Lincoln, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee who is gearing up for a tough re-election battle this fall, has been fighting for the funds since July when they were removed as a compromise deal from a small business stimulus bill.  The Obama administration had promised to approve the package, which was designed to provide “disaster aid” to farmers who lost crops in 2009, by Aug. 31.

August has come and gone, and there’s no sign of the package. But before we get all sad for the poor farmers down the street whose crops were ruined, let’s examine this plan. America’s biggest, least sustainable farms — many of them in Blanche’s Arkansas — would benefit most from the plan, while smaller, more damaged farms would be left high and dry. Why? The funds would not be distributed based on losses, but on how much they received or should have received under a federal subsidy program based on farm size. As the New York Times explained last week, it’s an “unjustified” windfall, as farms with as little as five percent loss would receive an additional chunk of 90 percent of the subsidy in aid. Bigger, more profitable farms — the ones least damaged by rains — are far more likely to qualify. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the top 10 percent of wealthiest farmers would receive about two-thirds of the money, and about a quarter of the funds would (curiously) go to Arkansas farms.

Lincoln herself told the Arkansas News, “If you have a large farm, you had a large loss, which means you’re going to have a large assistance.”  She lambasted critics of the plan, saying they just do not understand farms: “I think it’s just another example of how those folks truly, I don’t think, understand production agriculture and how important it is to our economy and how important it is to feeding the world.”

Well, “these folks” understand the major problem with the aid: It applies to all farms unilaterally rather than proportionally to the hardest-hit farms. Southern rice and cotton farmers, who faced damages after heavy rainfall last year, have pleaded for aid, even if their losses were minimal. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) considers the package “a six-figure windfall for hundreds of plantation-scale, highly subsidized rice and cotton farms across the South.” Even large corn, wheat, and soybean farms would benefit. EWG President Ken Cook wrote to the Office of Management and Budget earlier this week to urge the White House not to push the package, arguing that  it should only give aid to farms with a 30 percent threshold of losses.

Payments and politics shouldn’t go hand in hand, especially in times of such economic distress. The administration should reject Lincoln’s plan. After all, an initiative that merely rewards Lincoln’s supporters is an extraordinary waste of taxpayer dollars. These funds should go towards supporting the farmers who need help the most.

Photo credit: takomabibelot via Flickr

Sen. Lincoln’s Farm "Aid" Plan Falls Flat

Contacts:
Patricia Nixon (http://www.linkedin.com/in/pnixon)
Marc Johnson (http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcwjohnson)

CNN Reports: Unemployed Need Not Apply http://bit.ly/aOu1UO

After reading the article above, you must find yourself sickened by this heinous and atrocious practice as many individuals have! Do you find this as reprehensible as we do?? The article uncovers a nasty little secret frequently being practiced during one of the most financially difficult times in modern history.? Respected companies many of us have supported or known of virtually all our lives including Sony Ericsson actively choose not to consider hiring from the vast pool of qualified unemployed candidates.? The Vice President of Adecco Group, the largest staffing firm in the world, admitted this requirement was brought up in 3 out of 4 of the last conversations he had regarding openings.? These may be companies you, your friends or family members may be applying to for jobs right now.

Do not believe this regards only high-level positions.? Latro Consulting was revealed doing the same thing when posting listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast.? So even if you have to take a lower-level job to support your family, keep a roof over your head and food on your table, you may also be discriminated against simply because you do not have a job.

We demand that the government we support with our taxes address this head-on.? All discrimination is ugly and this is no exception.? For those of you currently working, you, too, are carrying the weight of this burden.? For those families that are now struggling with the loss of an income their expenses have not decreased in proportion.? Some have to (or soon will) take advantage of discounted or free services just to stay afloat which we know comes out of the pockets of taxpayers struggling with their own finances.? We are losing our homes, our medical benefits, 401(k)s, savings accounts and the college funds of our children.? Unemployed members of our communities who are actively seeking work do not want to further burden the country they have been a backbone to for much of their lives.? Those who can and are willing to work must be allowed opportunities based on experience, credentials and willingness, especially now when many are victims of an economy they did not destroy.? We demand we not be further victimized nor discriminated against!? This country and its people simply cannot afford it!

When businesses fail to support America, America fails as a whole.? We ask you not to fail us now.? Please sign this petition which will be submitted to the White House, local politicians and other media outlets demanding laws be put into place or amended that actively and aggressively investigate, prevent and penalize this discrimination.?

All who participate in this petition can be assured of its delivery as all will be provided an electronic copy of the tracking number once it is sent.? At that time, you can send the form letter that will be provided stating your support and participation in this petition to your local government representatives if you so choose to take additional steps.?

Petitions have been used throughout the history of America to impel changes in laws and policies for the better of all.? We are aiming for 500,000 signatures minimum and we expect to exceed that goal.? Please join us!

And go one step further.? If every single person who signs this petition uses whatever forms of social media (s)he is currently using to spread the word it will add even more leverage behind this effort.? Tweet it, post it in your LinkedIn groups, email a friend, send a text message with the link to this petition.? Every effort will be appreciated.

Your contact information will not be used for any other reason going forward.? We want your support and firm alliance in this endeavor and nothing more.?

America cannot work when America cannot work!
The Unemployed Need Not Apply

The research team looked at television advertising targeted at children from 2003 to 2007. Researchers found that on average, children between the ages of two and 11 are seeing 30 percent fewer ads for fruit drinks and soft drinks. In addition, ads for candies, cookies, and other sweets went down 35 percent. But ads for fast food increased by eight percent, with two-to-five-year-olds seeing more ads for fast food than cereal. Lisa Powell, one of the researchers, commented, “That suggests a lot of branding is going on. They are starting marketing of brand loyalty at an earlier age.”

What is perhaps most shocking, however, is the disparity between children of different races. The researchers found that African-American children saw 1.4 to 1.6 times as many food ads each day as their white counterparts, and they saw double the number of fast-food ads. Just think about that for a moment along with the oft-cited statistic that one in three children born after 2000 will suffer from diabetes, and if that group is narrowed down to just minority children, the number rises to one in two. Maybe not a direct correlation, but I wouldn’t be willing to bet against a connection.

I’ve written previously that the American Academy of Pediatrics states that “advertising directed toward children is inherently deceptive and exploits children under eight years of age.” The Institute of Medicine has also stated that evidence suggests short-term food choices among children aged two to 11 are influenced by TV ads. The American Psychological Association and numerous other organizations agree, and believe that marketing of food products towards young children should be eliminated.

The researchers attribute some of the decline in sweets advertising to voluntary industry programs, such as the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. While I would never say something like that is a bad idea, I think a recent post on Marion Nestle’s blog draws a good analogy between industry self-regulation of tobacco and food. How much of the “self-regulation” is just good publicity, and how much is actually meaningful?

It seems that more and more studies are coming out (or at least gaining some attention) on the connections between advertising, food, and childhood obesity. While this latest report provides a bit of good news, it’s really just negated by the increase in fast-food advertising. Win some, lose some? Until marketing targeted at children is eliminated or severely restricted, I’d say it’s all a loss for the kids.

Photo credit: tempophage

TV Advertising to Kids Switches From Sugar to Grease

It’s time for America to choose cleaner energy—we must move away from outdated, dirty energy sources to smarter choices. New clean energy and energy efficiency technologies will create safe, green jobs, provide power without contaminating our land, water, and air, and will help curb global warming pollution.

Unfortunately, the Senate has yet to overcome the political impasse that is delaying action on this critical issue.

Please tell President Obama and Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Policy, that we need their leadership to break this impasse and ensure that Congress passes comprehensive climate and energy legislation this year.
Time to Break through the Politics and Act on Climate