The Food Stamp Party is Stimulating Poverty

The loss of jobs is only half of the result of the government interventionist equation.  The other casualty of an economy driven by taxation, regulation, litigation, subsidization, monetary intervention, and debt is the crippling cost of living for all Americans.  [Yes, I was about to say middle class, but we would be wise to eradicate that sort of socialist innuendo from our vernacular.]

Earlier today, the latest wholesale inflationary numbers were released.  The core PPI rose 0.4% in July, while year over year PPI is now close to a three year high at 7.2%.  Additionally, food prices rose another 0.6% in July.  These numbers are quite disconcerting, given the sharp slowdown in economic activity.  The higher wholesale costs are inevitably passed down to consumers, forcing them to pay more for basic products, such as energy, food, and transportation.

While there are many cyclical factors that affect the price of food and fuel, and by extension, everything else; nonetheless, clearly central planning from the government has kept prices artificially high.

Tom Vilsack Calls for Another Stimulus..Food Stamps!

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.  Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is claiming that record food stamp enrollment in stimulating the economy.  He was actually bragging about the fact that there are 45 million people on the program:

Haley Barbour and the Regressive Economics of Farm Subsidies

Farm subsidies are the most popular form of corporate cronyism among many Republicans.  Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this regressive form of 'progressive' market intervention garners enthusiastic support from Republican presidential contenders, especially preceding the Iowa Caucuses.  Haley Barbour is the latest potential presidential candidate to prostrate on the altar of the farm lobby and support the $20 billion fleecing of the taxpayer.  Even with the exit of John Thune from the presidential sweepstakes, the farm lobby still boasts many champions of taxpayer handouts among the 2012 hopefuls.

Yesterday, in an interview with the Daily Caller, Barbour offered the following counterintuitive economic justification of government intervention in the food market.  Here are some of his greatest hits:

“What we want to have in the United States is abundant food at a responsibly low price. To do that, we have to have an appropriately large supply of agricultural products. When sales volumes are good, prices are reasonable, there shouldn’t be any farm subsidies. But for natural reasons, nature, or what other countries are doing in terms of how they’re handling their markets, sometimes it is appropriate to have farm subsidies.”

“What you want is to have policies that lead to ample supply and prices that yield good prices for the person at the grocery store but profits for the farmers.”

Let's expound upon Barbour's economic theory.  Barbour opines that government subsidies, most of which go to wealthy farmers, are often indispensable because they increase food supply and lower prices at the grocery store during rough times.  Well, why is food inflation dramatically rising, even as farmers continue to receive record levels of subsidies?  Indeed every American (at least those who are not on food stamps) is suffering from the lack of "good prices" at the grocery store.