The Poor People Who Voted For Trump And For Republicans May Soon Learn What That Means To Their Families

Going into 2017, the Christian Science Monitor reminded its readers that boosting low wages has become less controversial as conservatives looked elsewhere to inflict their deadly ideology on working families. 19 states are about to see a rise in the minimum wage, causing the pay of more than 4 million workers go upon one fell swoop. Conservatives still make the same discredited, utrterly false argument about the minimum wage they’ve been making since the Black Plague decimated the English working class in 1348, prompting King Edward III to set a maximum wage, making it illegal to pay laborers too much. Real minimum wage proposals gained steam in the early 1800s and the first minimum wage laws were passed in 1894 (New Zealand), 1896 (Australia) and 1909 (England). The first national minimum wage law came to the U.S. in 1938, accompanied by predictions of the end of the world by conservative politicians and the businessmen who finance their shameful careers. They were wrong, of course, but that hasn’t discouraged conservatives to roll out the same arguments and baseless scare tactics every time there was an attempt to increase the minimum wage.

Debates surrounding the pros and cons of minimum wage raises have reverberated through society in “Fight for $15” protests and state capitals around the nation. While those on the left have said wage hikes will pull some of the nation’s most vulnerable low-income workers out of poverty, conservatives have argued that increased costs for businesses will hamper the economy and have harmful fallout for the very workers they purpport to help.

But in 2017, several reliably red states will join liberal havens like Massachusetts and California in increasing wages for their workers after voters approved ballot initiatives. In others, indexing will provide the increases.

Altogether some 4.4 million workers are expected to see their hourly wages go up.

In places like Arizona, where voters chose to send President-elect Donald Trump to the Oval Office, they also voted for wage increases, crossing over partisan lines to take on an issue from a more traditionally liberal perspective.

…In cities around the country that set the trend of increasing wages, fears of price shock or businesses losses have proved largely unfounded, with localities seeing little impact on their economies. Still, more conservative state governments, like that in Arizona, are pushing back, with state’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry filing a lawsuit to challenge the increase, which is slated to raise the minimum wage from $8.05 to $10. On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to temporarily block the measure.

Low-wage workers largely have activists to thank for the change, but note there’s still a long way to go. As states and cities move to raise their wages, the contrast between places still abiding by the federal minimum of $7.25 last raised in 2009 becomes more pronounced.

Seattle recently raised the minimum wage-- conservatives were ready to perform the last rights. Instead, standards of living have risen and unemployment rates-- rather than the sky-- have fallen. Take look:

A few days ago, Kali Holloway, demonstrated one of the places conservatives are seeking to harm the working class instead— the food stamps program. Fox News, the far right’s fake news source, is, as usual, the mouthpiece for plutocracy, greed and hatred. “Pathologizing poverty,” she wrote, “has been a long-term, ongoing—and sadly, highly successful—project of the right in this country.” She cites Wisconsin Koch puppet Scott Walker and his recent appeal to Trump to allow his beaten-down state to drug-test food-stamp recipients, as well as another Wisconsinite, Paul Ryan, and his plans to make it harder, nationally, to qualify for aid. As has always been the case with conservatives, “the goal is to punish and stigmatize the poor while eliminating programs that help lift them out of poverty.”

As the el Presidente-elect Señor Trumpanzee made clear in another one of his idiotic tweets yesterday, Fox is the Republican Party’s vision of state TV, something Holloway remarked on as well, reminding her readers it “essentially functions as the media arm of the Republican Party, and on Wednesday it did its part to undermine a program that helps 44 million poor Americans. To that transparent end, an episode of Fox & Friends featured a segment titled, “Food Stamp Fraud at All-Time High: Is It Time to End the Program?” The piece goes on to claim that USDA figures reveal “$70 million of taxpayer money was wasted in 2016 due to food stamp fraud.” Kevin Drum’s response: Fox News Screws Up It’s Latest Lie. Fox’s point was basically a question “Food Stamp Fraud at All-Time High: Is It Time to End the Program?”

Now, the obvious response to this is twofold. First, they're just lying, aren't they? And second, this is like a headline that says, "Traffic Deaths at All-Time High: Should We Ban Cars?"

But at this point the story takes a strange turn. First, I have no idea where Fox's $70 million figure comes from—and I looked pretty hard for it. The Fox graphic attributes it to "2016 USDA," but as near as I can tell the USDA has no numbers for SNAP fraud more recent than 2011.

But that's not all: $70 million is a startlingly low figure. In the most recent fiscal year, SNAP cost $71 billion, which means that fraud accounted for a minuscule 0.098 percent of the program budget. Even if this is an all-time high, the Fox high command can't believe this is anything but a spectacular bureaucratic success.

And it would be, if it were true. But it's not. If you look at inaccurate SNAP payments to states, the error rate since 2005 has decreased from 6 percent of the budget to less than 4 percent. However, this isn't fraud anyway: It's just an error rate, and most of the errors are eventually corrected. SNAP "trafficking"—exchanging SNAP benefits for cash—is fraud, but it's been declining steadily too, from 3.8 percent in 1993 to 1.3 percent in 2011 (the most recent year for which we have records):

So in any normal sense, the Fox story was a lie. SNAP fraud isn't at an all-time high. It's been declining for years. But here's the thing: The fraud rate in 2011 may have been low, but this was in the aftermath of the Great Recession, when total SNAP payments were very high. So although the percentage is low, the dollar value of fraud clocked in at $988 million. Fox could have used this far higher number, which is, in fact, an all-time high. It's only an all-time high because SNAP was helping far more people, but still. In the Fox newsroom, that would hardly matter.

Bottom line: Yes, Fox is lying in any ordinary sense of the word. But they're also vastly understating the amount of SNAP fraud. Even when they're trying to deceive their audience, it turns out, they're also incompetent.

And this is where Paul Ryan comes in. He and the Republicans, as PBS reported recently, have a plan and they are busy laying the groundwork for a fresh effort to “overhaul” the food stamp program during Trump’s presidency, with new work and stricter eligibility requirements for millions of people.

Right-wing freak Mike Conaway (R-TX) is the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and he’s leading Ryan’s jihad against food stamps, although he noted that the GOP doesn’t want to eliminate the program (which would not be in the interests of the agricultural conglomerates that fund Conway’s shady career). Conaway has taken $2,167,352 in legalistic bribes from AgriBusiness. Democrats don’t even run against him in his central Texas district that includes Midland, Odessa and San Angelo. This cycle his only opponent was a Libertarian. Conaway was reelected with 89.5% of the vote. You think that might influence his priorities? Here’s the list of the 10 most corrupt members of the Agriculture Committee with the amounts of legalistic bribery they have taken in the 2016 cycle.

• Mike Conaway (R-TX) $701,773
• Jeff Denham (R-CA) $539,848
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) $484,950
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $467,524
• David Rouzer (R-NC)- $417,831
• Rodney Davis (R-IL) $381,754
• Dan Newhouse- (R-WA) $346,442
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $276,475
• Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)- $256,089
• Rick Crawford (R-AR)- $255,300

Ryan would love to abolish the program entirely, but understands that isn’t going to happen in the real world, at least not in one fell swoop.

Food stamp policy is included in a wide-ranging farm bill every five years; the next one is due in 2018. It also could be part of a larger effort headed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to tackle a welfare or entitlement overhaul, if that should happen in the next Congress.

Still, food stamp changes always have been a hard sell in Congress.

Democrats almost unilaterally oppose any changes. Some Republicans from poorer districts are also wary. The 1996 welfare law added some new work requirements, but Congress declined to convert federal food stamp dollars into block grants for the states, a move that would cut spending for the program.

In 2013, House Republican leaders tried to cut the program by 5 percent annually by passing broad work requirements as part of the last farm bill. The House bill also included drug testing for recipients.

The then-Democratic Senate balked, though, and the final bill included a much smaller cut and no allowances for drug testing. Conaway said he’s open to any of those policies, but suggested that block granting the program — a past priority for Ryan — or drug testing recipients are not his priorities.

“We don’t want to be helping folks on drugs, but then again, folks on drugs have children,” Conaway said.

One thing can be sure, though— for as long as the Republicans control the House: more pain and suffering is headed towards the poor. In the end, isn’t that the heart, the soul and the essence of modern conservatism?

SNAP! Agricultural Subsidies For Wealthy Republicans-- Starvation For Poor Families-- Sinks GOP Farm Bill

During the Vietnam War I never thought I'd actually return to the U.S. I was so ashamed of what my country was doing to the people of Southeast Asia. But one morning I woke up in Amsterdam and realized I had been dreaming in Dutch. I decided to go home and I was back in America within 2 weeks. I had been away for nearly seven years and I had a real period of readjustment, especially when I washed up in San Francisco, a city I had never lived in. I was lucky to have some Sufi connections from the meditation center I had worked in in Amsterdam and I was lucky to have met Harvey Milk who staked me for the equipment I needed to set up a dark room and get work as a photographer. But, economically-speaking, I had a couple of pretty bleak years before getting back on my feet. I could have never gotten through it without... you... us... the U.S.A. That's right, the America I had fled because of my abhorrence of the bombing in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos stepped up to the plate for me. The government gave me food stamps.

It wasn't much of an investment but it helped keep me alive through the tough times while I invested in building an independent record company. It paid off for Uncle Sam too. Eventually that record company that would never have been built without the food stamps I existed on, was successful. I sold it to SONY. The U.S. taxpayers got their food stamp investment back in one transaction. And then I went on to a successful career in the corporate world. Some years I paid over a million dollars in taxes. No one likes paying that much in taxes but I always reminded myself that without the help I got from the government, I would never have been in the position to make enough money so that I would be paying that much in taxes.

That's why I was so furious when a bunch of political hacks, some of whom have never done much of anything aside from feed at the public trough, voted against food stamp help for desperately poor people. In various committees looking at the SNAP program it wasn't only Republicans voting to slash the program to ribbons, but also some easily corrupted and misled Democrats, primarily New Dems and Blue Dogs.

Tuesday when the Republicans wanted to bring up their latest anti-Choice/War On Women legislation, the resolution read like this: "Providing for consideration of H.R. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY 2018; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia." I don't recall ever seeing such a bizarre and unrelated pairing. But even at that-- and it passed 232-193-- 5 extremely right-wing Democrats were happy to go along with the bizarre duo of bills: Dan Lipinksi (IL), Mike McIntyre (New Dem/Blue Dog-NC), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Tim Walz (MN) and Nick Rahall (WV).

When the House voted on a stand alone resolution to proceed with the debate on Wednesday, 173 Democrats (and 4 Republicans) voted NO. Only 15 Democrats voted with the Republicans, a hint about which ones are willing, if not eager, to steal from the poor to give to the rich. Among them are the 4 sleazy New Dem freshmen most likely to lose in 2014: Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Scott Peters (CA), Ron Barber (AZ), and Dan Maffei (NY).

Yesterday, ThinkProgress took a look at some of the biggest congressional recipients of farm welfare for their own businesses-- and how anti-food stamps they are. These are the 4 worst congressional greed dogs (at least on this matter-- along with their excuses for voting to cut nutrition for poor families:

Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), who’s gotten over $500,000 in subsidy payments since 1995, is a particularly interesting case. While Noem is diplomatic in most public statements on food stamps, she endorses a common smear of the program when away from cameras. In a constituent letter obtained by ThinkProgress, Noem wrote that “loopholes and fraud in the current program have lead to federal spending on SNAP to increase [sic] by 270 percent over the past ten years.” Rep. Vicki Hartzler (R-MO) offers to same rationale for the cuts, and has taken $500,000 in farm subsidies as well.

In fact, the jump in food stamp enrollment is due almost entirely to the catastrophic economic collapse and ensuing Great Recession. Even amid that heightened strain on the program’s staff, “SNAP achieved its lowest error rates on record in fiscal year 2011,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Outright fraud is down to just one percent.

Waste, fraud, and abuse are more common in the farm subsidies programs that have sent over a million taxpayer dollars to the Hartzler and Noem households over the years than in food stamps. Crop insurance alone has a 4.7 percent error rate, compared to 3.8 percent for SNAP.

The House started voting on the 103 amendments to the bill yesterday. Corrupt shills for AgriBusiness-- like top Ag Committee Republican Frank Lucas (R-OK) and top Democrat on the committee, and ex-Chair, Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)-- are pushing it. Progressives hate it and so does the far right (take a look at the threatening tweet below from neo-fascist Club for Growth fuehrer Chris Chocola), albeit for different reasons. Pelosi is likely to vote against it and Boehner has said he's not crazy about the bill but he'll vote for it. Peterson thinks he can bring a few dozen of the worst right-wing and most corrupt Democrats along in the end. We'll keep you informed.

UPDATE: United Front Of Progressives And Far Right Teabaggers Gives Boehner A Stunning Blow

When the House voted on amendments to the Farm bill this week, the first one that came up was Jim McGovern's amendment to stop the defunding of SNAP. It lost 188-234, 5 Republicans voting with the Democrats but 8 ConservaDems crossing the aisle in the other direction to back the GOP jihad against poor people:

• John Barrow (New Dem/Blue Dog-GA)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Cheri Bustos (IL)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Mike McIntyre (New Dem/Blue Dog-NC)
• Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Tim Walz (MN)

Meanwhile, the degrading Richard Hudson (R-NC) amendment to make food stamps applicants undergo drug testing somehow made it into the bill, further alienating Democrats who were thinking about voting for it.

The overall bill failed 195-234, 62 mostly far right Republicans sabotaging their own leadership by voting with 172 Democrats. Only two-dozen of the most corrupt Democrats, mostly New Dems like Patrick Murphy (FL) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Blue Dogs like John Barrow (GA) and Mike McIntyre (NC), stood with Boehner and Cantor to try to pass this monstrosity. Kind of funny seeing drooling sociopaths like Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Paul Broun (R-GA), Trey Radel (R-FL), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Steve Stockman (R-TX) and, even Paul Ryan (R-WI) leaving Boehner and Cantor hanging while they handed the stunning triumph to Nancy Pelosi. (Boehner and Cantor are blaming Pelosi for their embarrassing defeat and ignoring the 62 Republicans who betrayed him-- or looking at the way their own whip operation collapsed... although Boehner, slightly drunk, had a screaming match with McCarthy, his whip, as the votes were being counted). Cantor went whining to the press:

"I'm extremely disappointed that Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership have at the last minute chosen to derail years of bipartisan work on the Farm Bill and related reforms. This bill was far from perfect, but the only way to achieve meaningful reform, such as Congressman Southerland's amendment reforming the food stamp program, was in conference.

"I strongly supported the Southerland amendment which built on successful welfare reforms that have worked in the past to give states more flexibility and encourage self-sufficiency by increasing workforce participation among those enrolled in the SNAP program. I commend Chairman Frank Lucas and the House Agriculture Committee for their efforts, and am sorry that Democrats shamefully chose politics over progress and meaningful reform."

Chris Van Hollen's retort was, basically, if Pelosi were Speaker this "never would have happened." Pelosi was even more pointed: "The Republicans have the majority of Congress and it's their responsibility to send a bill. What [was] happening on the floor today was a demonstration of major amateur hour. They didn't get results and they put the blame on somebody else."

Kicking Rich Freeloaders Off Agricultural Welfare

Stephen Lee Fincher (R-TN), one of the most dishonest crooks in Congress

Thursday, Dick Durbin's amendment to the Farm Bill passed, rather miraculously, 59-33. The amendment is meant "to limit the amount of premium subsidy provided by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation on behalf of any person or legal entity with an average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000, with a delayed application of the limitation until completion of a study on the effects of the limitation." I was kind of hoping he would have named it the Congressman Stephen Lee Fincher Amendment. More about why, below. First, a list of senators who voted against these giveaways to wealthy farmers, wealthy fake-farmers and big Agribusiness corners. Most of the names on this list are all men and women, many of whom are pushing the catastrophic European Austerity agenda sponsored by Paul Ryan, who want to protect government subsidies for the rich:

• John Barrasso (R-WY)
• Max Baucus (D-MT)
• Roy Blunt (R-MO)
• John Boozman (R-AR)
• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Thad Cochran (R-MS)
• Mo Cowan (D-MA)
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
• Mike Enzi (R-WY)
• Nan Fischer (R-NE)
• Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Kay Hagan (D-NC)
• Tim Harkin (D-IA)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
• John Hoeven (R-ND)
• Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
• Mike Johanns (R-NE)
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Pat Leahy (D-VT)
• Miss McConnell (R-KY)
• Jerry Moran (R-KS)
• Mark Pryor (D-AR)
• Jim Risch (R-ID)
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)
• Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
• Dick Shelby (R-AL)
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
• John Thune (R-SD)
• Mark Warner (D-VA)
• Roger Wicker (R-MS)

So what does all this have to do with an obscure Tennessee backbencher in the House? Stephen Lee Fincher, one of the most sanctimonious right-wing Republican hypocrites in Congress, lives in Frog Jump. Although he likes telling people he's a gospel singer, Fincher is the managing partner in Fincher Farms, a large Agri-business concern that grows cotton, corn, soybeans, and wheat on over 2,500 acres in western Tennessee. The company has received $8.9 million in farm subsidies over the past decade, mostly from the cotton program, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. Fincher received a $13,650 grant to help buy grain hauling and storage equipment from the state Department of Agriculture in 2009 as part of the Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Program. Yes, teabagger Stephen Fincher is a welfare queen.

And it gets worse, according to Forbes magazine. Remember when we were talking about how so many wealthy congressmembers on the House Agriculture Committee were all gung-ho to shave billions of dollars off the food stamps program? That's Fincher's committee. (No conflict of interest there, right?)

Armed with an array of proverbs and quotes from the Holy Bible, Congressman Fincher is pressing his fight to dramatically curtail the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-- better known to most Americans as food stamps-- relied upon by 47 million Americans for some or all of their daily sustenance.

Why?

Because the Bible tells him so.

Appearing this past weekend at a gathering at a Memphis Holiday Inn, Fincher explained his position on food stamps by stating, “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.”

The Congressman’s remarks come on the heels of his taking the biblical route when responding to Representative Juan Vargas’ (D-Calif.) somewhat different take on the teachings of Jesus. During a recent House Agriculture Committee debate over the Farm Bill (which contains the food stamp budget), Vargas, citing the Book of Matthew, noted, “[Jesus] says how you treat the least among us, the least of our brothers, that’s how you treat him.”

Vargas also noted that  Jesus directly mentions the importance of feeding the hungry.

Not to be outdone by a Godless Democrat, Congressman Fincher responded with his own Bible quote taken from the Book of Thessalonians-- “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Nicely played, Congressman.

While the biblical back-and-forth is interesting, I wonder if Congressman Fincher would be good enough to refer me to the part of the Bible revealing to us how providing adequate food stamp assistance to those in need violates the teachings of Christianity but venerates accepting government hand-outs in the guise of farm subsidies?

Maybe the Congressman can instruct heathens such as I on how pocketing huge sums of taxpayer money in the guise of farm subsidies is a righteous act, while accepting government subsidies to feed one’s family is an act of-- to use Fincher’s own words-- stealing from those in the country to give to others in the country?

I don’t ask these questions of Congressman Fincher indiscriminately. I ask them because of Fincher’s unique qualification to provide us with the appropriate proverb intended to instruct.

You see, Representative Fincher happens to be the second largest recipient of farm subsidies in the United States Congress-- which might explain why Mr. Fincher would like to decimate the food stamp budget in order to do the Lord’s work when “supporting a proposal to expand crop insurance by $9 billion over the next 10 years.”

How much money are the taxpayers forking over to Congressman Fincher via farm subsidies?

While Fincher may only come in second amongst his congressional peers when it comes to pocketing huge sums of taxpayer money, he has the distinction of being one of the largest recipients of subsidies in the history of the great State of Tennessee.

I think we can count on farmer Fincher to lead the charge against Durbin's amendment when it floats over to the House.

How The House Agriculture Committee Is Killing Your Family

It took all year for the Senate and the House Agriculture committees to put together balanced, carefully crafted bipartisan omnibus farm bills last year-- only to see Boehner and Cantor refuse to bring the House version up for a vote in the waning days of the 112th Congress. A bill that balances the needs of rural farming communities, corporate AgriBusiness, consumers and food stamps users is always a work of great and minute compromise. Cantor charged into it like a bull in the proverbial china shop-- primarily to prevent a floor fight between farm state Republicans and teabaggers hoping to eliminate the food stamps programs-- and left the whole package in shreds. Instead a last-second, nine-month extension of the unexpired portions of the 2008 Farm Bill, slashing investment in the future of family farms, ranches and rural small towns and devastating the hopes of organic farmers and vegetable producers, was rushed through as part of the fiscal cliff compromise. All the careful work done by the two committees to reform and revitalize the farming sector was ignored completely, preventing, for example, farmers and ranchers from improving soil and water conservation through enrollment in a 2013 Conservation Stewardship Program. Both Senate Agriculture Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and House Agriculture Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK) were completely ignored. Although unlimited commodity and crop insurance premium subsidies to corporate mega-farms remain uncapped and untouchable, family farmers and rural communities are left in a state of complete uncertainty, a deadly formula for farmers.

The callous approach by Cantor and Boehner was especially disruptive to organic farmers since the mandatory funding for a variety of organic programs written into the 2008 farm bill didn’t qualify for automatic inclusion into the extension.

Among the organic programs that weren’t included in the extension of the 2008 farm bill are those that fund organic research and extension, cost share to become certified as organic, and an organic data collection system-- the same sort of data collection system that has long been a mainstay for conventional agriculture and that qualified to receive continued funding.

Organic farmers say that these programs have helped them be more productive and better at marketing their goods to meet the growing demand for their crops, milk, meats and other products.

“This is a huge loss for the organic sector,” Barbara Haumann, spokesperson for the Organic Trade Association, told Food Safety News. “The cuts are severe. It will impact farmers who use safer practices and could discourage some farmers because of the loss of cost-share for certification.”

...Instead of reforming U.S. agricultural policy, as had been proposed in the Senate and House versions of the 2012 farm bill, the 9-month extension of the 2008 version includes $5 billion for subsidies and direct payments. These are payments typically doled out, farm bill after farm bill, to certain farmers (among them corn, soybeans, wheat and rice farmers).

In contrast, the House and Senate versions of the 2012 farm bill had called for eliminating the subsidies. The reasoning behind that proposed change was that the commodity farmers were doing well financially and didn’t need them. Apart from farm policy, proposed cost-cutting measures in the farm bill were seen as a way to help fix the nation’s budgetary woes. For example, the Senate bipartisan version of the 2012 Farm Bill called for cuts of $24 billion in spending.

...The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which represents family and smaller-sized farmers, rankled at the decision to extend the 2008 farm bill.

“The message is unmistakable-- direct commodity subsidies, despite high market prices, are sacrosanct, while the rest of agriculture and the rest of rural America can simply drop dead,” said the organization in a statement.

For Mark Kastel, co-founder of The Cornucopia Institute, a populist farm policy research group, the loss of funding for some critical organic programs in the extension of the 2008 farm bill goes beyond whether organic food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally grown food. While that debate is important, he pointed out that there’s also this economic reality to consider: It (the extension) flies in the face of the free-market system the United States’ economy is purportedly based on.

“It (the 2008 farm bill extension) undercuts where markets are going,” Kastel told Food Safety News. “Instead, with this extension, we have the government giving more money (in direct payments) to commodity farmers even though they don’t need payments now because they’re doing well. They’re ignoring what the consumers are voting for in the marketplace. It’s assbackwards. It’s undermining our capitalistic structure and free markets. We’re having the government pick and choose the winners.”

Kastel also pointed out that what organics receives in federal support is “peanuts” compared to the subsidies and other support that conventional agriculture typically receives through the nation’s farm bills and agricultural policy.

With that in mind, we looked at a report from Danielle Moodie-Mills, Director of Environmental Education at the National Wildlife Federation and an advisor at the Center for American Progress, How The Food Industry Is Enabling The United States' Obesity Epidemic.

Obesity has long been framed as an issue of personal responsibility. The prevailing notion has been that if people simply stop eating junk food and start eating healthy fruits and vegetables, they will maintain a healthy weight.

And even though most Americans agree that obesity is a critical public health issue facing the nation-- 83 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Independents and 65 percent of Republicans rank it as a “serious issue-- opinions about how personal responsibility factors into the epidemic are somewhat divided along party lines. Democrats tend to believe that both the individual and government are responsible for combating the obesity epidemic, while Republicans believe the onus falls largely on the individual.

The “personal responsibility” argument assumes that people can simply avoid sugar and other unhealthy additives by staying away from fast foods. But Dr. Robert Lustig, the author of the new book Fat Chance, explained this week on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that avoiding sugar-- which he believes to be a major cause of America’s weight issue-- may not be as easy as it seems:

One-third of the sugar in our diets comes from soda and sweetened beverages, you can taste it. One-sixth is in desserts, you know about those as well, but half of all the sugar consumed in this country comes from food you didn’t know had sugar in it-- like hamburger buns, hamburger meat, and salad dressing, for instance.

So even when people make a concerted effort to make healthy choices, there is still a great possibility that they are consuming the very product that is causing their weight gain. And the government isn’t doing enough about it.

A few years ago, a group of doctors at Mount Sinai took out an advertisement in the New York Times pressuring the government to stop subsidizing food that was making Americans sick. “High-fructose corn syrup [HFCS] now represents 40 percent of the non-calorie-free sweeteners added to U.S. foods. It is virtually the only sweetener used in soft drinks,” the research physicians wrote in their advertisement. “Because of the subsidies, the cost of soft drinks containing HFCS has decreased by 24 percent since 1985, while the price of fruits and vegetables has gone up by 39 percent.”

But after the negative comments regarding HFCS went viral, corn refiners simply released a [misleading] commercial rebranding HFCS as “corn sugar,” and purporting the safety of the re-named additive saying “corn sugar or cane sugar, sugar is sugar and your body doesn’t know the difference.”

Nearly one-third of American children and adolescents are labeled as overweight or obese, and they are expected to be the first generation who won’t live as long as their parents due to high cholesterol, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases. So will the government finally see fit to engage in the sugar debate and take a hard look at the crops they are subsidizing-- or will Americans have to wait for this epidemic to reach its precipice, much like the battle against cigarettes? Let’s hope not, because the current health care system may just break under the extra weight.

Traditionally, the House Agriculture Committee has been a honeypot for corrupt Members of Congress serving the interests of corporate AgriBusiness on both sides of the aisle. One of Congress' most corrupt members, Minnesota Blue Dog Collin Peterson runs the Democratic side of the committee with an iron fist. Over the last few years, most of his Blue Dog cronies have been defeated and have been replaced by more honest and reform-minded Democrats. This year for example, saw the defeat of Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA), Joe Baca (Blue Dog-CA), and Larry Kissell (Blue Dog, NC). Newly appointed members include reform-minded progressives Ann Kuster (D-NH) and Rick Nolan (D-MN) and only one new Blue Dog, Pete Gallego (TX). This morning Rep. Kuster addressed the underlying problem for us:

"The failure of the 112th Congress to pass a farm bill is a glaring example of how Washington puts partisan politics before the interests of the American people. Even when Democrats and Republicans in both chambers produced legislation with bipartisan support, House leadership prevented the 2012 Farm Bill from receiving an up-or-down vote. This was a terrible missed opportunity. Not only would passage of a comprehensive farm bill provide much-needed certainty to the agricultural economy, but it would also further the development of renewable energy in New Hampshire, expand broadband access in rural communities, improve the health of our forests, enhance the conservation of our land and water, and help eliminate hunger in America. In the days and weeks ahead, I look forward to using my position on the Agriculture Committee to bring members of both parties together to pass a farm bill that advances these priorities while cutting wasteful subsidies and spending."

Genetically Modified America

If you're willing to put blind faith in the AMA, the Republican Party and corporate America (Monsanto), you probably aren't going to worry much about Frankenfood anyway. If you're concerned about eating healthy food, you probably know you're choices are under attack again. Last week the Senate defeated, 26-73, an amendment to the Agriculture bill that would permit states to "require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient." Only one Republican, independent-minded Lisa Murkowski voted to allow labeling. Every other Republican and about half the Democrats voted NO, including, not just the regular corporate whores like Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Claire McCaskill, Tom Carper and Mark Pryor, but the liberal types we usually depend on to protect society from this corporate crap-- like Sherrod Brown (OH), Chuck Schumer (NY), Al Franken (MN), Tom Harkin (IA), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY). Ironically, even the single most conservative and corporate-oriented Democrat in the Senate, Joe Manchin (WV) and well as Lieberman (CT), voted against the GMOs. So did organic wheat farmer John Tester (MT). In California both the liberal Boxer and the more corporate-oriented Feinstein voted with Sanders, as their state-- my state-- gears up for a GMO ballot initiative this year. In fact, this year 36 state legislatures have seem bills introduced dealing with genetically engineered foods: Vermont, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia. When it looked like Vermont would pass one, Monsanto threatened to drain the state's treasury in legal battles. Sanders' bill would have protected states like Vermont-- as well as California-- from that kind of corporate tactic.

As Sanders pointed out, the U.S. already requires that packaged food list ingredients so that consumers are aware when they're eating dangerous and unhealthy garbage like high-fructose corn syrup, dyes and trans-fats. 49 countries already require that consumers be warned that foods they're buying contain genetically engineered ingredients. and the battle isn't just happening in the Senate, of course.

Last week the House Agriculture Committee-- basically a bipartisan arm of Agribusiness whose members are handsomely bribed to trample on consumer interests-- voted in favor of Frankenfoods.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture would be required to permit modified crops to be planted and sold into the food supply after the agency’s approvals have been invalidated by a court, under a provision in the fiscal 2013 agriculture spending bill approved by the House Appropriations committee today.

The one-paragraph provision in the 90-page bill would circumvent legal obstacles that have slowed commercialization of engineered crops, sometimes for years, benefiting Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company. Planting would be permitted until USDA completes any analysis required by a judge.

“A stream of lawsuits” have slowed approvals and created uncertainties for companies developing the modified plants, James C. Greenwood, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto and Dupont Co., said in a June 13 letter to Congress. “The regulatory certainty provided by this legislative language would address an immediate threat to the regulatory process.”

In other words, corporate profits once again trump public health and safety. The Center for Food Safety points out that the legislation is, in effect, a “Monsanto profit assurance provision” that interferes with judicial oversight and empowers "a single corporation and a few of its industry friends to move beyond the control of the U.S. courts, USDA and public review to make their own rules and profit from slippery back door politics."

This year, the House's biggest recipients of bribes from Monsanto-- overwhelmingly Republicans with a sprinkling of corrupt Blue Dogs who routinely sell their votes to corporate donors, like John Barrow (GA), Larry Kissell (NC), Mike McIntyre (NC), Tim Holden (PA), and Collin Peterson (MN)-- included the powerful Members who will smooth the way for passage, like Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)- $5,000, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA)- $6,000, Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $10,000, and Agriculture Committee vice-Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)- $4,500. There are 26 Republicans and 20 Democrats on the Committee. Among the Members who didn't take bribes from Monsanto while GMO legislation was being debated are progressives who oppose, on ethical grounds, taking contributions from companies whose have business before their committees-- Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Marcia Fudge (D-OH).

Over on the Senate side, every Member who took payoffs from Monsanto voted against Sanders' amendment last week. And Monsanto is contributing generously to two pro-GMO House Members-- Todd Akin (R-MO)- $3,500 and Rick Berg (R-ND)- $10,000-- who are trying to jump to the Senate. And going out wider, the five current senators who have, over their careers, been the biggest recipients of AgriBusiness bribes, all voted against Sanders' amendment:

John McCain (R-AZ)- $4,222,694
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)- $3,931,879
Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $2,534,522
Pat Roberts (R-KS)- $1,985,328
Jerry Moran (R-KS)- $1,731,920

And of the 19 other sitting senators who has each taken over a million dollars in bribes from AgriBusiness, only Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry backed Sanders.

Can Organic Farming Feed The World?

We've been talking a lot about the premises in economist/environmentalist David Korten's latest book, Agenda For A New Economy and a couple weeks ago we used a couple of paragraphs that stuck with me, although in a different context from how Korten intended them in promoting fair trade instead of so-called "free" trade.

The elimination of national borders as barriers to the expansion of corporate control of world markets and resources didn't happen as a result of some inexorable law of nature. It came about over a period of some thirty years through the relentless effort of Wall Street interests using every political tool at their disposal to remove legal barriers to their expansion.

Wall Street did not expend all this effort to improve the health of people and the biosphere. It figured out that its ability to generate profits would be best served by a system that maximized each locality's dependence on distant resources and markets.

Take the system by which we produce, process, transport, and market our food. A farmers' market where local producers and consumers gather to engage in direct exchange offers many benefits from a community perspective. The food is fresh, the energy costs of transport are minimal, the personal exchanges enhance community ties, farmers can adapt rapidly to changing local preferences and conditions, and the local economy is cushioned from food shocks elsewhere in the world.

Wall Street has a different perspective. It observes this scene and says in effect:

What's the profit here? We need a global food system in which producers in Chile depend on customers in New York and vice versa. Then both are dependent on us to serve as middlemen. We can monopolize global markets, set prices for both producers and consumers, and force producers either to buy our seeds, fertilizers, and insecticides at whatever price we choose or to lose their market access. The greater our success in convincing local producers that they will have greater selection at lower prices when everything is traded globally, the more they will depend on us as intermediaries, the greater will be our hold on people's lives everywhere, and the more profit we can extract.

When the world's agricultural land is organized on the model of industrialized monocropping, both producers and consumers depend on the global agricultural conglomerates for their survival. Until a crisis strikes, few notice that the resulting increase in global food interdependence increases the real costs of food production and reduces food security for everyone. This in turn creates lucrative opportunities for Wall Street speculators who profit from volatile commodity prices as a weather disruption on one side of the world creates food shortages on the other.

I bet Korten wouldn't have any reason to disagree with Michael Pollan's video up top, which makes the case that organic farming can indeed feed the world. But feeding the world is hardly uppermost in the minds of our corporate overlords, as Korten made clear above. In fact, America has moved in a very different direction: starving the poor:

What would you do if you came across someone on the street that had not had anything to eat for several days? Would you give that person some food? Well, the next time you get that impulse you might want to check if it is still legal to feed the homeless where you live.  Sadly, feeding the homeless has been banned in major cities all over America. Other cities that have not banned it outright have put so many requirements on those that want to feed the homeless (acquiring expensive permits, taking food preparation courses, etc.) that feeding the homeless has become "out of reach" for most average people. Some cities are doing these things because they are concerned about the "health risks" of the food being distributed by ordinary "do-gooders". Other cities are passing these laws because they do not want homeless people congregating in city centers where they know that they will be fed. But at a time when poverty and government dependence are soaring to unprecedented levels, is it really a good idea to ban people from helping those that are hurting?

This is just another example that shows that our country is being taken over by control freaks. There seems to be this idea out there that it is the job of the government to take care of everyone and that nobody else should even try.

But do we really want to have a nation where you have to get the permission of the government before you do good to your fellow man?

It isn't as if the government has "rescued" these homeless people. Homeless shelters all over the nation are turning people away each night because they have no more room.  There are many homeless people that are lucky just to make it through each night alive during the winter.

Sometimes a well-timed sandwich or a cup of warm soup can make a world of difference for a homeless person.  But many U.S. cities have decided that feeding the homeless is such a threat that they had better devote law enforcement resources to making sure that it doesn't happen.

This is so twisted.  In America today, you need a "permit" to do almost anything.  We are supposed to be a land of liberty and freedom, but these days government bureaucrats have turned our rights into "privileges" that they can revoke at any time.

The following are some of the major U.S. cities that have attempted to ban feeding the homeless...

Philadelphia

Mayor Nutter recently banned feeding homeless people in many parts of Philadelphia where homeless people are known to congregate...

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has announced a ban on the feeding of large numbers of homeless and hungry people at sites on and near the Benjamin Franklin Parkway.

Mayor Nutter is imposing the ban on all outdoor feedings of large numbers of people on city parkland, including Love Park and the Ben Franklin Parkway, where it is not uncommon for outreach groups to offer free food.

Nutter says the feedings lack both sanitary conditions and dignity.

Orlando

Last June, a group of activists down in Orlando, Florida were arrested by police for feeding the homeless in defiance of a city ordinance...

Over the past week, twelve members of food activist group Food Not Bombs have been arrested in Orlando for giving free food to groups of homeless people in a downtown park. They were acting in defiance of a controversial city ordinance that mandates permits for groups distributing food to large groups in parks within two miles of City Hall. Each group is allowed only two permits per park per year; Food Not Bombs has already exceeded their limit. They set up their meatless buffet in Lake Eola knowing that they would likely be arrested as a result.

Houston

Down in Houston, a group of Christians was recently banned from distributing food to the homeless, and they were told that they probably would not be granted a permit to do so in the future even if they applied for one...

Bobby and Amanda Herring spent more than a year providing food to homeless people in downtown Houston every day. They fed them, left behind no trash and doled out warm meals peacefully without a single crime being committed, Bobby Herring said.

That ended two weeks ago when the city shut down their "Feed a Friend" effort for lack of a permit. And city officials say the couple most likely will not be able to obtain one.

"We don't really know what they want, we just think that they don't want us down there feeding people," said Bobby Herring, a Christian rapper who goes by the stage name Tre9.

Dallas

Dallas has also adopted a law which greatly restricts the ability of individuals and ministries to feed the homeless...

A Dallas-area ministry is suing the city over a food ordinance that restricts the group from giving meals to the homeless.

Courts dismissed Dallas’ request for a summary judgment last week, saying the case, brought up by pastor Don Hart (in video above) may indeed be a violation of free exercise of religion, as protected by the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the blog Religion Clause reported.

In the court filing, the ministry leaders argue that their Christian faith requires them to share meals with the homeless (Jesus did!) and that the requirement that even churches and charities provide toilets, sinks, trained staff and consent of the city keeps them from doing so.

Las Vegas

A few years ago, Las Vegas became the first major U.S. city to specifically pass a law banning the feeding of homeless people...

Las Vegas, whose homeless population has doubled in the past decade to about 12,000 people in and around the city, joins several other cities across the country that have adopted or considered ordinances limiting the distribution of charitable meals in parks. Most have restricted the time and place of such handouts, hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.

But the Las Vegas ordinance is believed to be the first to explicitly make it an offense to feed “the indigent.”

That law has since been blocked by a federal judge, and since then many U.S. cities have been very careful not to mention "the indigent" or "the homeless" by name in the laws they pass that are intended to ban feeding the homeless.

New York City

New York City has banned all food donations to government-run homeless shelters because the bureaucrats there are concerned that the donated food will not be "nutritious" enough.

Yes, this is really true.

The following is from a recent Fox News article...

The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.

In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.

Can you believe that?

The bureaucrats are officially out of control.

In America today, it seems like almost everything is illegal.

One church down in Louisiana was recently ordered to stop giving out water because it did not have a government permit.

Well, I don't know about you, but I sure am going to give a cup of cold water to someone if they need it whether I have a permit or not.

It is as if common sense has totally gone out the window in this nation.

Over in New Hampshire, a woman is being sued for planting flowers in her own front yard.

This is the kind of thing that makes me glad that I have moved to a much more rural location.  People in the country tend to be much more relaxed.

Sadly, those that love to micro-manage others continue to get the upper hand in America.  Back in January, 40,000 new laws went into effect all over America.  The politicians continue to hit us with wave after wave of regulations and laws with no end in sight.

All of this is making America a very unpleasant place in which to live.

By the way, like us here at DWT Pollan recognizes that Congress, specifically the incredibly corrupted Agriculture committees, are at the heart of the unhealthful way we're eating in America. Another short video:

Bipartisan Agriculture-- Both Parties Endangering Consumers On Behalf Of Agri-Business

Congress, particularly the graft-oriented House Agriculture Committee, has steered U.S. food policies in the interests of fat-cat donors from Agri-Business and in ways diametrically against the well-being of consumers. For decades both parties have been working furiously against their own constituents. This might be expected of Republicans-- it's part of their religion-- but conservative Blue Dogs have been ceded food policies within the Democratic Party and they're not better than Republicans. But even Democratic presidents, Obama being no exception, have turned agriculture policy over to the worst conservative elements within the party. The current Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, for example was head of the corrupt, corporately-financed DLC. So it was probably no surprise to anyone early this year when he refused to take the side of consumers over his old pals at Monsanto, one of the most dangerous companies on the face of the earth.

Last we checked in with Vilsack selling us down the road to Monsanto, we came to the conclusion that he was no different from his 3 Republican predecessors, Ann Veneman, Mike Johanns and Ed Schafer, and that biotech was in all ways triumphant in the march towards turning the human race into mutants for the sake of short term corporate profits. Now Dr. Don Huber, whose research is considered golden in this field, is imploring Americans to sign a petition to save ourselves from Monsanto's-- and their political shills'-- unrestrained greed. Here's the letter to Obama and Vilsack:

Dear President Obama and Secretary Vilsack,

I urge that you halt the sale and planting of Monsanto’s recently approved Roundup Ready® GMO alfalfa and sugar beets until independent, peer-reviewed studies can be conducted to determine whether or not these products pose a threat to plant, animal and human health.

On January 17 of this year, Dr. Don Huber, an internationally recognized plant pathologist, wrote Secretary Vilsack an urgent letter warning of a credible threat to animal and human health and our food supply. The letter warned of a link between Roundup Ready GMO crops, the use of the herbicide Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) and serious plant diseases and animal infertility and abortions.

Dr. Huber’s letter detailed the discovery of an organism previously unknown to science by a team of U.S. scientists that had been linked to alarming levels of infertility and spontaneous abortions in livestock. The organism has been found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready corn and soybean meal and distillers grain fed to these animals, resulting in infertility rates as high as 20% and spontaneous abortion rates as high as 45% in cattle herds.

Unfortunately, the administration and USDA have failed to heed this warning and properly respond, despite serious and credible concerns laid out in his letter.  Rather than proceed with caution after receiving such alarming information, the Obama administration chose to bow to pressure from vested interests in the agriculture industry and fully deregulate Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® alfalfa and sugar beets less than 3 weeks after receiving Dr. Huber’s letter.

As a result of this failure to conduct due diligence, the decision to deregulate these crops should be reversed, and the White House and the USDA should impose a moratorium on the sale and planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beet seeds until independent studies have been conducted documenting their safety.

Furthermore, the practice of allowing Monsanto and other companies to provide internal, corporate-funded studies, while interfering with and intimidating independent scientists and researchers, must end.

It is vital to the future of our democracy and the safety of American citizens that scientists and governmental agencies conduct and review independent scientific studies on the environmental, animal and human health implications of genetically modified crops and foods.

You can sign on here



UPDATE: Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe To Eat?

Tom Philpott at Grist points out that "upwards of 70 percent of corn and 90 percent of soy are genetically modified, and these two crops form the basis of the conventional U.S. diet. Nor are they GM technology's only pathway onto our plates." He points out that genetically engineered food could well cause long-term health problems. We just don't know. "[T]hey won't kill us suddenly. Whether they're killing us slowly-- contributing to long-term, chronic maladies-- remains anyone's guess."

Healthy Eating Shouldn't Be Political... But It Is

Healthy eating, especially in schools, shouldn't be a political hot potato. But it is... very much so. Anyplace where vested interests and big money collide with progress you can count on an explosion. And few groups short of Wall Street, the Medical Industrial Complex, and the Military Industrial Complex have been as adapt as AgriBusiness in molding public policy to its own special interests. Since 1990 AgriBusiness has poured $339,822,615 into congressional races. In addition, AgriBusiness has spent an astronomical $1,280,824,983 on lobbying since 1998! And they're very strategic with their investments. Although they're on both sides of the aisle, most of their money goes to Republicans and most of the Democrats who get the big bucks are Blue Dogs and other corrupt conservatives. AgriBusiness' contributions, thinly veiled bribes, have amounted to $215,510,053 for Republicans and $123,201,065 for Democrats. Their top half dozen recipients (among those still in office) have been

John McCain (R-AZ)- $123,201,065
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)- $3,682,059 (Ranking Republic on Senate Agriculoture Committee)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)- $2,515,452 (Chair of Senate Agriculture Committee)
Barack Obama (D)- $2,312,149
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)- $2,278,472
Collin Peterson (D-MN)- $2,009,713 (Chair of House agriculture Committee)

And Agriculture policy-- as well as food policy, of course-- has been intractable and very much oriented away from family farms, away from consumers, away from health concerns and focused like a laser beam on the bottom lines of a few huge corporations.

Michelle Obama has come up against a great deal of criticism just for planting an organic garden at the White House. Her championing healthy school lunches means slaughtering even more sacred cows-- and the toxic corporate food industry is coming after her with all guns blazing.

Yesterday the L.A. Times reprinted a White House press release about the encouragement Mrs. Obama is giving schools to serve fresh produce in the form of salad bars. The object is to get children to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables, which is more healthy than eating the cheap, mass-produced processed foods normally available in schools. Obesity is a national problem that politicians are afraid to address, even though obesity-related health care costs are about $147 billion per year. Monday the First Lady was in Miami celebrating the first delivery of a free salad bar to a public school.

Only about 15 percent of public school cafeterias have salad bars. Dozens of schools want to add them, but can't afford the $2,500 equipment display or the produce to stock it, said Lorelei DiSogra, vice president of nutrition and health for the United Fresh Produce Association. The organization is donating 6,000 salad bars to schools, mostly in low-income neighborhoods, over the next three years as part of Obama's Let's Move Salad Bars to Schools initiative.

...On Monday, she encouraged members of Congress to "do their part," referring to the stalled child nutrition bill that aims to improve school lunches and expand feeding programs for low-income students. Anti-hunger groups and more than 100 Democrats protested the use of food stamp dollars to pay for it.

The proposed new nutrition standards call for using leaner meats and whole wheat buns in school lunchrooms and stocking vending machines with less candy and fewer high-calorie drinks.

Congressional passage of the bill would be only the first step. Decisions on what kinds of foods could be sold-- and what ingredients might be limited-- would be left to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The vested interests have been successful in encouraging the conservatives who they finance to make light of healthy eating and to attack these kinds of initiatives as waste and fraud and part of the Nanny State. But a report this week from UnitedHealth underlines why the issue of food policy needs to be a national priority. Even the Pentagon has been complaining that there are fewer and fewer physically fit recruitment possibilities.

Diabetes or prediabetic conditions will strike half of all adult Americans by the end of the decade unless people drop extra weight, said UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest U.S. health insurer by sales.

The disease will cost the nation almost $3.4 trillion, more than 60 percent paid for by the U.S. government, in the 10 years through 2020, according to a study released today by the Minnetonka, Minnesota-based insurer. The number of Americans with high blood sugar will rise 44 percent to 135 million in 2020, from 93.8 million in 2010, researchers said.

Diabetes is growing as the U.S. population skews older and fatter, said Simon Stevens, executive vice president for the company’s Center for Health Reform. About 12 percent of about 235 million adult Americans are diabetic, and 28 percent are prediabetic, the study found. Prediabetics can lower the odds of getting the full disease by losing weight, he said.

“There is nothing inevitable” about the rise in diabetes, Stevens said in a telephone interview. “Even quite modest changes, like losing 5 percent of body weight, have the potential of producing decreases. If we don’t take obesity seriously, we risk our children living shorter lives than we parents have lived.”

First lady Michelle Obama started a campaign aimed at reducing childhood obesity as a way to make Americans healthier. Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin criticized the government intervention into daily life when she brought cookies to a Pennsylvania school she was visiting, Bloomberg Businessweek reported Nov. 18.

This is an “epidemic that is larger than breast cancer and HIV together,” said Deneen Vojta, a physician and senior vice president at the UnitedHealth center. “Yet it doesn’t feel like an epidemic in this country because of the real under-awareness of the situation.”

So what do you think... would people rather have one of Palin's sugary, fatty, unhealthy cookies or some veggies? Just look at the election results from 3 weeks ago.

American Food Policy: Toxic, Starting With Children, Especially From Poor Families

U.S. food policy has been really bad; it's about to get much worse. As we saw a few days ago, the horribly corrupt Blue Dog dominated House Agriculture Committee is about to become and even more horribly corrupt Republican dominated House Agriculture Committee. For years the committee's main focus has been about extracting campaign donations from AgriBusiness in return for passing legislation dictated by..., yes, you guessed it... AgriBusiness. The result was apparent this week at the release of a report by the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale showing that fast food marketing is up while fast food nutritional value is down. Are we poisoning our children so that politicians' careers can prosper? Precisiely. And it's very bipartisan, just the way Americans like it, part of the problem with allowing Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats to mussy the water and distort the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Fast food companies speak to children early, often, and when parents are not looking. Fast food is the most unhealthy food product marketed to children, other than sugar-sweetened beverages, and is relentlessly and aggressively targeted toward children starting as young as age two. Food marketing to children negatively influences the dietary choices and health of society's most vulnerable citizens. Given the childhood obesity epidemic at hand, we need meaningful solutions and real change.

AgriBuisness and the fast food industry spend immense amounts of money to make sure Congress is not part of the solution. Since 1990 AgriBusiness has spent $215,510,053 bribing Republicans and $123,201,065 bribing Democrats (primarily Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats) to make sure Congress would allow them to continue promulgating a toxic "business friendly" (consumer deadly) agenda. The 8 biggest recipients of bribes from AgriBusiness currently serving in Congress:

John McCain (R-AZ)- $3,849,451
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)- $3,682,059
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)- $2,515,452
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)- $2,278,472
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $2,009,713
Pat Roberts (R-KS)- $1,759,728
Marion Berry (Blue Dog-AR)- $1,751,655
Davin Nunes (R-CA)- $1,721,407

And Frank Lucas (R-OK), who is about to take over as Agriculture Committee Chair from Peterson stashed away another $1,195,044. Here's a summary of the report from Yale:

Fast food marketing is relentless.

• The fast food industry spent more than $4.2 billion dollars in 2009 on TV advertising and other media.

• The average preschooler (2-5 years) saw 2.8 TV ads per day for fast food; children (6-11 years) saw 3.5; and teens (12-17 years) saw 4.7.

• Young people's exposure to fast food TV ads has increased. Compared to 2003, preschoolers viewed 21% more fast food ads in 2009, children viewed 34% more, and teens viewed 39% more.

• Although McDonald's and Burger King have pledged to improve food marketing to children, they increased their volume of TV advertising from 2007 to 2009. Preschoolers saw 21% more ads for McDonald's and 9% more for Burger King, and children viewed 26% more ads for McDonald's and 10% more for Burger King.

• Even though McDonald's and Burger King only showed their "better-for-you" foods in child-targeted marketing, their ads did not encourage consumption of these healthier choices. Instead, child-targeted ads focused on toy giveaways and building brand loyalty.

• Children saw more than child-targeted ads. More than 60% of fast food ads viewed by preschoolers and children promoted fast food items other than kids' meals.

Youth-targeted marketing has spread to company websites and other digital media.

• McDonald's web-based marketing starts with children as young as age 2 at Ronald.com.

• McDonald's and Burger King created sophisticated websites with advergames and virtual worlds to engage children (e.g., McWorld.com, HappyMeal.com, and ClubBK.com).

• McDonald's 13 websites got 365,000 unique child visitors and 294,000 unique teen visitors on average each month in 2009.

• Nine restaurant Facebook pages had more than one million fans in 2009, and Starbucks' boasted more than 11.3 million.

• Smartphone apps were available for eight fast food chains, providing another opportunity to reach young consumers anytime, anywhere.

Fast food marketing also targets teens and ethnic and minority youth-- often with less healthy items.

• Taco Bell targeted teens in its TV and radio advertising. Dairy Queen, Sonic, and Domino's also reached disproportionately more teens with ads for their desserts and snacks, and Burger King advertised teen-targeted promotions.

• Hispanic preschoolers saw 290 Spanish-language fast food TV ads in 2009 and McDonald's was responsible for one-quarter of young people's exposure to Spanish-language fast food advertising.

• African American children and teens saw at least 50% more fast food ads on TV in 2009 than their white peers. That translated into twice the number of fast food calories viewed daily compared to white children.

• McDonald's and KFC specifically targeted African American youth with TV advertising, targeted websites, and banner ads.

Fast food marketing works.

• Eighty-four percent of parents reported taking their child to a fast food restaurant at least once a week; 66% reported going to McDonald's in the past week.

• Forty percent of parents reported that their child asks to go to McDonald's at least once a week; 15% of preschoolers ask to go every day.

Most restaurants do offer some healthful and lower-calorie choices on their regular and children's menus, but unhealthy options are the default.

• Just 12 of 3,039 possible kids' meal combinations met nutrition criteria for preschoolers; 15 met nutrition criteria for older children.

• Just 17% of regular menu items qualified as healthy choices.

• Snacks and dessert items contained as many as 1,500 calories, which is five times more than the 200 to 300 calorie snack for active teens recommended by the American Dietetic Association.

• The average restaurant had 15 signs promoting specific menu items, but just 4% promoted healthy menu items.

• When ordering a kids' meal, restaurant employees at McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, and Taco Bell automatically served french fries or another unhealthy side dish more than 84% of the time. A soft drink or other unhealthy beverage was served automatically at least 55% of the time.

• Subway offered healthy sides and beverages 60% of the time, making it the only fast food restaurant in our study to routinely provide healthy choices.

As a result:

• Teens between the ages of 13 and 18 purchased 800 to 1,100 calories in an average fast food visit.

• At least 30% of calories in menu items purchased by children and teens were from sugar and saturated fat.

• At most restaurants, young people purchased at least half of their maximum daily recommended sodium intake in just one fast food meal.

• Teens ordered more fast food than any other age group during non-meal times after school and in the evening.

Recommendations

Young people must consume less of the calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods served at fast food restaurants. Parents and schools can and should do more to teach children how to make healthy choices. Above all, fast food restaurants must drastically change their current marketing practices so that children and teens do not receive continuous encouragement to seek out food that will severely damage their health. 

Fast food restaurants must establish meaningful standards for child-targeted marketing that apply to all fast food restaurants-not just those who voluntarily participate in the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.

• Nutrition criteria for foods presented in child-targeted marketing must apply to all kids' meals served, not just items pictured in the marketing.

• Restaurants must redefine "child-targeted" marketing to include TV ads and other forms of marketing viewed by large numbers of children but not exclusively targeted to them.

• McDonald's must stop marketing directly to preschoolers.

Fast food restaurants must do more to develop and promote lower-calorie and more nutritious menu items.

CNN's coverage of the report emphasized some of the specific culprits in terms of which companies are poisoning American children the most effectively. "'The worst meal was at Dairy Queen,' said Jennifer Harris, director of marketing initiatives at the Yale center, and the lead study author. 'It was a cheeseburger, french fries, a sugar sweetened soft drink and a chocolate Dilly Bar, which totaled 973 calories.' The No. 2 culprit: KFC's popcorn chicken kids meal, served with a biscuit, soda and a side of string cheese-- totaling 840 calories." The bottom line is that children are being sold on meals that are high in calories and low in nutritional value. It makes that fat and stupid, the results of which can be seen throughout our crumbling society, particularly in last week's election results. USAToday also sounded the alarm this morning, although, like the rest of the news coverage, none of this is ever connected to the politicians of both parties who accept bribes from AgriBusiness.