Posts tagged ‘Unemployment’

New Study Shows that Corporate Tax Cuts Won’t Create Jobs


New Study Shows that Corporate Tax Cuts Won’t Create Jobs

BY OLIVIA SANDBOTHE  |  DECEMBER 18, 2013

There’s no correlation between low taxes and job creation.

That’s the finding in a new report from the Center for Effective Government that refutes corporate CEOs, bankers and tea party members of Congress who engage in some serious magical thinking when it comes to taxes and job creation.

We’ve heard these voodoo economics before: cut taxes and jobs will appear.  Right now,corporate tax rates are at their lowest point in 40 years even as profits soar.  Meanwhile, our economy is still struggling. It’s about time we questioned why these policies have yet to result in the job growth that their proponents predicted. 

In the new study, The Center for Effective Government, a nonprofit group that studies the economic impact of public policy, analyzed the Fortune 500 companies that posted profits between 2008 and 2012. Then it compared the job numbers of the companies that paid the highest tax rates to those of the companies that paid the fewest taxes.  

Of the 30 companies that paid more than a third of their profits in taxes, all but eight added jobs between 2008 and 2010. As a group, these companies reported a net gain of more than 200,000 US jobs.

Compare that to the 30 corporations that paid the lowest rates.  Many of these firms are paying no federal income taxes at all.  Even as this group raked in $159 billion in profits, only half of them added any jobs.  In total, they cut more jobs than they added, for a net result of 51,000 jobs lost. 

These numbers tell a story that many of us already knew.  Corporations don’t seek out lower tax rates because they’re eager to start hiring.  They do it to boost profits, and they don’t intend to share those profits with the rest of us.

What it all means is that billions of dollars that could be spent on education and infrastructure that benefits everyone are instead being hoarded by corporate CEOs.  The Center for Effective Government estimates that we could raise $220 billion simply by closing tax loopholes that allow corporations to hide money overseas.  Raising the federal corporate tax rate by only a few percentage points would be even more effective.

Public opinion is starting to turn against trickle-down economics.  Even Pope Francis has come out against the idea. It’s time to use that momentum to push for a tax system that benefits everyone instead of one that chases after imaginary job growth at the expense of our public programs.

You can read the entire CEG report by clicking here.

Advertisements

Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options


Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options

report

march 10, 2011

read complete document  (pdf, 2478 kb)

CBO regularly issues a compendium of budget options to help inform federal lawmakers about the implications of possible policy choices. This volume—one of several reports that CBO produces regularly for the House and Senate Committees on the Budget—presents more than 100 options for altering federal spending and revenues. Nearly all of the options would reduce federal budget deficits. The report begins with an introductory chapter that describes the current budgetary picture and the uses and limitations of this volume. Chapters 2 and 3 present options that would reduce mandatory and discretionary spending, respectively. Chapter 4 contains options that would increase revenues from various kinds of taxes and fees.

Federal budget deficits will total $7 trillion over the next decade if current laws remain unchanged, CBO projects. If certain policies that are scheduled to expire under current law are extended instead, deficits may be much larger. Beyond the coming decade, the aging of the U.S. population and rising health care costs will put increasing pressure on the budget. If federal debt continues to expand faster than the economy—as it has since 2007—the growth of people’s income will slow, the share of federal spending devoted to paying interest on the debt will rise, and the risk of a fiscal crisis will increase.

This report presents 105 illustrative options that would reduce projected budget deficits. As in past reports, the options cover an array of policy areas—from defense to energy to entitlement programs to provisions of the tax code. The budgetary effects shown for most options span the 10 years from 2012 to 2021 (the period covered by CBO’s January 2011 baseline budget projections), although many options would have longer-term effects as well. The options are grouped into three major budget categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and revenues. In most cases, the table accompanying an option shows the option’s estimated budgetary effects in each of the next 10 years, as well as 5- and 10-year totals.

The options in this volume come from legislative proposals, various Administrations’ budget proposals, Congressional staff, other government entities, and private groups, among others. Because the spending options in this volume are intended to help lawmakers review individual programs, they do not include large-scale budget initiatives, such as eliminating entire departments or agencies. The options are intended to reflect a range of possibilities, not a ranking of priorities, and the report does not provide an exhaustive list of policy alternatives. The inclusion or exclusion of a particular policy change does not represent an endorsement or rejection by CBO. In keeping with CBO’s mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, this report makes no recommendations.

Budget Decisions: The Current Context

Over the past 40 years, federal debt held by the public has averaged 35 percent of the country’s annual economic output (gross domestic product, or GDP). Because of massive deficits during the past few years, that ratio climbed to 62 percent by the end of last year, the highest level since shortly after World War II.

In CBO’s current-law baseline, the deficit is projected to equal 9.8 percent of GDP in 2011, shrink to 4.3 percent of GDP by 2013 (after certain tax provisions are scheduled to expire and the economy has recovered further from the recession), and then range between 2.9 percent and 3.4 percent of GDP through 2021—close to the average of 2.8 percent seen over the past 40 years. Those deficits would push total debt held by the public to 77 percent of GDP by 2021.

Moreover, CBO’s baseline projections are predicated on the assumption that many policies now in place are allowed to expire over the next decade, as scheduled under current law. Those expiring policies include the major reductions in individual income taxes originally enacted in 2001 and 2003 and recently extended through 2012, as well as the higher exemption amounts for the alternative minimum tax. If those policies and others were extended, budget deficits would be much larger than in that baseline.

Over the longer term, the continued aging of the population and growth in health care costs will almost certainly push up federal spending significantly relative to GDP under current law. Without changes in law, spending on Social Security and the government’s major mandatory health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and health insurance subsidies to be provided through insurance exchanges) will increase from roughly 10 percent of GDP today to about 16 percent over the next 25 years. If revenues stay close to their average share of GDP for the past 40 years, that rise in spending will lead to rapidly growing budget deficits and surging federal debt.

To prevent federal debt from becoming unsupportable, lawmakers will have to restrain the growth of spending substantially, raise revenues significantly above their historical share of GDP, or pursue some combination of those two approaches.

Options for Reducing Mandatory Spending

Mandatory spending includes spending for entitlement programs and certain other payments to people, businesses, nonprofit institutions, and state and local governments. For mandatory spending programs, funding levels are generally determined not by annual appropriations but by eligibility rules, benefit formulas, and other parameters set by Congress in authorizing legislation.

The largest programs in this category are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which together accounted for 74 percent of mandatory spending in 2010 and are projected to account for 81 percent by 2021, under current law.

The options in this section encompass a broad range of mandatory spending programs. Although the options are grouped by program, some of the options for different programs are conceptually similar. For instance, two options address the effects of applying different inflation factors to the benefit formulas for certain programs. Other options would alter the balance of spending between the government and program participants or between the federal government and the states.

Of the 32 options in the mandatory spending chapter:

  • Fifteen deal with spending for health care programs.
  • Seven would make changes to Social Security or other retirement programs.
  • Ten focus on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and programs that deal with education, energy, or agriculture.

Options for Reducing Discretionary Spending

Spending governed by the Congress’s annual appropriation acts—which is labeled discretionary spending—accounts for nearly 40 percent of federal outlays. In 2010, roughly half of discretionary spending went for defense. The other half paid for a wide range of federal activities, including law enforcement, homeland security, transportation, national parks, disaster relief, scientific research, and foreign aid. CBO’s baseline projections reflect the assumption that discretionary spending will grow at the rate of inflation and will thus decline to 28 percent of total spending by 2021.

Of the 38 options in the discretionary spending chapter:

  • Two options, one for defense spending and one for nondefense spending, present broad alternatives for freezing or reducing discretionary spending.
  • Twelve other options deal with defense spending.
  • The other 24 options cover a broad array of nondefense programs.

Most of the options show savings calculated relative to CBO’s baseline projections—that is, the 2011 appropriation annualized, adjusted for projected inflation in later years. The budgetary effects of several options that involve spending for defense procurement were estimated on a different basis—they were measured relative to the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) 2011 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). CBO determined that it would be more informative to estimate the effects of procurement options relative to DoD’s published plan because CBO’s baseline for defense procurement is not based on detailed plans for weapon systems. Because the 2011 FYDP extends for only five years, however, CBO’s estimates for procurement options are presented with tables that show just five years of costs or savings. The text of each procurement option discusses the effect of the option on DoD’s long-term acquisition plans.

Options for Increasing Revenues

Federal revenues come from taxes on individual and corporate income, payroll taxes for social insurance programs (such as Social Security and unemployment compensation), excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, remittances from the Federal Reserve System, customs duties, and miscellaneous fees and fines. The two largest sources are individual income taxes and social insurance taxes, which together produce more than 80 percent of the government’s revenues.

The revenue chapter presents 35 options to increase revenues. The options are grouped in a number of broad categories according to the part of the tax system they would target:

  • Individual income tax rates
  • The individual income tax base
  • Individual income tax credits
  • The Social Security tax base
  • Corporate income tax rates
  • Taxation of income from businesses and other entities
  • Taxation of income from worldwide business activity
  • Consumption and excise taxes
  • Health care provisions
  • Other taxes and fees

Nearly all the estimates for the revenue options were prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). If combined, the options might interact with one another in ways that could alter their revenue effects as well as their impact on households and the economy. For simplicity in presentation, some of the changes in revenues shown in the tables represent the net effects of an option on both revenues and outlays combined.

Caveats About This Report

The estimates shown in this volume could differ from any later cost estimates by CBO or revenue estimates by JCT for legislative proposals that resemble these options. One reason is that the policy proposals on which those later estimates would be based might not precisely match the options presented here. Another reason is that the baseline budget projections against which such proposals would ultimately be measured might have been updated and thus would differ from the projections used for this report.

The estimated budgetary effects of options do not reflect the extent to which a policy change would affect interest payments on federal debt.

CBO’s analyses do not attempt to quantify the impact of options on state spending. Some options that would affect other levels of governments or the private sector might involve federal mandates. The discussions of the options in this volume do not address the costs of potential mandates.

Census Bureau clarifies poverty numbers – U.S. News


Census Bureau clarifies poverty numbers – U.S. News.

Officials at the U.S. Census Bureau moved Friday to clarify widely reported figures meant to estimate the number of Americans living in poverty.

Dueling Census reports – one based on official poverty estimates that was released just last week and another based on an experimental calculus used in November – differed from one another by 20 percentage points regarding the number of people viewed as living in poverty. The widely reported figure showed that one out of two Americans are in poverty or are low-income. Other Census figures put the figure closer to one out of three Americans.
Advertise | AdChoices

That’s because the experimental measure, a supplement to the official poverty figures meant to take into account such factors as whether a family is receiving food stamps and how much people pay in taxes, uses a poverty level of $24,343 for a family of four instead of the $21,113 used by the official measure.

Read the original story on NBCLosAngeles.com

In expensive states like California and New York, the supplemental measure classified families making as much as $32,869 as impoverished.

However, Kathleen Short, the Census Bureau economist who spearheaded the supplemental report, said it would be wrong to extrapolate from those numbers that Americans are falling into poverty at greater rates.

In fact, she said, the experimental calculation indicated that poverty among children is actually lower than the official poverty rate shows.

On Thursday, reports in multiple news outlets suggested that people making roughly twice the poverty level under the experimental program were “scraping by” and should be considered low-income.

The Census Bureau does not support that interpretation of the data, Short said.

“Below 200 percent of the poverty threshold is the lower end of the distribution,” Short said. “But we would not call it low-income per se.”

A number of news reports on Thursday correctly said that more people fell under the definition of living in poverty under the experimental calculation, but then went on to say that people making twice that would be considered low-income.

However, the practice of using such figures as “150 percent of poverty” or “200 percent of poverty” to determine whether people were of moderate or low income is a practice that grew up around the older, traditional method of identifying poverty, which uses a lower threshold.

More from NBC4 on the Census reports: Assessing poverty

In parts of California under the supplemental approach, a family that owns its own home and earns about $66,000 per year would be earning 200 percent of the poverty level, and not necessarily be considered low-income.
Advertise | AdChoices

NBC4, relying on figures and analysis from the Los Angeles office of the Census, reported the newer, official poverty figures on Thursday, and questioned reports that used the supplemental figures.

A widely distributed news story by the Associated Press (and published by msnbc.com) relied on the supplemental report.

“We did not misunderstand the data,” AP spokesman Jack Stokes said in an email. “The AP story was vetted by the Census Bureau in Washington.”

However, Short said that she did not agree with the news service’s conclusion that the report showed one out of two Americans to be low-income or impoverished.

Short stressed that the supplemental measure was a work in progress, and that it should not be considered a replacement for the official poverty rate.

The AP’s calculations were correct, Short said, “but I’m not agreeing with any adjectives that are placed on being in that category.”

“In fact we stressed the Census Bureau does not have a definition for low income.” Short said

In the supplemental report, “we’re not characterizing what it’s like to be below 200 percent of the poverty line,” Short said. “We don’t have any information to characterize what that would be like.”

Follow NBCLA for the latest LA news, events and entertainment: Twitter: @NBCLA// Facebook: NBCLA

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

Romney’s missing hard drives raise questions
Lingering shortage of ADHD drugs unravels lives
Buyer found for priciest bank-owned home
Reporter’s notebook: Return to Cuba

Whites with No Diploma Live Shorter Lives – Truthdig


For White People Who Vote REPUBLICAN You Have Alot To Think About

Whites with No Diploma Live Shorter Lives – Truthdig.

Life expectancy for the least-educated Americans has shrunk by four years since 1990, a reminder that social inequality is not just a matter of having fewer things than those who are better off than you.

Exactly why the decline occurred isn’t understood, but a rise in prescription drug overdoses among white youths, higher rates of tobacco use, growing obesity and a lack of health insurance were offered by researchers as possible explanations.

—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.

The New York Times:

The steepest declines were for white women without a high school diploma, who lost five years of life between 1990 and 2008, said S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the lead investigator on the study, published last month in Health Affairs. By 2008, life expectancy for black women without a high school diploma had surpassed that of white women of the same education level, the study found.

White men lacking a high school diploma lost three years of life. Life expectancy for both blacks and Hispanics of the same education level rose, the data showed. But blacks over all do not live as long as whites, while Hispanics live longer than both whites and blacks.

“We’re used to looking at groups and complaining that their mortality rates haven’t improved fast enough, but to actually go backward is deeply troubling,” said John G. Haaga, head of the Population and Social Processes Branch of the National Institute on Aging, who was not involved in the new study.

Read more

How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? | The Economic Populist


How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? | The Economic Populist.

The press quotes all sorts of figures for the number of monthly job gains needed to keep up with population growth. We see numbers like 80,000, 100,000, 125,000 and 175,000 thrown around like statistical snow as the number of jobs needed each month just to keep up. What’s the right one? How many jobs are needed each month just to keep up with population growth?

The actual monthly amount can be calculated and the Atlanta Fed even did us a huge favor by publishing an interactive monthly jobs calculator so you can go check for yourself. This month shows we need 104,116 payroll jobs to maintain the same unemployment rate of 8.1% with all of the other same terrible conditions the state of employment is in.

That’s the key, the current terrible conditions the state of employment is in today. One of the reasons the number of jobs to keep up with population growth is so low is due to so many having dropped out of the labor force. If we had more people being counted as needing a job, the number of jobs to keep up with population growth would be much higher.

To explain this, we need to go to BLS school and learn some labor concepts. The employment universe comes from the civilian noninstitutional population. These are people in the United States, aged 16 and over, who aren’t in the military, infirmed or locked up somewhere.

blsconcept1

The above pie chart shows how the civilian nonstitutional population is divided up into two classifications, either you’re in the civilian labor force, or you’re not. The employment statistics come from the civilian labor force. Those who are classified as not in the labor force are not counted, and thus not considered as needing a job or mattering when their numbers swell.

blsconcept2

The civilian labor force is then divided up into two categories, either you have a job or you don’t. In the unemployed category, you have to be actively looking to be considered as part of the civilian labor force. The above pie chart shows the breakdown, using the August 2012 statistics.

The civilian noninstitutional population grows every month and for 2011, the average was 0.059% per month. For the last 12 months, the average was 0.128% per month, so the population growth varies, but there is a huge problem. The woe is the Census puts their annual benchmark adjustments in the month of January only. The benchmark adjustments are not annually smoothed or averaged in on a month to month basis. This makes the monthly population percentage growth more difficult to estimate, for we have a fudge factor plopped in between the December and January estimates. We can see the annual benchmarks, or fudge factor, in the below graph showing the monthly change in civilian noninstitutional population.

Civilian population change

What we can do is ignore the months of January and take the average growth rate for the last year, bypassing the benchmark weirdness month. Doing this gives a monthly growth rate of 0.0762% for noninstitutional civilian population and thus we smooth away those benchmarks to get a much more realistic average population growth rate.

If the fact that the benchmark adjustments are not evenly distributed across the monthly change in noninstitutional civilian population isn’t enough to throw a monkey wrench into figuring out how many jobs we need each month just to keep up, we have an additional problem. There are people who really are not in the labor force and these percentages change. The population is getting older, we have more retirees and unfortunately we put people in prison more than any other industrialized nation. Then, other people are not part of the labor force because they have been unemployed so long they are no longer counted. In other words, we cannot say that all of the growth of those not in the labor force is due to people dropping off of the unemployed statistical radar. That said, clearly many are. Where we can see this most is in the labor participation rate. The labor participation rate is the ratio of the civilian labor force to those not in the labor force. The below graph shows we are at record lows in the ratio of those as part of the labor force to those who are not.

If we take the labor participation rate at the start of the great recession, 66%, we get a whole other number of jobs needed each month to keep up with population growth. If we keep the same rate of unemployment, 8.1%, we would need 545,551 jobs per month and it would take an entire year to get to the same August rate of unemployment, 8.1%.

This is because by increasing the labor participation rate 2.5%, we took 6,089,150 people not counted and added them to the labor force statistics and of course, they would enter in as unemployed. The unemployment rate is the ratio of those in the civilian labor force who do not have a job against those who who do.

We can also estimate the number of jobs needed each month, just to maintain, by rough numbers. If we assume a smoothed noninstitutional civilian population growth rate of 0.076% per month, then next month’s population growth would be 185,617 additional people ages 16 and over and not locked up somewhere. If we then assume the labor participation rate of this new growth would be 68.0% and not the actual, artificially low 63.5%, we would get an additional 126,920 jobs needed to keep up with this population growth.

This is much more realistic for new population growth is probably going to enter the labor force looking for a job. The BLS counts illegal immigrants, green card holders and foreign guest workers in their statistics and most of the population growth is due to immigration. These people either already have a job upon entering the country, or are going to want one fast. Bottom line, yes Virginia, increased immigration does affect labor markets, all else being static. I do believe to say our economic growth and thus labor demand is static at the moment is not an understatement.

Check out the Atlanta Federal Reserve jobs calculator. It’s Economic Populist approved, we checked their arithmetic and assumptions.

If this is not enough to convince you, we suggest reading this article, this or this one for more background.

Finally our favorite and never reported BLS statistic amplifies the terrible situation for labor in this country. The BLS surveys people considered not part of the labor force and asks if they want a job right now. Below is a graph of the people who said yes and watch how this figure swells.

For August 2012, those not counted in the labor force but report they actually want and need a job increased by 403,000 in a month. That, folks, should have you horrified. Literally we have desperate and destitute people falling through the statistical crevasse, into the abyss where they can only shout out from the numerical darkness, yes I want a job!
BLS Employment Report Shows 96,000 Jobs and an Unemployment Rate of 8.1% for August 2012 ›

Add new comment
4849 reads
Share this

Syndicate content

Eva M. Clayton: A 2012 Farm Bill That Support Small Farmers and Nutritional Assistance Programs: Good for Our Nation’s Health and Economy


 

In Friday’s Los Angeles Times, there was an opinion editorial titled “America Needs a Farm Bill That Works” — this title is precisely why I think members of Congress need to be committed to pushing forward a bipartisan piece of legislation.

A 2012 Farm Bill will help provide infrastructure, investment and economic certainty for American agriculture — things that are both important and critical for an industry that impacts all Americans, whether they live in big cities or small rural communities. But in order for the bill to be effective in providing these things, it must support small farmers and nutritional programs that are key components to the viability and health of an Agriculture economy.
Small farmers are often made the loving poster child of our rural landscape. They are a struggling, declining and aging population. According to the Economic Research Services in United States Department of Agriculture, during the last census there were over 2.1 million farms in the U.S., of which 75% earned less than $50,000 annually and had about 5% production while the very large farms, representing just 2% of all farms, made over $1 million dollars and had 47% production.
This is a problem when you consider small farmers generally produce more fruits, vegetables, nuts and sustainable food products, all of which are essential for proper nutritional sustenance. As our country continues to focus on the importance of a balanced and nutritious diet, Congress should focus on ensuring competitive opportunities for small farmers that will enable them to continue to grow the healthy food that we need. Hopefully, obesity and other health issues can be addressed through healthy food choices. Local farmers are key to producing healthy foods and it will also increase their income.
Similar to the focus that is put on educating students in science and math to fill voids in those growing fields, Congress should support programs to recruit future farmers and ensure a growing and diverse industry in the future. The average U.S. farmer is 57 years old and just 5% of all farmers are 35 years or younger. Not to mention, just 4.6% of all U.S. farms are minority-owned and run. To say that there is room for improvement would be a gross understatement — we need to find creative ways attract new entrepreneurial and innovative farmers from all demographics. Congress and the present Administration recently addressed the lingering discrimination cases initiated by black farmers. However, constant vigilance is required to overcome the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) history of discrimination and to ensure equity for all farmers.
Additionally, upon examination of the payments to large farmers as compared to small farmers, the difference is vast. The commodity payments are tied to the production of specific commodities. These payments go primarily to large commercial producers. As a result, few of the smallest farms receive commodity payments.
In the 2008 farm bill, Congress did institute a number of new initiatives and expand other initiatives that encouraged local farmers to grow and sell food to various local vendors, including local school systems. For instance, in North Carolina, citizens are encouraged to buy locally and various grocery store chains, military bases and local schools are encouraged to purchase from local farmers. As a result, the local farm economy is benefiting and healthy foods are more accessible. We need to identify and expand smart and effective programs like this.
We also need to look for areas where we can improve. For example, the nutritional assistance programs under the farm bill are large and expensive and given the economic recovery, needed now more than ever. In September 2011, the USDA’s Economic Research Service reported that about one in every four Americans participates in at least one of the 15 domestic food and nutrition assistance programs of the USDA. These programs provide a nutritional safety net for millions of children and low-income adults. These programs also represent a significant federal investment, accounting for over two-thirds of USDA’s budget. A Moody’s study on the president’s stimulus impact noted that for every Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dollar spent, it generated a $1.73 ripple effect in the economy.
The House Budget Committee, in an effort to reduce the federal budget deficit, proposed to cut SNAP significantly, possibly to its pre-2008 status — this is pennywise and pound foolish. This is not to suggest that there could not or should not be some reduction given to efficiency monitoring and other infrastructure upgrades. In addition to required financial resources, there needs to be greater use of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards at farmers’ and fish markets where healthy foods are sold. Nutrition education is essential and should be integrated into each of the 15 food assistance programs.
Food security is generally recognized as an important goal for our country. Supporting good nutrition for our needy citizens is the right and moral action for our government to take, but it is also the economically and healthy action to take where small farmers will make a significant impact.

Follow Eva M. Clayton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/evamclayton

FOLLOW FOOD

Like

 

16k

 

Get Alerts

Related News On Huffington Post:

Soda And Obesity: Lautenberg Introduces Farm Bill Amendment Requiring Feds To Study Link

Does soda seriously, truly, without a doubt make people fat? Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) hopes to settle the question once and for all. On…

Ron Wyden Introduces Industrial Hemp Amendment To Farm Bill

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) on Thursday introduced an amendment to the farm bill that would allow farmers to grow industrial hemp. The amendment, S.3240, would…

Farm Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate

WASHINGTON — A five-year farm and food bill that would revamp the federal safety net for farmers and eliminate direct government payments for idle crop…

Kirsten Gillibrand Makes Emotional Plea To Preserve Food Stamps

WASHINGTON — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand took to the Senate floor Wednesday in an emotional bid to stave off $4.5 billion in cuts to programs that…

More News Posts:  « First   Prev  1  2 Next Last »

Soda And Obesity: Lautenberg Introduces Farm Bill Amendment Requiring Feds To Study Link Ron Wyden Introduces Industrial Hemp Amendment To Farm Bill Farm Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate Kirsten Gillibrand Makes Emotional Plea To Preserve Food Stamps Monsanto DroughtGard Corn ‘Doesn’t Outperform’ Non-GMO Alternatives, Report Claims Bitter Senate Primaries Undercut GOP Hopes In 3 States Mario Batali Food Stamp Challenge: Chef Spending $31 On Food For One Week

Soda And Obesity: Lautenberg Introduces Farm Bill Amendment Requiring Feds To Study Link

Does soda seriously, truly, without a doubt make people fat? Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) hopes to settle the question once and for all. On…

Ron Wyden Introduces Industrial Hemp Amendment To Farm Bill

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) on Thursday introduced an amendment to the farm bill that would allow farmers to grow industrial hemp. The amendment, S.3240, would…

Farm Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate

WASHINGTON — A five-year farm and food bill that would revamp the federal safety net for farmers and eliminate direct government payments for idle crop…

Kirsten Gillibrand Makes Emotional Plea To Preserve Food Stamps

WASHINGTON — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand took to the Senate floor Wednesday in an emotional bid to stave off $4.5 billion in cuts to programs that…

Monsanto DroughtGard Corn ‘Doesn’t Outperform’ Non-GMO Alternatives, Report Claims

* Report challenges effectiveness of Monsanto corn * Says no improved water efficiency * Monsanto says new corn mitigates risk of yield loss in drought…

Bitter Senate Primaries Undercut GOP Hopes In 3 States

TAMPA, Fla. — Mutual admiration was the rule for Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson’s listening session at the University of South Florida. School provost Ralph Wilcox…

Mario Batali Food Stamp Challenge: Chef Spending $31 On Food For One Week

NEW YORK — To much of the world, it was Monday. To Mario Batali, it was Day Four. The chef, his wife and their two…

Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:

John RobbinsJohn Robbins: Why Are Twinkies Cheaper Than Carrots?Wenonah HauterWenonah Hauter: Governor Canoodling With Agribusiness? What You Can Do About ItSen. Kirsten GillibrandSen. Kirsten Gillibrand: The Farm Bill Should Protect Hungry Kids, Not Subsidies for Insurance CompaniesMario BataliMargarette PurvisMario Batali and Margarette Purvis: Believe It or Not, You Need Food StampsRuth MessingerRuth Messinger: Our Current Global Food Crisis and How We Can Feed 17 Million More PeopleLiz NeumarkLiz Neumark: Littlest VoicesVicki B. EscarraVicki B. Escarra: When We Feed Children, We Feed Our Future

John Robbins

John Robbins: Why Are Twinkies Cheaper Than Carrots?

If you want to eat healthfully, you have to fight an uphill battle. Why are government subsidies pushing in the wrong direction?

Wenonah Hauter

Wenonah Hauter: Governor Canoodling With Agribusiness? What You Can Do About It

If you ever thought that the farm bill was just about agricultural subsidies and food stamps, think again. Not only does the farm bill dictate what we eat — it also establishes whom our nation’s leaders are listening to on issues far beyond food.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: The Farm Bill Should Protect Hungry Kids, Not Subsidies for Insurance Companies

The fact is that food stamps are an effective investment. For every dollar that’s invested into the SNAP program, we get $1.71 back in return.

Mario Batali
Margarette Purvis

Mario Batali and Margarette Purvis: Believe It or Not, You Need Food Stamps

Living within a food stamp budget for one week was a challenge for both of us, but that challenge has ended. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for millions of others.

Ruth Messinger

Ruth Messinger: Our Current Global Food Crisis and How We Can Feed 17 Million More People

This year during Shavuot, the Jewish holiday which marks the end of the harvest, I am reminded of my commitment to alleviate hunger.

Liz Neumark

Liz Neumark: Littlest Voices

That is the story of our garden and our lives — open mouths (and minds) looking for something sustaining to eat.

Vicki B. Escarra

Vicki B. Escarra: When We Feed Children, We Feed Our Future

There are 16 million children in the United States who are facing hunger. How many of those kids live in your community? How many…

Wenonah Hauter

Wenonah Hauter: Governor Canoodling With Agribusiness? What You Can Do About It

If you ever thought that the farm bill was just about agricultural subsidies and food stamps, think again. Not only does the farm bill dictate what we eat — it also establishes whom our nation’s leaders are listening to on issues far beyond food.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: The Farm Bill Should Protect Hungry Kids, Not Subsidies for Insurance Companies

The fact is that food stamps are an effective investment. For every dollar that’s invested into the SNAP program, we get $1.71 back in return.

Mario Batali
Margarette Purvis

Mario Batali and Margarette Purvis: Believe It or Not, You Need Food Stamps

Living within a food stamp budget for one week was a challenge for both of us, but that challenge has ended. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for millions of others.

Ruth Messinger

Ruth Messinger: Our Current Global Food Crisis and How We Can Feed 17 Million More People

This year during Shavuot, the Jewish holiday which marks the end of the harvest, I am reminded of my commitment to alleviate hunger.

More Blog Posts:  « First   Prev  1  2 Next Last »

More in Food…

Spider Found In Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli,…

Fast Food Lobster Rolls

Chain Food Showdown: The Best & Worst…

Review: Burger King Bacon Sundae

  • Comments
  • 1
  • Pending Comments
  • 1
  • View FAQ

Eva M. Clayton: A 2012 Farm Bill That Support Small Farmers and Nutritional Assistance Programs: Good for Our Nation’s Health and Economy

Secretary Of Labor 1935 Frances Perkins Pioneered The New Deal Programs