Obama and the 1%

PRINT PAGE

Obama defies base, hires Wall Street lobbyist for re-election campaign

By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller   12:02 AM 10/25/2011

ADVERTISEMENT

President Barack Obama’s new senior campaign adviser is a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, and has the potential to damage the president’s aspirations to appeal to the protesters currently “occupying” New York City’s Zuccotti Park.

Obama’s new adviser, Broderick Johnson, has an extensive history of lobbying for big banks and corporations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2007, he lobbied for JP Morgan Chase and in 2008 Johnson lobbied for Bank of America and Fannie Mae. From 2008 through 2010, he lobbied for Comcast and in 2011 he lobbied for Microsoft.

Johnson is currently a partner at D.C.-based communications firm Collins Johnson Group, which boaststhat it excels at “providing superior strategic planning and political consulting services to multinational corporations, government entities, political campaigns and parties, elected leaders, nonprofit organizations, issue groups, investors and entrepreneurs.”

Including open houses and social events, Johnson has visited the White House 17 times since 2009, according to White House visitor logs. One of those meetings was with Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.

In early 2009, Johnson was named partner at lobbying firm Bryan Cave LLP’s Washington, D.C. office. In that role, his responsibility was to “establish and lead the firm’s new Public Policy & Governmental Affairs Client Service Group.”

That means that during those White House visits, Johnson was a registered lobbyist.

Johnson also donated more than $150,000 of his own money Democratic candidates and causes since 2008. Public political donation records show Johnson has, since 2006, never donated to a conservative or a Republican.

Perhaps most troubling to those who normally would consider themselves Obama’s 2012 base, though, is how Johnson has lobbied on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Huffington Post previously reported that Johnson is a “former Bryan Cave LLP lobbyist registered on the Keystone XL account” and that Bryan Cave LLP earned approximately $1.08 million lobbying for TransCanada between 2009 and 2011.

Environmentalists are upset about the near-finalized pipeline proposal that would allow TransCanada to build a $7 billion, 1700-mile pipeline through the heart of the United States. If the State Department approves the proposals and the pipeline is built, it would transport crude oil from tar sands in Alberta, Canada to U.S. refineries along the Gulf of Mexico.

Liberal group Friends of the Earth, which adamantly opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, is furious with Obama’s decision to hire a former pro-pipeline lobbyist. The group is disgusted with what it considers Obama’s blatant support for crony capitalism.

“Apparently the hope and change idealism of the 2008 campaign has been replaced by cynical status quo insiderism for 2012,” Friends of the Earth spokesman Nick Berning told The Daily Caller. “It’s as though the Obama campaign were intentionally trying to alienate its base.”

The Obama re-election campaign appears to have tried to hide or downplay Johnson’s lobbying history, as the original campaign press release announcing his hire completely ignored it. Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse hasn’t returned TheDC’s request for comment on the issue, either.

Later, though, Politico reported that an anonymous Obama campaign official said Broderick “is no longer a lobbyist — he deregistered in April — and he will not discuss any matters related to his former firm’s clients with the campaign.”

The Republican National Committee, however, thinks this kind of behavior on the part of the Obama campaign is typical and to be expected from the president.

“This is just more of the same from the president that promised he would change Washington,” RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said in an email to TheDC. “While President Obama publicly attacks lobbyists and Wall Street, he’s more than happy to use their influence and cash to fuel his campaign.”

Even though it’s hiring Wall Street lobbyists, Obama’s 2012 campaign plans to channel the Occupy Wall Street movement into an attack on Republicans,according to the Washington Post. Obama has announced public support for the protesters, too. In an October 6 news conference, Obama said that the protest movement “expresses the frustrations the American people feel, that we had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country.”

“And yet you’re still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place,” Obama added.

It’s unclear how, if at all, Obama can account for the inconsistencies between his campaign rhetoric and his actual political actions. Hiring Johnson represents another test for Obama, if he’ll actually address concerns about the former Wall Street lobbyist’s past.

Johnson’s wife, National Public Radio host Michele Norris, also announced she plans to recuse herself from hosting the taxpayer-subsidized radio network’s All Things Considered program through the 2012 election because of an apparent conflict of interest.

Follow Matthew on Twitter

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama-defies-base-hires-wall-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/

Copyright © 2009 Daily Caller. All rights reserved.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama-defies-base-hires-wall-street-lobbyist-for-re-election-campaign/#ixzz1bnfzxu2u

It's time to rethink mortgage tax breaks

By ERIC WIEFFERING, Star Tribune

The Great Recession demolished one myth about owning a house, that values never go down. Now it's time to jettison the one about tax deductions for mortgage interest payments.

It goes something like this: The American Dream itself depends on being able to deduct the interest you pay on your mortgage. Cutting, capping or dropping it altogether will -- take your pick: depress home values; make it harder for minority families to buy a house; lower the overall ownership rate, and destabilize society at large.

While it may be true that owning a home has tremendous social value, there's little proof that being able to deduct the interest payments on a mortgage is essential to fostering an ownership society. In fact, the plethora of tax incentives may have contributed to the financial mess many homeowners currently find themselves in.

In recent weeks, two bipartisan deficit panels have recommended eliminating mortgage interest deductibility or replacing it with a direct credit as part of a broader plan to reduce spending, raise taxes and lower the federal deficit.

These plans, which both include tax simplification and sharp reductions in income tax rates, are a long way from becoming law, but they have initiated much-needed conversations about a variety of sacrosanct special interests and tax incentives.

The chief argument against mortgage interest deductibility is that it is expensive and inefficient. It will cost the U.S. Treasury about $130 billion -- almost three times the annual budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development -- in 2012 alone. While we're at it, let's tack on another $31 billion for the deductibility of property taxes, and about $50 billion for the exclusion of capital gains on the sale of residential property.

Most of these financial benefits accrue to people in the highest tax brackets -- the people who don't need a subsidy to buy a house in the first place. A 2008 study in one economics journal concludes that households with incomes exceeding $250,000 receive 10 times the tax savings from interest deductibility as households earning between $40,000 and $75,000.

The incentive also distorts choices, encouraging people who receive the smallest benefit to live in a more expensive home. Who hasn't had a real estate agent whisper in their ear that, "the more house you buy, the bigger your tax break"?

Worse, these tax incentives have not led to higher U.S. homeownership rates, which stood at just under 67 percent this past summer. Canada's homeownership rate is 68 percent despite never having allowed interest deductibility. Great Britain eliminated mortgage interest deductibility in 2000, and the homeownership rate climbed. It's about 68 percent.

Mortgage interest deductibility isn't the only proposal in the recent deficit reduction plans, but few have as many advocates. The housing industry represents about 16 percent of the United States' gross domestic product, and loud opposition to the proposal from Democrats, Republicans and industry interests illustrates why it's often called, along with Social Security, "the other third rail of American politics."

The National Association of Realtors weighed in immediately, with economist Lawrence Yun predicting that eliminating the deduction would reduce home values by an additional 15 percent and destroy family wealth.

"Since the inception of the tax code nearly 100 years ago this has been seen as an appropriate social deduction," said Christopher Galler, chief operating officer for the Minnesota Association of Realtors. "Why change the rules on people now?"

But rules change as society does, usually not with the devastating effects that industry groups often predict. Consumers didn't cut up their credit cards in 1986, for example, when the Tax Reform Act ended tax deductions for interest payments on credit card debt.

That legislation for the first time made a special carve-out for mortgage interest deductions. A year later, Congress enriched the benefit by allowing consumers to deduct interest payments on home equity loans. Presto! Interest payments on that LCD television or Mexican vacation became tax-deductible.
This is not the first time someone has suggested eliminating mortgage interest deductibility. The first failed effort was in 1963. Sen. Ted Kennedy tried in 1980, and a budget advisory panel convened by President George W. Bush in 2005 recommended replacing it with a smaller credit. The panel also recommended eliminating the deduction completely for second homes and home equity loans.
"There's a vast and powerful lobby behind that tax deduction, so I have a hard time seeing how it ever passes," said Alex Stenback, a Twin Cities area mortgage banker and author of a closely read industry blog, Behind the Mortgage.

George Karvel, a professor of real estate at the University of St. Thomas, believes that mortgage interest deductibility does provide a valuable incentive toward homeownership, and he cautions against doing anything drastic now, given the fragile state of the housing sector.

"For many people, being able to deduct their mortgage interest might be the only thing keeping their head above water at the moment," Karvel said.

Still, Karvel likes the idea of eliminating the deduction for interest paid on second home mortgages, and interest payments for newly issued home equity mortgages. And he thinks there might be support for limiting the deduction on primary residences to mortgages of $500,000 or less.

He thinks the odds of something happening this time around might be better than ever because of growing awareness of the financial challenges affecting the country's long-term prosperity.

"What is slowly being recognized by the public and politicians alike," Karvel said, "is that our governments have made promises to deliver future benefits, in Social Security, in Medicare, that they will not be able to deliver on unless we start acting now."

source:http://www.startribune.com/business/109282359.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUdcOy_nc:DKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUbPi87EK_g:D_vqnH_nchO7DU#comments

Bailout Mania - Call your Congressperson

Congress buying our confidence with cash earlier this year failed.

Congress buying out Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae failed.

The Feds buying AIG and other shady financial schemes failed.

What makes us think a $700,000,000,000 bailout will work? It won't, but it might stave off concern until after the election.

Call Congress and let them know we want long-term solutions, not last second election schemes. The longer we stall the impending recession, the greater likelihood it will be a Depression.

Senator Amy Klobuchar ---------202-224-3244
Senator Norm Coleman ---------202-224-5641

Tim Walz ---------202-225-2472
John Kline ---------202-225-2271
Jim Ramstad ---------202-225-2871
Hon. Keith Ellison---------202-225-4755
Hon. Betty McCollum---------202-225-6631
Michelle Bachmann--------- 202-225-2331
Collin Peterson ---------202-225-2165
Jim Oberstar ---------202-225-6211

If any Greens want to chime in about how this might work, please feel free to explain. Our economy may collapse, but society may not if we can implement long-term strategies to deal with our intertwining energy and economic crisis. Bailing out Wall Street should be off the table.

Today, at around the country at 5PM, there will be rallies to protest the taxpayer handout to Wall Street billionaires. To find where one is near you go here: http://truemajority.wiredforchange.com/o/8/t/107/event/search.jsp?distributed_event_KEY=5

Peace,

-Kevin

Seize the Time!

by Cynthia McKinney

We the people must now seize the time! We have always had the capabilityof determining our own destiny, but for various reasons, the people failed to elect the leaders who provided the correct political will. There was always some corporate or private special interest that stood in the way of the public good. And they always seemed to have the power of the purse to throw around and influence public opinion or our elected officials. The
very foundation of the U.S. economy is crumbling underneath our feet. This represents a unique moment in U.S. history and we must now seize the time for self-determination - for health care, education, ecological wisdom, justice, and all the policies that will make a difference in the lives of the people including an end to all wars, including the drug war!

The crisis was staved off for a time for some of our major finance engines when they were able to obtain bridge funding from certain sovereign wealth funds. That option grows increasingly dim as The Federal Reserve is becoming the lender of last resort. This means that the people are
becoming the owners of the primary instruments of U.S. capital and finance. This now means that the people have a say in how these instruments are to be used and what their priorities ought to be. The people should now have more say in how their tax dollars are spent and what the priorities of government and the public sector must be. We the people must now set our demands to ensure and promote the public good.

Now, as we ponder the importance of this moment to do good and serve the needs of the people, some politicians have already figured out their answer for us: win or steal the next election, prepare for more war, and leave it to others to try and figure out what to do next. While banks are failing all around us and the U.S. taxpayer is drenched with news of billion-dollar bailouts for *selected* companies, the Congress, which has utterly failed in its twin responsibilities of setting policy and Executive Branch oversight, plans to adjourn instead of setting new policies; lessening the impact of the economic freefall on innocent victims; or stopping war, expansion of war, new war, and occupation.

In a dizzying turn of recent events, we have all witnessed the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage providers, investment banks Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, and insurer American International Group (AIG), and other companies. So far, at least eleven banks have filed for bankruptcy this year. The case of the AIG bailout is particularly curious as Merrill Lynch was denied taxpayer largesse. I wonder if AIG was the selected company for bailout because of its relationship to the U.S. intelligence community and what others would discover if AIG's books were opened in an audit. The last person to get close to AIG and its shady operations was Eliott Spitzer.

But some more fundamental issues must be explored here, relating to the underlying assumptions that have guided U.S. political and economic activity, particularly over the last eight years.

The Bush Administration's "anything goes, just don't get caught" attitude has set the tone for what we are witnessing today. To be sure these problems didn't start in January of 2001, but they sure were allowed to accelerate during the George W. Bush Administration. For example, what tone was set when the Administration shipped $12 billion to Paul Bremer's provisional government in Iraq in cash on wooden pallets for Iraq reconstruction? No wonder $9 billion of it was "lost." What I'm constantly reminded of is that the money didn't just vanish, somebody got it. Now it's up to us to find out who!

However, the Administration's blatant disregard for good governance, the rule of law, standards of moral and ethical conduct, and even etiquette, when coupled with a laissez-faire, "go-along-to-get-along" attitude from Congress meant that no holes were barred and no hands were on the deck - a sure prescription for disaster.

In my reading over the course of the last few years, I had to become somewhat conversant with the language of the new economy: bundled mortgages, securitization, SPEs, SIVs, derivatives. But in addition to the old concepts that always seemed to be with us - predatory lending, redlining, no affordable housing amid "the housing bubble," - it soon became clear that basically folks had figured out a way to make money off of a ticking time bomb. Kind of like prisons for profit. And even though the Enron scandal was supposed to have cleaned up a lot of this, unfortunately, even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regularly engaged in some of these practices and that's why you and I own them today. I believe it is true that the very foundations of the U.S. economy and conventional political behavior have been shaken. Now is not the time for business as usual. And although this is by no ways exhaustive, here are a few things that I think the Democratic-led Congress could work on now instead of adjourning:

1. enactment of a foreclosure moratorium now before the next phase of ARM interest rate increases take effect;

2. elimination of all ARM mortgages and their renegotiation into 30- or 40-year loans;

3. establishment of new mortgage lending practices to end predatory and discriminatory practices;

4. establishment of criteria and construction goals for affordable housing;

5. redefinition of credit and regulation of the credit industry so that discriminatory practices are completely eliminated;

6. full funding for initiatives that eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in home ownership;

7. recognition of shelter as a right according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. is a signatory so that no one sleeps on U.S. streets;

8. full funding of a fund designed to cushion the job loss and provide for retraining of those at the bottom of the income scale as the economy transitions;

9. close all tax loopholes and repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners;

10. fairly tax corporations, denying federal subsidies to those who relocate jobs overseas, repeal NAFTA.

And since the Congress plans to adjourn early and leave these problems to
The Federal Reserve, The Federal Reserve should operate in the interests
of the U.S. taxpayer and not the interests of the private, international
bankers that it currently represents. This, of course means that The
Federal Reserve, too, must undergo a fundamental ownership and mission
change.

This crisis does not have to be treated as merely a "market correction,"
or the result of a few rotten apples in an otherwise pristine barrel.
This crisis truly represents the opportunity to introduce fundamental
changes in the way the U.S. economy and its political stewards operate.
Responsible political leadership demands that the pain and suffering being
experienced by the innocent today not be revisited upon them or the next
generation tomorrow. But sadly, instead of affirmative action being taken
in this direction, the Bush Administration ratchets up the drumbeat for
war, Republican Party operatives busily remove duly-registered voters from
the voter rolls, and our elected leaders in the Congress go home to
campaign while leaving all of us to fend for ourselves. For the
Administration and the Democrat-led Congress, I declare: MISSION
UNACCOMPLISHED. For the public whose moment this is, I say: Power to the People!

Saudis Reject Bush Plea -- Oil Prices Soar Again; U.S. Halts Reserve Buys

Saudi Arabia rejected President Bush's appeals to increase oil production and the Energy Department announced it would halt shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as oil barreled to a record close Friday.

The day's events meant no relief for U.S. motorists suffering pain at the pump.

Bush, visiting Saudi Arabia on Friday for the second time in five months, had hoped to use his oil industry background and ties to the Saudi leadership to persuade them to increase their current oil production of 9.15 million barrels a day. But despite receiving a red carpet welcome in Riyadh, where gasoline costs 50 cents a gallon, Bush was rebuffed.

Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi said his nation already had marginally boosted production by about 300,000 barrels a day, as of May 10, to meet world demand, as they see it. This will boost output to 9.45 million barrels a day in June.

"Supply and demand are in balance today," al-Naimi told a news conference. "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, briefed reporters after the private meetings between Bush and King Abdullah at the king's ranch.

"What they're saying to us is ... Saudi Arabia at the present time does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy," Hadley said. And despite the production boost announced "in order to meet the demand of their customers, in their judgment ... even increased production under this policy would not result in dramatic ... reduction of gas prices in the United States."

Economists say prices are being driven up by increased demand, not slowed production. Energy-guzzlers China and India are stretching supplies.

While the overtures to Saudi Arabia failed, the Bush administration said it is suspending oil deliveries into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the remainder of the year.

The move came days after Congress passed legislation requiring Bush to temporarily halt shipments into the reserve in hopes of lowering gasoline prices. Although the president dismissed the idea as a small step that would have little affect on U.S. gas prices, Bush is expected to sign the bill.

The Energy Department moved to comply with the congressional mandate, saying it will not sign six-month contracts to have begun starting July 1, for the acceptance of 76,000 barrels of oil a day.

The department also plans to defer deliveries under existing contracts once the legislation passed by Congress late Wednesday becomes law.

The reserve, a system of salt caverns on the Louisiana and Texas Gulf coast, is 97 percent full, holding 701 million barrels of crude. The stockpile, currently sufficient to cover two months of oil imports, is kept as a cushion in case of a major disruption of oil supplies.

Both the House and Senate by lopsided votes this week directed the president to suspend the oil SPR shipments with both Republicans and Democrats saying it made no sense for the government to take oil at today's prices. The crude oil would better be left on the market to increase commercial supplies, they said.

In New York on Friday, oil traders were not impressed by the news of Saudi Arabia's small production increase and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve moratorium. They did what they've been doing for months now, and pushed crude oil and gasoline futures to new highs.

The price for a barrel of benchmark light, sweet crude for June delivery jumped $2.17 to settle at a record close of $126.29 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier in the session, prices surged to $127.82 a barrel, also a record high.

--------------------

Pump pressures

Memphis gas

Here are the most recent average prices per gallon in the Memphis market:

FRIDAY THURSDAY

Regular unleaded

$3.623 $3.614

Mid-Grade

$3.835 $3.825

Premium

$4.019 $4.009

Diesel

$4.327 $4.293

Note: Gas price includes 18.4 cents federal tax, 21.4 cents Tennessee tax (18.4 cents on diesel).

Friday's U.S. oil price: $126.29 a barrel for light sweet crude, June delivery, up $2.17 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Get it Cheap

Among the least expensive places in Greater Memphis to buy fuel (per gallon over the past 72 hours):

$3.49: Texaco, 4286 Macon.

$3.54: Texaco, Hickory Hill & Winchester; Citgo, 5930 Winchester, and Winchester & Old Getwell.

$3.55: Murphy USA, 6506 Memphis-Arlington, and Citgo, 6505 Memphis-Arlington, both in Bartlett.

Sources: American Automobile Association Daily Fuel Gauge Report via Oil Price Information Service, Associated Press, MemphisGasPrices.com.

- Mark Watson

--------------------

Originally published by From Our Press Services / Mark Watson contributed .

(c) 2008 Commercial Appeal, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.

Worn down, Obama is reverting to the mean

By David Brooks

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new -- an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn't on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates' words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100-years-in-Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health-care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home, but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge -- in which case he would destroy his credibility -- or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the "bitter" comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry's windsurfing or John Edwards' haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he's one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of "Yes We Can!" deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He'll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

General-election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I've asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that's going to be hard.

A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

Welcome to 2008. Everybody's miserable.

David Brooks' column is distributed by the New York Times News Service.

source: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/17927464.html

Hurting at the plate

The looming food crisis shows the instability of the world's agricultural system.

cross the developing world demonstrations and riots have broken out over the skyrocketing cost of food. In the past three years, global food prices have risen more than 83 percent, and threaten the stability of governments around the world and the lives of the people they represent.

Americans and the people of other developed nations spend, on average, no more than 15 percent of their income on food. When we see prices tick upward at the supermarket it is an irritation, but an endurable one. In 33 countries where more than half a person's income is spent on food, the danger of this crisis is far more acute.

There are four main causes for the price rising so dramatically. First, the booming economies in China and India have increased the popularity of meat consumption. It takes 700 calories worth of feed to create 100 calories of meat. Meat consumption is highest in the developed West, but with the tastes of 2 billion mirroring those of Europe and the United States, the strain has pushed prices of cereals upwards. Then there is the price of oil. Agriculture is heavily dependent on oil, both to produce fertilizers and pesticides, and to fuel the trucks and ships that carry the food to their destinations. At $110 per barrel, this is no longer a negligible cost.

Third, developed nations, especially the United States, have begun to use arable land not to grow crops for eating, but to convert into biofuels like ethanol. This simultaneously fails to create energy independence, because growing the corn is predicated on the aforementioned oil, and also takes away land that could be used to grow corn sold throughout the world, increasing the price. Lastly, climate change, according to many experts, has caused unpredictable weather patterns, including a severe drought in Australia, usually the breadbasket of Asia and the Middle East.

All these trends look likely to persist, and highlight the need for the United States to take significant steps toward sustainability in agriculture and reducing our dependence on oil, which as we now see, can hurt us at the plate as well as the pump.

source: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/04/14/72166641

For a FREE Vegetarian Starter Kit go here: http://www.goveg.com/order.asp