American Dominance is Being Challenged....

This article from the Economist is interesting, but as I point out in my comments below, the author doesn't really scratch the surface of the material facts.

Here is the article from The Economist:

The new game
American dominance is being challenged

Oct 17th 2015 | From the print edition

There are a number of things being overlooked by the author. 

First, China as it exists today in untenable.  It is far more likely to collapse from within than any of the 'superpowers' or BRIC countries.  Its one child policy has left it with an aging workforce and not enough younger workers to fill the jobs necessary to sustain their economy (circa 2008 it took an additional 25 million new jobs a year to sustain their economy - I'm not sure the number today).  The chances of the yuan becoming the world currency is practically nil, at least until the Chinese government allows it to float, which is very unlikely under a communist regime. China does not have enough of its own natural resources and must import a massive amount of raw materials from other countries, largely from South America and the African Continent.  This makes them as dependent on those countries as those countries are on China.  

Which leads to my second point, the USA rules the seas - all of the seas - and no other single country can come close.  For example:

• Of the 19 active air craft carriers the U.S. has 10 of them, China and Russia 1 each.  
• Destroyers: U.S.: 62, China 25, Russia 12.  
• Were the U.S. does lag behind is subs.  The U.S. has 71 missile & attack subs to China's 69 and Russia's 49.  
• All in the U.S. has approximately 3+ Million tons of naval power, China 1 million and Russia 900,000.  

Additionally, the U.S. currently has 2 subs to be commissioned in 2016, 2 more currently under construction, and 20 more announced (7 already named).  There are an 44 more vessels in various stages.  All in that's 68 new vessels added to our fleet (not sure how many are scheduled to be decommissioned).  Regardless, my point is we are not, by nature of the number of vessels, going to lose control of the seas anytime soon.  However, another 8 years of foreign policy [or. lack thereof] like the last 8 years may have the U.S. simply cede control of the seas.

While I agree with the author that we are certainly not leading in the fight against ISIS and the Assad regime, I will acknowledge there is a possibility that the Obama regime may have dumbed into a scenario where Russia will get bogged down in the Middle East.  That is not something their economy can withstand long term unless oil prices jump dramatically.  If the U.S. manages their Middle Eastern policy correctly in the coming years, this could have one of two results.  First and most desirable would be for it to drive Putin from power – highly unlikely given his control over state-run media; or second he could be driven to do something extremely foolish in the region which would result in the world coalescing against Russia and beating them back from their expansionary plans via strict economic sanctions. Of course, there is a third option, which is Putin may simply go off the deep end and pull the world into WWIII.  

I would note that the U.S. did not lead the world in nuclear arms talks with the Iranians, the Obama regime lead the rise of Iran to be a legitimate nuclear armed country in less than a decade.  No one, save this author apparently, believes that Iran will abide to any agreement with the U.S.

Clearly, the long knives are out for Valerie Jarrett.....

Given the topic of the previous post and now the current article: Fire Valerie Jarrett: If Obama really wants to shake things up, his closest adviser should be the first to go. It is clear that the long knives are out in Washington DC for Valerie Jarrett.  I suspect she'll be with the Obama's to the end, which again begs the questions, Who is Valerie Jarrett?; How did she become so entangled with the Obama's?; and Why on God's green earth would she STILL be one of their closest advisors?   

From the article:

Jarrett is more than a mere senior staffer to this president, and of course she is not going to be fired outright. Not ever. If her role in this administration reflected reality, Jarrett would be called “First Big Sister” to both Michelle and Barack. And who would fire the kind of big sister who “really dedicated her entire life to the Obamas,” as New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor told me when I interviewed her about her intimate look at the first family, The Obamas? “She has thrown her entire life into their cause, and she’s made it very clear that she would happily run in front of a speeding truck for them.” 

Very moving. But the fact is, on balance it appears that Jarrett has been more an obstructer than a facilitator over the past six years when it comes to governing, and it’s probably long past time for the president to move her gently into another role. 

For starters, even today, nobody knows precisely what Jarrett does in the White House. What exactly do her titles—senior advisor to the president, assistant to the president in charge of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Office of Public Engagement, the White House Council on Women and Girls—mean? More to the point, Jarrett has often used the aura of authority that these titles give her to stand in the way of talented White House staffers and a smoother-running administration, according to several books that have been written about the Obama presidency, among them Chuck Todd’s forthcoming The Stranger.

The author then goes on to report similar stories of Jarrett undermining Chief of Staff Emanuel and Press Secretary Gibbs as in the previously posted article.

It is a very odd relationship for an advisor to the leader of the free world.  For example:

Her undefined role combined with what by all accounts has been almost unlimited proximity to the Obamas has proved a bad mix. She seems to isolate the president from people who might help him or teach him something—and if there’s one thing that has become clear about Obama, it’s that he doesn’t get to hear enough outside voices. (According to Alter, she once declared that the Obamas wouldn’t be making “new friends” in Washington.) Jarrett micromanages guest lists for White House events big and small, hangs out in the private quarters and often joins the Obamas for dinner, says little in meetings, but walks out whispering in the president’s ear and leaving nervous staffers in her wake, according to Alter. She vacations with the first family in Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard. She is often the last one they speak to at night, and according to Alter, White House staffers took to calling her the “Night Stalker.”

Odd, don't you think?

I also don't suppose it is a mere coincidence these two articles were written and released at roughly the same time.  Almost as if to give Obama cover should he decide to pull the rip cord on Jarrett.  I don't believe for a minute it'll happen, but one can always hope....

My mistake. It's not "Limousine Liberal". The proper term is "Boardroom Liberal". Who knew?

This is from an article about Valerie Jarrett's influence on President Obama and his policies, The Obama Whisperer, No one has understood Valerie Jarrett's role, until now . Sadly, it completely ignores the effects of said policies...  Regardless, the article describes an advisor who, it should be noted, is not a cabinet member and as such required no vetting by the Senate, not that she would have gotten any in 2009 anyway...  But, I digress.  This paints the an incomplete picture of the actual person Valerie Jarrett is and gives only a few sentence glance at how she became who she is, and completely ignores how she came to such a prominent role as is painted.  

Regardless, there are a few nuggets to take away from the article.  One is the evolution of her role from prominent advisor and attender of all meetings relating to policy to one of creator of the impenetrable bubble for the POTUS.  Valerie Jarrett, they would have us believe, has out lasted all other presidential confidants, from Rahm Emanuel to Robert Gibbs, and as these people left they were replaced with people who were more amicable to Ms. Jarrett.  Again, this reinforces my earlier query on who is Valerie Jarrett?  Where did she come from?  How did she Get where she is?  How did she get involved with the Obama's?  Why is their relationship so seemingly intimate?

The other, and in my humble opinion, more important admission in this article is this regime's philosophy of "Boardroom Liberals".  This is important not just because it is an admission of this regimes philosophy, but because it is in an article in the left's bible, The New Republic. Here is (to me anyhow) the krux of the left's statist mentality:

"They emanate from the worldview that Jarrett and Obama share—call it “boardroom liberalism.” It’s a worldview that’s steeped in social progressivism, in the values of tolerance and diversity. It takes as a given that government has a role to play in building infrastructure, regulating business, training workers, smoothing out the boom-bust cycles of the economy, providing for the poor and disadvantaged. But it is a view from on high—one that presumes a dominant role for large institutions like corporations and a wisdom on the part of elites. It believes that the world works best when these elites use their power magnanimously, not when they’re forced to share it. The picture of the boardroom liberal is a corporate CEO handing a refrigerator-sized check to the head of a charity at a celebrity golf tournament. All the better if they’re surrounded by minority children and struggling moms." [emphasis added]

Bam.  Just like that, everything falls into place.....

As if that admission were not enough, the article goes on to highlight the current White House operations like this:

As it happens, the way the White House runs these days does even less to check Obama’s inclinations. According to a former high-level aide, there is no longer a daily meeting between the president and his top advisers. Under the old system, if the president waved off one adviser’s objection to his preferred plan of action, another could step in to vouch for the objection’s merit. The advice Obama gets now, though, comes more regularly through one-off interactions with the likes of Jarrett and Denis McDonough, who don’t have anyone else to back them up. In the second term, observes the former aide, “Maybe the president says, more often than in the past, ‘We’re doing it.’”

The result is that Obama has become even more persuaded of his righteousness as the years have gone on. His belief that he can win over opponents is unshaken. Unfortunately, these opponents include a party in the throes of radicalism and a self- interested class of ultra-rich that increasingly calls to mind plutocracy—not people whose better instincts you can appeal to. Obama and Jarrett should know this." 

I guess this is exemplifies how Obama can stand up there and take no responsibility for the mid-term drubbing his party took this year...  Amazing.

Fantasy: "By almost every measure...."

"So despite what you may hear, there is no doubt we are making progress. By almost every measure, we are better off than when I took office."



D'oh:

Source: Zerohedge.com

"While by now everyone should know the answer, for those curious why the US unemployment rate just slid once more to a meager 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008, the answer is the same one we have shown every month since 2010: the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!"

Here additional ways from Poor Richards News we are NOT better off than we where when BHO took office:

• Health care is MORE EXPENSIVE for most people
• There are MORE PEOPLE ARE ON WELFARE than ever before
• There are MORE PEOPLE ARE ON DISABILITY than ever before
• IT’S BEEN the SLOWEST ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN HISTORY
• MEDIAN INCOME IS DOWN
• The Federal Reserve is PRINTING MONEY with no end in sight
• THE WORKFORCE is at it’s lowest point in decades
• GAS PRICES are up
• FOOD PRICES are up
• THE WORLD IS IN TURMOIL
• We have LESS PERSONAL FREEDOM than ever before
• The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION is BLATANTLY IGNORING the Constitution
• Spending is OUT OF CONTROL
• The US debt has MORE THAN DOUBLED under Obama
• There has been SCANDAL after SCANDAL after SCANDAL after SCANDAL after SCANDAL afterSCANDAL
• The US government is VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT by spying on its own citizens

Healthcare Fraud Begins

And so it begins....

The defrauding of the government is the least of it.

The worst part is that this doesn't even expose the coming wave of stolen identifications that is bound to happen through these navigators.

And you just wait until people find out they are registered Democrats after signing up for Obamacare.

Remember, the REAL purpose of Obamacare was to make everyone a registered and participating Democrat to lock in their power for generations....

CBS's Random Act of Journalism - Obamacare

The list of problems on the role out of Obamacare is lengthy, too lengthy to list here.  But, one of the worst issues is that the website security issues are a mess.  What happens when thousands, possibly millions of Americans have their identity stolen? Who will pay?  Who will be responsible to get these issues straightened out?  

This story only deals with the actual website.  Another point of contact where your identity can get stolen is the healthcare "navigators".  For those of you who don't know what these are, navigators are people who either in person or over the phone take all your information and help you "navigate" the process.  In reality, these are thinly veiled democrats whose main responsibility is to register democrat voters.  Obamacare provided millions of dollars of grants to organizations like Planned Parenthood, ACORN (or whatever they are calling themselves these days), SEIU, etc....  Known felons can apply and receive these jobs as navigators.  These people will gather your Social Security Number, Birth Date, Address, Telephone Number, etc... basically, everything required to steal you identity.



Sharyl Attkisson might be the only true journalist left in the mainstream media.  How she continues to get face time behind enemy lines on the nightly news is beyond me....  My prediction is that if she keeps it up, she'll end up having to seek refuge at FNC.

And the "Wealth Tax" begins....

There it is, right there in the second paragraph of this story.

It is this kind of ignorant journalism that allows the government to continue to chip away at our freedom and liberty. Can you spot it?

Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs

By Bernie Becker - 04/05/13 11:45 AM ET

The Hill

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts. 

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.

The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”

Under the plan, a taxpayer’s tax-preferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement – or right around $3 million this year.

Romney, Obama’s 2012 opponent, had an IRA several to many times that amount, leading to questions about how the former Massachusetts governor was able to squirrel away so much money in that sort of retirement account.

In fact, the entire premise of the article is exactly 180 degrees from reality.  Look again at the second paragraph:

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code..  

No.  Not save.  TAX!  Tax an additional $9,000,000,000.00!   And then they have the gall to mention fairness in the same sentence.  Let's talk fair:

• 39% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 1% of all earners.
• 86% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 25% of all earners
• 97% of ALL taxes are paid by the top 50% of all earners.

Think about that last one.  Only 3% of ALL taxes are paid by the bottom 50% of all earner....  This is "fair"?

But, wait.  It gets better: 

The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”  

Really? So now "The senior administration official gets to decide that you or I may have "..substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.” Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where is says a government official has the right to decide what is reasonable and what is too much for me to save for my self?

You think this is only for the Mitt Romney type?  Remember this.  The original income tax only was 1%  up to $20,000 in 1913.  What are the rates now?

 

Easter Messages Past & Present

A stark contrast in the message of Easter by President's past & present:

Obama 2013:


                                       
                                          Socialism on display....


Reagan 1983:
                              
                                         Freedom on display.....

I've been AWOL.

Ok.  So I took a season off.  And, oh, what a season.  In my absence we reelected a Marxist/Black Nationalist, watched as the MSM focused on all things shiny (i.e., Te'o, Beyonce lipsync-gate, etc..) instead of investigating the death of a U.S. Ambassador and 3 others, permitted the tragic assassination of innocent young children by a madman be politicized to incite further erosion of the 2nd amendment, and allowed a documented traitor to be appointed Secretary of State.

I apologize for not being a stronger voice of opposition, but as some point I need to earn a living in order to pay taxes so others can sit home collecting their welfare check (oh, now even easier since BHO's Executive Order eliminating the work provision).

This does not mean I have given up the fight or changed my belief system.  Now more than ever we need to make our voices heard.  We need to begin the reeducation of a generation of low information voters.  Having said that, I doubt even my amazing persuasive powers of debate are enough.  We need to get our message out through media (I know.  Sounds impossible, right?)

We have got to make conservatism cool again through the culture of media to attract the low information voter.  Andrew Breitbart and Breitbart News is the vanguard of this philosophy.  They alone cannot complete the task.  This will take people on the inside in Hollywood to make more movies like Zero Dark Thirty .  It will take companies like Comcast who with the purchase of NBC Universal & it's affiliates now dominate the content found on televisions and control broadband access to the internet.  Companies like this have got to be infiltrated with Patriots who will begin the pendulum swing back to the right.

We have got to put forth musical artists like Madison Raising who promote traditional values through rock-n-roll.  And we need to promote conservative artists who promote traditional values through their artwork.

Having said all of this, I commit that I will once again begin to provide content to my blog. It is up to you to take action with what you learn.....  Go forth and conquer the culture!!!

Really? THIS is the smartest guy in the room...? NOT!!!

New gaffe: Obama hails America's historic building of 'the Intercontinental Railroad'

September 23, 2011 |  5:24 am

"We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad," Barack Obama.

That's what the president of the United States flat-out said Thursday during what was supposed to be a photo op to sell his jobs plan next to an allegedly deteriorating highway bridge.

A railroad between continents? A railroad from, say, New York City all the way across the Atlantic to France? Now, THAT would be a bridge!

It's yet another humorous gaffe by the Harvard graduate, overlooked by most media for whatever reason. Like Obama saying Abraham-Come-Lately Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party. Or Navy corpseman. Or the Austrian language. Fifty-seven states. The president of Canada. Etc.

And of course, who could forget this intelligent look:

 Yeah, this is the guy we were all waiting for....

And the NYT wonders why readers are leaving in droves....

In Rush to Assist Solyndra, U.S. Missed Warning Signs

(yes, you read that correctly.... )

By ERIC LIPTON and JOHN M. BRODER

Published: September 22, 2011

Here are some pull quotes:

"While no evidence has emerged that political favoritism played a role in what administration officials assert were merit-based decisions..."

On the face of it, it actually sounds reasonable, until you realize what you just read in the prevous paragraph:

"The government’s backing of Solyndra, which could cost taxpayers more than a half-billion dollars, came as the politically well-connected business began an extensive lobbying campaign that appears to have blinded government officials to the company’s financial condition and the risks of the investment, according to a review of government documents and interviews with administration officials and industry analysts."

Hmmm...  Admittedly, there are two authors of the article......

"While no evidence has emerged that political favoritism played a role in what administration officials assert were merit-based decisions, Solyndra drew plenty of high-level attention. Its lobbyists corresponded frequently and met at least three times with an aide to a top White House official, Valerie B. Jarrett, to push for loans, tax breaks and other government assistance. "

Wait a minute....  I'm getting mixed signals here.  Is this a political scandal or not...

“It was alarming,” said Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, which found that Energy Department preliminary loan approvals — including the one for Solyndra — were granted at times before officials had completed mandatory evaluations of the financial and engineering viability of the projects. “They can’t really evaluate the risks without following the rules.” 

The Energy Department’s senior staff has acknowledged in interviews the intense pressure from top Obama administration officials to rush stimulus spending out the door. 

Yes!  I knew it!

But....

Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, said administration officials realized the Solyndra plan posed some certain risks. The loan program was designed to help finance cutting-edge projects that could not otherwise find enough private-sector investors.

“But we did not just take what this company was telling us,” Mr. LaVera said. “We did the analysis on our own and decided it was a good bet.”

Yeah, it was probably just an honest mistake by an over zealous bureaucrat who only wanted to give a hand up to someone in the private sector.   I'm sure it had nothing what so ever to do with the "nearly $1.8 million on Washington lobbyists" or the fact that "George B. Kaiser, a billionaire from Tulsa, Okla., was a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign and the backer of a foundation that is Solyndra’s leading investor..."


No, I specifically remember Barack Hussien Obama promising to keep lobbyists out of the White House.  Yeah, that's it.  It was an honest mistake.  A half a billion taxpayer dollar mistake.  Easy come, tax some more....

EPA doing the bidding of "The One"....

EPA finalizes stricter air pollution rules for Wisconsin, other states

By Lee Bergquist and Thomas Content of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday finalized stronger regulations for Wisconsin and 26 other states aimed at curbing air pollution from long-distance sources.
The likely result: Higher electric bills in the coming years. 

A group of power companies known as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity called the action one of the most costly crackdowns on coal ever. 

Nationwide, the EPA estimated that utilities are projected to spend $800 million on the rule in 2014, in addition to $1.6 billion a year that's been spent to satisfy an earlier version of the regulations.

But, wait!  It is all worth it, in the name of lower healthcare costs....

...EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson extolled the health benefits of cleaner air, including $120 billion to $280 billion in annual health and welfare benefits beginning in 2014.

EPA's analysis found the rule will save up to 34,000 lives a year and prevent more than 400,000 asthma attacks as well as 19,000 admissions to hospitals.

What is the REAL reason for imposing these draconian rules?  Could it all be part of The Obama Plan of fundamentally transforming the U.S.?

Debt Ceiling, Smebt Ceiling.....

The conservative coup: Now, on the debt ceiling

The Washington Post Opinions

Posted at 09:34 AM ET, 04/29/2011

By Jennifer Rubin

In sum, the Democratic Party has thrown overboard decades of tax ideology (“soak the rich”) and succumbed to the Republicans’ insistence that Keynesian spending must end and fiscal discipline must commence.

The White House has lost control of the fiscal debate and of its own party. (“The White House has condemned efforts to attach additional measures to the debt-ceiling issue. Press secretary Jay Carney has called it ‘a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage . . . a vote on raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation.’ ”) Now, the White House grudgingly accepts the prospect of spending conditions. I suppose this is, as they say, leading from behind.

I am trying to figure out Ms. Rubin's point.  Is she for the continued stimulus spending binge in Washington?  Does she think we should pass the deficit cap with no strings attached?  Maybe we should just eliminate the deficit cap altogether? 

I'll tell you what, Ms. Rubin.  Why don't you call your credit card company and tell them to remove the limit on your card.  Explain to them how by allowing you to spend ad infinitum, you will be able to take care of your family so much better and grow the economy.  You'll be able to provide a larger house (infrastructure), raise allowances (entitlements),  install some solar panels & a geothermal HVAC system (green technology) , sent all your relatives to Ivy League Schools (education) if only you did not have that nasty spending cap on your credit card.  Explain to them how the economy would grow if you got to build a bigger home, if they spent their allowances on products, how your expenses would decrease due to the solar panels & geo HVAC and how much more successful everyone would be if allowed to go to the best schools...   I'm sure they would lift the cap - no strings attached - right?

More Journalistic Malpractice

Obama to set out budget plan on Wednesday
AFPApril 11, 2011, 8:18 am

Here is all you need to read to know how disingenuous this so-called journalist is:

"Republicans want to slash funds for Medicare, benefits for the elderly, and Medicaid, a health program for people with low income, but Democrats would prefer to make up much of the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy."

Really?  Is that what the Republicans are proposing?  Medicare "cuts".  Only D.C. politicians and the minions in the MSM can get away with such blatant lies...  There are no "cuts" proposed for people on medicare/medicaid.  They are simply lowering the rate of growth and changes qualifications to means test it, so people like me will not be able to access the "free healthcare" after paying in all these years.  You know what?  I don't care because the country cannot afford it!!!!


And Democrats only raise taxes on the "wealthy".  Really?  That is unless you eat, drink, smoke, use electricity, gasoline, or have a cell phone, credit cards, a bank account or home mortgage.  Then your taxes, either directly or indirectly are going up as well.


What about this do people not understand.  We spend $10,000,000,000 a DAY.  $4,000,000,000 of that is borrowed!  Most of that is borrowed from other countries.  Are people really so stupid, as to believe we can continue this absurd behavior?

Why do I think the Libyan rebels aren't comforted...

SARKOZY FILLS LEADERSHIP VOID ON LIBYA 
France formally recognises Libyan rebels' authority

France became the first country to formally recognize the rebels’ newly created Interim Governing Council, saying it planned to exchange ambassadors after President Nicolas Sarkozy met with two representatives of the group based in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

Way to lead Obama!  Of course, when you believe you were elected to manage the decline of the U.S., you probably feel you are showing leadership when you abdicate your role as "leader of the [formerly] free world"....

It's a sad, sad day....

More effects of BHO/"Uncle Ben" Bernanke/"Lil' Timmy" Geithner Policies

Get Ready for Higher Food Prices
2011 The Omaha World Herald.
By David Hendee
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
February 10, 2011

Note: Emphasis added by me...

Warnings of higher food prices headed for American supermarkets and restaurants were swallowed easily across much of farm country Wednesday.

The big gulp came when the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that global demand had pushed U.S. corn supplies to their lowest point in 15 years.

The price of corn, which has doubled over the past six months, affects most food products in supermarkets. It's used to feed the cattle, hogs and chickens that fill the meat aisles.

It is the main ingredient in Cap'n Crunch and Doritos. Turned into syrup, it sweetens most soft drinks and many foods.

Corn also is part of the agricultural blend that fuels the economies of Nebraska, Iowa and other farming states. Iowa is the nation's top corn-producing state; Nebraska is third.

Shoppers could see higher grocery bills as early as three months from now, though most of the impact won't be felt for another six months, said Scott Irwin, an agricultural economics professor at the University of Illinois.

Chicken prices are among the first to rise because the bird's life span is so short that higher feed costs get factored in quickly, he said. Price hikes for hogs take about a year and cattle two years. Prices on packaged foods take six or seven months to rise.

Tyson Foods, the nation's biggest meat company, said chicken, beef and pork prices are expect to rise this year, if only slightly, as producers seek to cover costs.

ConAgra Foods Inc. — the Omaha-based producer of brands including Healthy Choice, Banquet and Chef Boyardee — is raising prices on some of its products because of higher costs for corn and fuel, said Teresa Paulsen, a spokeswoman.

The price rally has bolstered the financial fitness of America's crop and livestock operators over the past eight months. Midwestern cropland is yielding record values. Rural banks and equipment makers report record profits.

“We're seeing record income levels for the ag community and ... wealth accumulation that cannot be denied,” said Bruce Johnson, an agricultural economist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “We've moved into a whole new level.”

Said Bruce Babcock, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University: “Farmers are going to be earning quite a bit more money.”

Jason Henderson, Omaha branch executive for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, said farmers are buying more tractors, pickup trucks, grain bins and land.

“And they also come to Omaha to shop and go to events,” he said.

But it hasn't been simply a spending spree, Henderson said. Farmers are paying down debt and fewer are seeking loan renewals or extensions.

“It's a good time to be an ag banker,” said Brian Esch, president of McCook National Bank in southwest Nebraska. “But I have concerns over what this means for consumers. If one guy is selling at a record profit, someone is buying at a record level.”

Corn prices have risen over the past six months from $3.50 a bushel to nearly $7.

The U.S. will have a reserve of 675 million bushels left over in late August, when this year's harvest begins. That's roughly 5 percent of all corn that will be consumed, the lowest surplus level since 1996.

“There is going to be enough corn for food, for feed, for fuel and for export opportunities,” Tom Vilsack, the U.S. agriculture secretary, said at a Washington press conference.

Babcock, the Iowa State economist, said the U.S. mandate to increase the use of renewable fuels like ethanol is a major reason why the nation's corn supply is so low. About a quarter of the nation's corn crop is consumed by the production of ethanol. The ethanol industry's projected corn orders this year have risen 8 percent, to 13 billion bushels, after record-high production in December and January, USDA said.

“We've created a hungry business that is dependent on corn, even high-priced corn,” Babcock said.

Johnson, the UNL economist, said global supply and demand are the root causes behind low U.S. corn stocks.

“Ethanol is a factor, but it's not the driver,” he said.

Johnson said the declining value of the dollar not only has fueled greater agricultural export demand, but also has driven up the price of oil. That, in turn, has propelled higher prices for corn-based ethanol.

The agricultural economies of Nebraska and Iowa will continue to grow into greater prominence as global food providers, economists said.

Johnson said rising population numbers globally and greater demand in major developing countries for higher-protein diets have strengthened the Midlands' agricultural market.

Farm cash receipts — led by corn and other crops — doubled in Nebraska from 2000 through 2010. Crop receipts alone ended the decade in the $9 billion range, up from a 2000 total of $3 billion.

Nebraska's net farm income hit a record $4.25 billion last year, according to preliminary estimates. The 2010 level would be nearly 65 percent above the 10-year historical average, Johnson said.

Although farm income represents only about 6 percent of Nebraska's $75 billion personal income total, it has a major impact on local and regional economies, Johnson said.

“There is no question that agriculture buffered the state from going into a deeper recession these last few years, and it has helped pull us out of the recession faster than other areas,” he said. “Agriculture has been our pack horse.”

A Billion Dollar Presidency...

And so it begins. The money raising for the 2012 presidential election. A half a BILLION dollars per candidate..... Wow...

Barack Obama's 2012 cash challenge
POLITICO | Congress | Barack Obama's 2012 cash challenge By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 1/14/11 4:37 AM EST

Excerpts:

Bracing for a half-billion-dollar onslaught of outside GOP cash in 2012, President Barack Obama’s advisers are quietly working to bring back together the major donor base that produced a record-breaking fundraising haul in his first run for president.

Ironically, in an article ostensibly about Obama fund raising they still take time to take a poke at the GOP:

In other places, such as Pennyslvania, top donors say Obama has to get in line behind other candidates who need the cash more urgently. And some donors are worried that the party has been slow off the mark in responding to the latest onslaught of GOP fundraising, millions of dollars raised from secret donors by a variety of Republican outside groups, including two associated with former Bush advisers Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie.

And they (thankfully) face a difficult battle due to the midterms:

[An Obama supporter is] considering organizing a fundraiser in the Philadelphia area. But he’s told Obama’s team that it must wait until the re-election committees of Democratic Sen. Bob Casey and others are on solid financial ground.

“In the most important states for the president to win, in every one of them, there is someone up for re-election,” said Buttenweisser, noting Senate contests in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

Unlike 2008, Democrats no longer hold the governor’s office in any of those states. So, in Pennsylvania, Casey “offers more to President Obama than the reverse. Anything we can do to strengthen Sen. Casey’s re-election, not only does that, but also helps lay the groundwork for President Obama’s re-election.”

Ain't politics grand?