not get any of the "subsidies" you mention.  But I do understand the system a bit.  The media, I know, always has a hey-day every time the farm bill comes up for reallocation.  So the public gets the idea that a few big men in suits sitting in a high rise smoking cigars are getting all the farm bill money.  OK, there may be a few, but most farmers getting help from Uncle Sam are actually out in the fields every day working on the farm.

The $1.5 million cutoff per couple is gross income, not profit.  For instance, a dairy with about 500 or fewer milking cattle would make this amount in a year - depending on prices to the farmer (this is not a very large dairy).  Margins (gross income minus expenses) in farming are razor thin (that's why farms have gotten bigger, to take advantage of a larger scale.)   Fuel prices are high, and food/feed production is a heavy user of fuels.  It's hard to find workers willing to do farm work, so they have the beaurocracy of the migrant worker programs.  Then let's talk about weather - freezing, drought, tornadoes, hail, wind, hurricanes, floods, lack of irrigation water, the list goes on.

Most of the money is going to just a few owners, because the majority of farms in the US today are very small.  The USDA uses $2,500 gross income from farming to qualify a business as a "farm".  Most of the small farms are run by people part time on small acreage, who have full time jobs off the farm.  They're not trying to make a living from the farm, so they are not assuming much risk.  The large farms are assuming a huge amount of risk, from the hazards of weather, sudden foreign trade embargos, questionable labor availability, etc.  

The corn grown for ethanol is not the same kind of corn grown for humans to eat.  Ethanol production of corn takes production away from animal feed, so higher meat prices could be attributed (in part) to conversion of corn production from feed to ethanol.  It's basically more expensive to feed cattle now.

A lot of the "subsidies" listed are actually in the form of insurance for the farmers.  They take out (pay for) insurance policies through the USDA (because no self-respecting insurance agent will go near high risk farming) to insure their crops each year.  You don't get near the actual value of the crop if it actually fails, only about 60-70%, depending on the level of coverage you choose.  But you still have to pay 100% of your bills.

I agree, tacking on unrelated items to the bill is a little shady, but forestry is definitely related to farming - a large portion of our farmland is actually forested pasture land, and farmers are often wonderful stewards of forest land.  I know horse racing sounds unrelated too, but it's a way for many farms to be able to remain as open space, rather than be gobbled up by housing developments.  (Especially near the Baltimore/Washington corridor in my state).

Honestly, we have had it too easy as consumers in the U.S.  We only spend about 10% of our income on food.  There are countries in Asia where it's as high as 70%.  Every other industry pushes to keep our food prices low - if people spend too much on food - which they have to buy, they won't have enough money to buy cars and take vacations and such.  The actual farmer doesn't receive much of each dollar you spend on your food. This website says it nicely:   www.alfafarmers.org/.../food_dollar.phtml  

I can think of no other homeland security threat than for us to not produce enough food in our country for our population.  Having to depend on China for our food?  Now that's scary.  Without subsidies and other help from the government, who in their right mind would want to start a business where you're at the whim of nature every single day, don't set your own prices, have to pay to store then ship your product to the distributor, do hard labor from sunup to sundown (and beyond), have more environmental regulations to keep track of each year, and barely scrape by at the end of the year?  

I just wanted to maybe shed some light.  I know it's not a perfect system, but if you look at other countries, our Farm Bill does not subsidize our farmers nearly as much (despite what those countries say publically).  

Thanks for a wonderful email newsletter, and keep up the good work.

May 27, 2008 10:17 AM
 

frugallady said:

It seems as if a lot of middle class citizens are going to need food stamps.  It seems that the U.S.  is the only country that has a food stamp program.  Most people are growing vegetable gardens in their back yards to help beat the rise of food prices.  I plan on doing the same.  Avoiding waste is essential.  I read somewhere that the farmers  will discard the produce that they don't sell at the farmer's markets.  Why don't they donate them to food pantries and soup kitchens.  It will make more sense than making waste.  

May 27, 2008 9:14 PM
 

deberryfarm said:

Regarding leftover produce at farmers markets:

Many farmers do donate to pantries, but many more pantries don't want food they have to "prepare"  because they don't have the manpower to wash and clean the produce.

And just because it is discarded, doesn't mean the produce is wasted.  We compost all our leftovers (after giving what we can to neighbors and family each week).  The compost adds nutrients and organic matter to our soils, making a better growing environment.

May 28, 2008 1:46 PM
 

wildgift said:

There are "food stamps" all over the world, especially in poor countries.  When the poverty is widespread, governments will subsidize the cost of bread  so it's affordable to poor people.

Also, @deberry, there *is* a futures market that's supposed to reduce risk.

June 16, 2008 3:46 AM

About Gary

For more than 25 years, Gary Foreman has worked to manage money effectively. Prior to starting The Dollar Stretcher, he was a financial planner and purchasing manager. While helping clients manage their hard earned money as a financial planner, he applied commonsense, time-tested techniques during the turbulent 1980’s. The experience convinced him that you didn’t need to hit the lottery to accumulate significant wealth. Following that, Gary had an opportunity to learn more about how to get the best value for a dollar spent in the corporate world. As the Purchasing Manager for a computer manufacturer, he was responsible for supervising over $10 million in annual purchases. Gary began The Dollar Stretcher website <www.TheDollarStretcher.com> and newsletters in April 1996. Over 300,000 readers benefit from the time and money saving ideas presented in The Dollar Stretcher newsletters each week. His mission is to help people "Live Better for Less". He also provides private label newsletters for companies wishing to provide money saving information for their clients and/or prospects. Gary lives in Florida along with his wife of thirty years and their two children. Much of his time is spent working with the men's ministry of his church. One of their ongoing projects is the "Holy Smoke BBQ" which sells bbq on Friday nights with the profits going to support local foster kids and orphans. When he has a free moment you’ll find him restoring a Checker station wagon nicknamed “Two Ton” or cruising in a '65 Impala SS Convertible with doo-wops playing in the background.

This Blog

Syndication


News

Gary is a former financial planner and purchasing manager who edits The Dollar Stretcher website <www.stretcher.com> and newsletters. You can follow Gary on Twitter.com/gary_foreman
About Us    Privacy Policy    Writers' Guidelines     Sponsorship     Media    Contact Us



Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems