Not his job....

This about sums it up.....The President just doesn't get it.

It's typical that while most Americans need him to focus on geting more oil, he decides we need to talk about healthcare.

Inflation

Anyone with 1/2 a brain has known what is now being stated in the media. INFLATION is back with a vengeance.

For the past 4 years, we have seen the prices of everything families purchase go up and the excuses for why you are paying more for a lot less. This effects everyone especially since no one is getting any appreciable increases in pay.

For the present administration to think people are OK with this is laughable.

We need new leadership in Washington, DC and relief for families who are trying to get by on less $$$ in a tough economy.

It all goes back to what Ronald Reagan said in 1980 when he ran against Jimmy Carter,

" Are you better off now than 4 years ago ?"

The answer tells you what is needed when you go to vote in November. We need to elect a President who understands that people cannot pay more and need for prices to go down.


Inflation: Not as low as you think
By Kathy Kristof - CBS News

Forget the modest 3.1 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index, the government's widely used measure of inflation. Everyday prices are up some 8 percent over the past year, according to the American Institute for Economic Research.

The not-for-profit research group measures inflation without looking at the big, one-time purchases that can skew the numbers. That means they don't look at the price of houses, furniture, appliances, cars, or computers. Instead, AIER focuses on Americans' typical daily purchases, such as food, gasoline, child care, prescription drugs, phone and television service, and other household products.

The institute contends that to get a good read on inflation's "sticker shock" effect, you must look at the cost of goods that the average household buys at least once a month and factor in only the kinds of expenses that are subject to change. That, too, eliminates the cost of housing because when you finance your home with a fixed-rate mortgage, that expense remains constant until you refinance or move.

The group maintains that this index better measures the real-world impact of price changes, particularly for people on a budget. And, largely as the result of the recent run-up in gas prices, this "everyday price index" (EPI) suggests that Americans are being pinched far more tightly than the official inflation measure would have you believe.

Over the past year, the EPI is up just over 8 percent, according to the economics group. The biggest factor: Motor fuel and transportation costs are up 21.06 percent from year-ago levels. The cost of food, prescription drugs, and tobacco also have increased faster than the government's inflation measure, rising 3.56 percent, 4.21 percent, and 3.4 percent, respectively.

On the bright side, prices of household fuel (natural gas and electricity) and supplies have increased only 2.74 percent; recreation and personal care products are up less than 1 percent; and telephone or Internet services are down 0.66 percent.

Admittedly, the purchases that the EPI tracks make up slightly less than 40 percent of the average household budget. But Steven Cunningham, research and education director at AIER, says these items are what contribute to the "sticker shock at the gasoline pump and the supermarket check-out line."

Double Talk on Gas Prices from a clueless President

Spin, spin, spin...It is unbelievable that the " Village Idiot From Chicago " thinks that people will believe his reasoning for why $4 a gallon gas is good for our country. It is not.

The American consumer is getting squeezed on all sides and the more that is spent for Oil & Gas means less to spend on the other needs of families like food, shelter and other necessities. His failure to understand how an issue like this impacts the average American is the hallmark of a failed Presidency.

It is time for a new leader and hopefully, one who understands that the citizens of our great nation deserve better. we have the ability to sustain our energy needs as long as we have a leader who will allow it. Obama is the main impediment we presently face to succeeding in this area.


Obama's Double Talk on Sky-High Gas Prices
Investors Business Daily

Posted 02/21/2012

When gas prices hit $4 a gallon in 2008, candidate Barack Obama said it was due to previous failed energy policies. Now that prices are heading still higher, President Obama calls it progress.

Already, pump prices are higher than they've been in previous years, suggesting they will top $4 soon and possibly reach an unprecedented $5 this summer.

President Obama is starting to notice the political implications. So he sent Robert Gibbs — now a top campaign adviser — out to tell the public not to worry.

"Just on Friday, the Department of the Interior issued permits that will expand our exploration in the Arctic," Gibbs said Sunday. "Our domestic oil production is at an eight-year high, and our use of foreign oil is at a 16-year low. So we're making progress."

"Progress" isn't exactly how Obama described the country's energy picture in 2008, when gas prices were closing in on $4 a gallon. Then, it was a clear sign of "Washington's failure to lead on energy," which was "turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans."

"For the well-off in this country," Obama said in May 2008, "high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they're a huge problem, bordering on a crisis."

In August that year, he declared rising energy costs to be "one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced" and that gas prices "are wiping out paychecks and straining businesses."

While Gibbs is right that domestic production has climbed in the past three years, Obama's policies had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast Oil coming from offshore wells was in the pipeline, so to speak, during the Clinton and Bush years, when those permits were issued. And the oil pouring out of North Dakota is the result of drilling on private lands.

Obama, in fact, has made it clear for years that he has no real interest in boosting domestic production.

When President Bush announced plans in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, Obama dismissed it, saying "it would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."

"Offshore drilling," he said, "would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now."

In a big energy speech he gave in August 2008, Obama argued that "if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only 3% of the world's oil reserves."

And while in office, Obama's done everything he can to limit production — slow-walking offshore permits, killing the Keystone XL pipeline, making it even harder to get oil out of federal lands.

Instead of aggressively expanding oil production, he offered a set of ridiculous alternatives — hugely wasteful "green" energy subsidies, a call for a million electric cars by 2014 and costly fuel economy mandates that won't make a dent in consumption for decades.

With gas prices up 93% since Obama took office, we're seeing just how well this approach works.

Inflation is on the rise regardless of what the idiots in Washington DC say

You don't need an economics degree to see that it costs much more today for the basics than three years ago.

Gasoline was $1.68 a gallon in early 2009 - now it is $3.35 a gallon, double the cost. The cost of food has risen by a third, hurting those who are lower income or on a fixed income (re: seniors) more than anyone. The hypocritical First Lady can bleat on all she wants about helping people eat better but her husband has made it harder for the poorest citizens to eat healthy as good food costs more, making it inaccessible to those on the lowest incomes.

Wages are stagnant as workers are not asking for raises as they fear layoffs. The basics for Thanksgiving Day Dinner will cost between 9-12% more than a year ago.

This is the " Hopey/Changey " thing we were promised by the "Vacationer in Chief"??

The American voters need to put Obama on permanent vacation and make sure his cronies go with him. They have failed in every measure of what should be done and placed the American Taxpayer in a worse place than we were three years ago. He & the Democratic Congress wasted Billions on spending to fatten up the unions and their political allies which provided no appreciable economic gains.

It is time to get back to reality, bring in some "adult" leadership and throw out President Obama and his failed administration. I only hope the GOP can place a decent candidate on the ballot.....But at this juncture, how much worse could it be ? We should have elected John McCain and that is why the McCain stickers are still on the back of my p/u truck as I want others to know where I stood three years ago. I may live in Massachusetts but I am not part of the Blue State mental midgets that voted the President into place or his feckless ally the Governor of Massachusetts, Deval " Spend-it-all " Patrick.

90% Say They're Paying More For Groceries Compared To A Year Ago
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - Rasmussen Polls

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke insists that the Federal Reserve is keeping inflation down, but Americans overwhelmingly say they are paying more for groceries these days and expect to pay even more in a year's time.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of U.S. Adults shows that 81% are at least somewhat concerned about inflation, including 47% who are Very Concerned.

And the hits just keep on coming....More Pain at the Pump as IRAN now controls OPEC

More of what we DON'T need.

Gasoline was $1.86 in January 2009 when the Doofus in the White House took over and now it averages DOUBLE that in the range of $3.70 - 3.80+ a gallon. Well we all know that the President campaigned that he would deal with the Oil companies....RIGHT. The "Pain at the Pump" is now twice as bad as it was in 2009 and for many families, that means doing w/o other items because we have to put more in the tank....Don't forget winter will be rolling around in a few months so the pain will be trying to keep your home warm also.

Now there's this piece of pissa news - Iranian President Whack-amin-Nutjob and his pals are in control of OPEC.

But then again, POTUS made sure he apologized to the world for all the terrible things we have allegedly done...what a PUTZ.

The "Bad Guys" overseas don't give a rat's arse for apologies, they only recognize dealing from a position of strength. They see apologies like the ones that POTUS has made as a sign of weakness and lack of will to defend yourself.

As Tom Cruise's character said in A FEW GOOD MEN, " And the hits just keep on coming.."

POTUS won't have to worry about any of this as he & his minions are on the government dole for the rest of their lives....The pain will be borne by the rest of the 250 million Americans who try to earn a paycheck & don't have the US Government picking up the tab for everything.


Iran revolutionary guards commander becomes new president of Opec
Rostam Ghasemi joins Ahmadinejad cabinet as oil minister, automatically making him head of global oil organisation

Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 03AUG2011

A commander of Iran's revolutionary guards has taken over presidency of Opec.

A senior Iranian revolutionary guards commander targeted by international sanctions has taken over the presidency of Opec after he became Iran's oil minister on Wednesday.

Rostam Ghasemi, head of the Khatam al-Anbia military and industrial base, was one of four ministersnominated by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to join his cabinet last week and approved by Iran's conservative-dominated parliament.

Ghasemi is currently subject to US, EU and Australian sanctions and his assets have been blacklisted by US Treasury and western powers. He took 216 votes from the 246 deputies present in the 290-seat parliament.

Iranian state media interpreted the vote as a reaction by Iran's parliament to international sanctions against the country, especially those which have targeted the revolutionary guards and the country's nuclear programme.

"The clever and decisive vote of Iranian MPs for engineer Ghasemi to become the oil minister is a meaningful and crucial response to the attacks against the guards from the west's media empire," said Ramedan Sharif, the head of the revolutionary guards public relations' unit, in quotes carried by Iran's semi-official Fars news agency.

In a parliamentary debate before the vote, however, Ali Motahari, a prominent conservative MP who has previously threatened to impeach Ahmadinejad, spoke out against the involvement of the revolutionary guards in Iran's politics.

"The integration of the guard, as a military force, in political and economic power is not in the interests of the system," Motahari told the parliament. "In neighboring countries, military officials are distancing themselves from politics and power, while it's the opposite in Iran."

The appointment of Ghasemi as Iran's oil minister automatically makes him the head of Opec which has a crucial role in determining oil prices.

As its second-largest crude oil exporter, Iran took the presidency of Opec after 36 years last October and Ghasemi's position will give the revolutionary guards a unique opportunity to influence an international organisation.

"The only major beneficiaries of the recovery have been corporate profits and the stock market and its shareholders"

"The Horders" is not some reality show where we see a couple who has gathered too much stuff in their cramped quarters but rather the story of what businesses are doing in a period of record profits.

The heads of the corporations in questions are short sighted as the more they follow this path of grabbing profits and not sending that back to the workforce in the form of pay increases and benefits eventually (and likely already) have reached a tipping point where the workers (a.k.a. consumers) will not have the $$$ to spend on the goods and service which generate the profits.

Instead of allowing things to go along as they should, they are trying to strangle the very Golden Goose who supplies their profits. The Unions didn't help either as they are only interested in their own interests and that is not supporting workers but rather keeping things good for those in charge of the Unions. The Unions "use & abuse" the workers just like the businesses.

Northeastern economics professor Andrew Sum called the mismatch "historically unprecedented" and said it bodes ill for future growth..."Workers have no money, no purchasing power, so that's why consumption is not moving," he said.

A freshman economics student can tell you what happens next - The "GREED" factor causes the whole thing to stutter as the companies make it impossible for people to buy the new cars and other durable goods needed because they haven't been able to keep up with inflation. This is further evidence of the " I got mine" aspect in businesses and it will only result in prolonged recession and pain for the majority. The cost of gas and other consumer goods have risen steadily in the last two 1/2 years that the Feckless Fool in the White House has been in charge. This has happened on his watch and he is solely responsible for a failure to act.

And what does the Feckless Fool in the White House have to say about it??

" Time to eat your peas."- President Obama

Oh, and for the record, the Empty Suit and his family will still be going for their 10 day Martha's Vineyard Holiday (at taxpayers expense) even if the majority of Americans can't afford to have a vacation.

HEY, Mr. President - Have you ever heard the term, " Leadership by example ?" - No, I am SURE you haven't. He is the King of the " Do as I say, not as I do" set. And just for the record, he'll be on the government payroll for the rest of his life, regardless of how many people's lives he wrecked with his incompetence.

Companies churn out profits but not jobs

By Steven C. Johnson Reuters 24JULY2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The sluggish pace of hiring may be hobbling the U.S. economy, but it's not been holding back big U.S. companies' profits thanks to growth overseas and cost controls at home. And that's bad news for the more than 14 million Americans without jobs.

Big businesses would normally be desperate for surging job growth as it would feed into domestic demand but these aren't normal times. Massive growth opportunities overseas, especially in China and other buoyant Asian economies, have some of the largest American companies on track for record profits, even if they're businesses are mostly treading water in the U.S.

The message last week from the chief financial officer of one of the nation's industrial giants couldn't be clearer.

"We've driven all this cost out. Sales have come back, but people have not," said Greg Hayes, chief financial officer at United Technologies Corp. "It's the structural cost reductions that we have done over the past few years that have allowed us to see strong bottom-line results.

The company, the world's largest maker of air conditioners and elevators, said second-quarter profit rose 19 percent, and it is doing most of its hiring in emerging markets where demand for its products is growing fastest.

It isn't alone in seeing profits climb in the current earnings reporting season.

About 78 percent of companies in the benchmark S&P 500 index that have reported second-quarter earnings have beaten Wall Street expectations. Many benefited after slashing costs when the financial crisis hit and then keeping tight control on them even as sales recovered.

Economists say the ability to do more with less has helped create a two-speed U.S. recovery. The S&P 500 has doubled in value since the recession ended and per-share earnings are currently on track for a new annual record, while employment remains below the level seen in late 2008 when corporate profits troughed.

Employers added fewer jobs in June than at any time in the past nine months, and the jobless rate rose to 9.2 percent - not far below its level of 9.5 percent in June 2009 when the recession ended.

"We've never seen the kind of shedding of jobs that we saw in this recession. America's corporations have never been running so efficiently," said Ellen Zentner, senior U.S. economist at Nomura Securities in New York.

LITTLE WAGE GROWTH

What's more, workers have never claimed such a paltry share of real national income growth. Economists at Northeastern University in Boston recently found corporate profits captured 88 percent of income growth between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010.

Workers' take? Slightly more than 1 percent.

"The only major beneficiaries of the recovery have been corporate profits and the stock market and its shareholders," the study concludes.

The high jobless rate is also keeping wage growth severely restrained in the U.S., which is also good for profit margins.

Recent Department of Labor data showed unit labor costs edged up 0.7 percent in the year to March, though not enough to make up a 2.9 percent decline in the prior 12-month period.

Northeastern economics professor Andrew Sum called the mismatch "historically unprecedented" and said it bodes ill for future growth, especially given many companies are sitting on their cash rather than investing it.

"Workers have no money, no purchasing power, so that's why consumption is not moving," he said. By sitting on profits, firms are acting like earners "who take their money and stuff it in the mattress. That's happening across the economy."

U.S. economic growth slowed sharply in the first quarter and was expected to remain below 2 percent in the April-June period.

Some blamed that on high energy prices and supply shortages caused by Japan's earthquake and are betting on a rebound in the second half.

A July Reuters poll put the median estimate for 2011 growth at 2.7 percent, down from 2.9 percent in 2010.

CHICKEN AND EGG

Businesses' ability to do more with the same or less -- what economists term increased productivity -- has been rising since the 1990s, thanks partly to technological advancements and the ability to tap markets in fast-growing, lower-cost developing countries.

Some of the most profitable firms are those with overseas markets. The largest U.S. conglomerate General Electric Co. tied its 21.6 percent rise in earnings partly to strong foreign demand for its heavy equipment, including jet engines and electric turbines.

In the United States, things are obviously different. Consumers are still trying to pay down large debts built up during the boom years, which suppresses spending and means there is little incentive for companies to hire.

"It's a chicken-and-egg thing -- whether demand or supply drives growth," Zentner said. "Studies show that lack of sales for small business is the biggest impediment to hiring."

Even companies selling basic consumer products are feeling the pinch as the jobless and those on low incomes watch the pennies. Pepsi Co Inc tempered its full-year outlook this week and said performance in its North American beverage business was worse than expected.

In the cost-conscious auto industry. General Motors Co's top U.S. sales chief, Don Johnson, told Reuters that its manufacturing managers have been "squeaking out extra units through improving line rates, adding on extra shifts". The company indicated it is in no hurry to build new factories or hire lots of new workers.

Uncertainty about future tax rates and policy, a by-product of the deadlock in Washington over whether to raise the country's borrowing limit and how to rein in a gaping budget deficit, has also made firms cautious, said Jacob Oubina, senior U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets.

But Doug Cliggott, U.S. equity strategist at Credit Suisse, said investors and CEOs alike should probably prepare for more subdued earnings in the second half and beyond.

For one thing, growth abroad appears to be slowing as booming economies such as China and Brazil try to tame inflation. Heavy machine maker Caterpillar blamed slower U.S. and global growth for disappointing quarterly earnings on Friday.

And while U.S. interest rates are likely to remain very low for some time, companies won't be able to rely on massive federal spending, which Cliggott said also helped boost profits over the past two years.

(Additional reporting by Scott Malone in Boston, Nick Zieminksi in New York and Clare Baldwin in Detroit; Editing by Martin Howell)

The Law of Unintended Consequences and how the American Consumer is getting hurt while Washington DC fiddles & diddles

Robert Norton writes about the "Law of Unintended Consequences" - "The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it."

Any layman can understand this is in full play presently as the cost of Food, Clothing, Fuel and all staples have risen dramatically over the past two years. It is no coincidence that the alleged " Smartest people" who have been in control of Congress and the White House during this same period have done little to slow this down. They fiddle and diddle while the American consumer takes it in the neck.

People have suffered under the recession for since late in 2008 with no gains in wages while the cost of everything pushes them backwards....And the guy in the White House thinks he stands a chance of getting reelected????

The problem is the GOP is acting like the Keystone Cops.....they will "enable" the "Community Organizer" to maintain a foothold on the White House if they don't stop acting like a bunch of clowns.....Meanwhile, you & your family get to pay more and get less....HOPE & CHANGE ?? No HOPE for things getting better and only CHANGE for the worse.


It's Getting Harder to Bring Home the Bacon
C. Larry Pope, CEO of the world's largest pork producer, explains why food prices are rising and why they are likely to stay high for a long time.

By MARY KISSEL - Wall Street Journal
New York

Bobbie Jean Pope, the 81-year-old mother of C. Larry Pope of Newport News, Va., can't afford her bacon.

"I said, 'Mom, I'll get you some bacon.' And she goes, 'I can't afford y'all's meat anymore! Why is y'all's meat so expensive?' And I said, 'Mom, you ought to understand why it's expensive—it's 'cause our costs are so expensive.'"

Mr. Pope is the chief executive officer of Smithfield Foods Inc., the world's largest pork processor and hog producer by volume. He doesn't mince words when it comes to rapidly rising food prices. The 56-year-old accountant by training has been in the business for more than three decades, and he warns that the higher costs may be here to stay.

Courtesy of? "I'm not going to say, 'a political policy,'" he tells me. (His senior vice president, a lawyer by training, sits close by, ready to "kick his leg" if his garrulous boss speaks too plainly.) But politics indeed plays a large role, as Congress subsidizes favorite industries and the Federal Reserve pursues an expansive monetary policy.

Ours is a timely chat, given the burst of food inflation the world is living through. Mr. Pope is running a multibillion-dollar business in the midst of economic turmoil, and he has strong views about why prices are rising and what can be done about it.

The Southerner is an old hand when it comes to food. He graduated from William and Mary in 1975, spent a few years at an accountancy, then joined Smithfield and worked his way up the ranks. He's something of an evangelist about his trade: He boasts that Smithfield employs some 50,000 people, many of whom are high-school graduates and immigrants others would consider "hard to hire." It's a "good business" that "gives people a good start."

It's also a business under enormous strain. Some "60 to 70% of the cost of raising a hog is tied up in the grains," Mr. Pope explains. "The major ingredient is corn, and the secondary ingredient is soybean meal." Over the last several years, "the cost of corn has gone from a base of $2.40 a bushel to today at $7.40 a bushel, nearly triple what it was just a few years ago." Which means every product that uses corn has risen, too—including everything from "cereal to soft drinks" and more.

President George W. Bush "came forward with—what do you call?—the edict that we were going to mandate 36 billion gallons of alternative fuels" by 2022, of which corn-based ethanol is "a substantial part." Companies that blend ethanol into fuel get a $5 billion annual tax credit, and there's a tariff to keep foreign producers out of the U.S. market. Now 40% of the corn crop is "directed to ethanol, which equals the amount that's going into livestock food," Mr. Pope calculates.

The rapidly depreciating dollar is also sparking inflation, although Mr. Pope says that's a "hard" topic for him to discuss, trying to be diplomatic. But he doesn't deny that money is cheap. Investment bankers are throwing cash at the firm—a turnaround from 2008, when money was scarce—even though Mr. Pope doesn't need it right now.

Rising prices are already squeezing food producers' "two to three percent" earnings margins. "Many of us had our costs hedged in the commodity markets and we all took on strident measures to control our cost structures," Mr. Pope says. "In the case of Smithfield, we closed six processing plants and one slaughter plant. We also closed 15% of all our live production business." But "once those measures are done, we have no choice but to pass those prices down" to consumers.

Now food price inflation is popping up across the country. A pound of sliced bacon costs $4.54 today versus $3.59 two years ago and $3.16 a decade ago, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ground beef is $2.72, up from $2.27 in 2009 and $1.74 in 2001. And it's not just Smithfield's products: "You eat eggs, you drink milk, you get a loaf of bread, and you get a pound of meat," he drawls. "Those are the four staples of what Americans eat in their diet. All of those are based on grains."

"Maybe to someone in the upper incomes it doesn't matter what the price of a pound of bacon is, or what the price of a ham, or the price of a pound of pork chops is," he says. "But for many of the customers we sell to, it really does matter." Workers can share cars when the price of oil rises, he quips, but "you can't share your food."

Mr. Pope also worries about the impact on farmers, who are leveraging up operations to afford the ever-rising price of land and fertilizer that has resulted from the increased corn demand. "There are record prices for livestock but farmers are exiting the business!" he exclaims. "Why? Farmers know they won't make money."


Weather is a factor, too. "We've had the luxury for the last three years of extremely good corn crops, with high yields and good growing conditions. We are just one bad weather event away from potentially $10 corn, which once again is another 50% increase in the input cost to our live production."

Mr. Pope says companies are coping by increasing prices "substantially" or shrinking "what's in the package." "That's the alternative way of passing on price increases . . . 'cause we're all trying to reach price points with our customers in terms of what we can sell somethan' for." "You're ultimately going to buy less bacon. . . . We're going to sell pizzas with less pepperoni on 'em." (Mr. Pope's team also laments the effect on beer prices.)

Not all companies will survive this economic whirlwind. Mr. Pope recalls what happened the last time there was a surge in corn prices, in 2008: "The largest chicken processor in the United States, Pilgrim's Pride, filed for bankruptcy." They "couldn't raise prices, so their cost of production went up dramatically." Could it happen again? "It darn well could!" Mr. Pope exclaims.

Food price inflation isn't a problem confined to America's shores. "This ethanol policy has impacted the world price of corn," Mr. Pope says. The Mexican, Canadian and European industries have "shrunk dramatically. . . . We have an unsustainable meat protein production industry," he says. "We're built on a platform of costs, on a policy that doesn't make any sense!"

Nor does the science. The ethanol industry would supply only 4% of the nation's annual energy needs even if it used 100% of the corn crop. The Environmental Protection Agency has found ethanol production has a neutral to negative impact on the environment. "The subsidy has been out there since the 1970s," Mr. Pope says. "If they can't make themselves into a viable economic model in 40 years, haven't we demonstrated that this is an industry that shouldn't exist?"

So what's the solution? First, Mr. Pope says, get rid of the ethanol subsidies and the tariff. "I am in competition with the government and the oil industry," he says. "It's not fair." Smithfield's economists estimate corn prices would fall by a dollar a bushel if ethanol blending wasn't subsidized. "Even the announcement that it is going away would see the price of corn go down, which would translate very quickly into reduced meat prices in the meat case," he says. Imagine what would happen if the mandate and tariff were eliminated, too.

He also advocates lifting regulatory and tax burdens on business. "I fundamentally don't understand the logic of corporate income taxes," he tells me. "If I have a 35% tax, all I do is take that 35% tax and I transfer it into the price of bacon and the price of pork chops."

Then there's the challenge of opening up export markets, which Mr. Pope sees as a long-term opportunity for U.S. agriculture. "This is a land-rich country, with rich soils, with the right kind of temperatures and the right kind of cultivation practices," he says. "We can raise livestock and compete with anybody in the world. That's how we can help the balance of payments." (Smithfield has European operations but has had a hard time cracking Asia, and especially China. "It's easy to invest," Mr. Pope says, but "it's hard to make money" there thanks to rampant intellectual-property rights violations and other hazards.)

While Mr. Pope waits to see how the politics of ethanol and trade play out, he's not standing still. He's assigned one of his senior executives the task of figuring out what else Smithfield could possibly feed hogs, other than corn. Could Mr. Pope have envisioned setting up such an enterprise a few years ago? "Absolutely not" he says. "It's me trying to change our business model to adapt to the realities that I have to live in."

Mr. Pope says the "losers" here "are the consumer, who's going to have to pay more for the product, and the livestock farmer who's going to have to buy high-priced grain that he can't afford because he's stretching his own lines of credit. The hog farmer . . . is in jeopardy of simply going out of business 'cause he doesn't have the cash liquidity to even pay for the corn to pay for the input to raise the hog. It's a dynamic that we can't sustain."

Ms. Kissel is a member of The Journal's editorial board.

Then and now.....Oil prices spike but no action from the White House....JFK handled the Steel Crisis in 1962 and showed how it should be done

President Kennedy called out the Steel manufacturers in 1962 when they jacked the price of Steel overnight by $6 a ton....He held a press conference and let everyone what he thought about what they were doing to the national economy and the budgets of American Families:


" Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steal corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest.

In this serious hour in our Nation's history when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and their families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Vietnam and asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.

If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.

It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defences, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security committments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt reasonable price and wage policies.

The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which doesn not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be noninflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, "employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958."

The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has generally been operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.

In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.

The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competetive economy. The Department of Defence and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.
Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days.

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer."

President John F. Kennedy - April 11, 1962

Without a true leader like JFK in the White House, we all have to HOPE for some better CHANGE in the cost of living as the way it is going, the Middle Class keeps getting it in the neck....

No HOPE of any better from the Empty Suit in residence in the White House....he is just keeping the chair warm for the next person.....Feckless and ineffective.


Hope and Change: Gas Prices Have Gone Up 67 Percent Since Obama Became President
That's compared to a 7 percent increase under Bush in his first 26 months.
6:00 PM, Mar 9, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY

Ah, January of 2009. Hope was in the air, but more importantly, gas was under two dollars a gallon. Since then gas prices, have gone up 67 percent and it's an ominously upward trend. Interestingly enough, the Heritage Foundation also took a look at the first 26 months of Bush's presidency -- gas only rose 7 percent during that time frame.

Now obviously turmoil in the Middle East has something to do with our current astronomical gas prices, but keep in mind that by this point in the Bush presidency 9/11 had happened and we were on the verge of invading Iraq. So while the President can't be entirely responsible for global commodity prices, it's still worth asking what Obama's doing to make things worse.

After all, this is the President who told us "We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

This is the President that appointed a Secretary of the Interior that famously said he didn't mind if gas hit $10 a gallon.

This is the President who has illegally tried to illegally enforce an offshore drilling ban.

How much higher is gas going to go before the Administration takes a long hard look at what its doing to send gas prices through the roof?