Food for thought
by Lori Barrett | May 2, 2008 at 5:59 am
Posted in baltimore politics, money
President Bush asked Congress yesterday for their approval of a new food aid program totaling $770 million. The plan would help the nations that are most affected by rising food prices — as well as the food shortages and political instability that result. The request is in addition to $200 million released in April and a pending request for $350 million, both for emergency food aid.
This program is part of the 2009 budget, so the money won’t be available until October 1, the new fiscal year. In all, Bush has promised $5 billion over the next two years for food aid and related programs, such as education for farmers in developing countries on how to increase their productivity.
Considering America’s consumption, we absolutely should be spreading the wealth to fight hunger wherever and however we can. This new plan, however, is part of a larger one — a $70 billion measure to fund the Iraq war. I’m always skeptical when two unrelated proposals are bundled together, as in this case. Does that mean one will not pass without the other?
And, think about how many mouths America could feed (maybe even our own?) if we freed up the other $69 billion included in that measure. That money would provide even more opportunities for goodwill humanitarian efforts in the remaining days of Bush’s reign — and perhaps even add some points to his approval rating in the process. Just a thought.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:24 am | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
With so much of the US economy dependent on petroleum and petroleum based products (like fertilizers, plastics and agricultural chemicals), it is no wonder food prices are rising here as well. Cheap fuel means cheap transport, but even biofuels would aggravte that scenario. In the wonderful world of global free markets corn and soy (as examples)are valued much more when grown to be processed rather than sold as food. So the growth usually follows the money. But between the mess in Iraq and the emergence of China and India (look at the potential consumer pool!) as regional economic powers it is no surprise that food prices are going up all over the world. Once again the current admin seems to be blindered by what they believe and what is reality. The US is now so involved by Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan that countries like China and India can devote more attention to growth. This is no slight to those countries, free market allows them to do it, and I am sure the growing middle class in Asia would agree that growth has benefits for them.
The unfortunate side effect is just what we are seeing. It isn't just food, it's steel, cement, industrial metals, fuels, which have seen huge increases in prices. The worst part, of course, is the food. The people who can afford increases the least are the ones hit hardest. It would be nice if some other countries would help out.
It is somewhat insulting for the food aid to be tied up with the Iraq funding. The two should have nothing to do with each other. The Bush administration has helped create this mess: instability in the Middle East always affects oil prices, and commodities markets are speculative. They beat the hell out of everyone with a stick and only now do they offer a carrot? Further proof they are clueless, arrogant and supremely blind to their own shortcomings. The timing of the aid package only heightens the feeling that it is more of a PR gesture in a frantic attempt to regain some legitimacy and credibility. Cynical, ugly and self-serving.
The food aid shou