John Stephen Offers Plan To Cut Skyrocketing Food Prices

MEDIA RELEASE                                  CONTACT:For Immediate Release                         Greg Moore (cell)May 20, 2008                                        (603) 568-8159
John Stephen Offers Plan To Cut Skyrocketing Food PricesCandidate's Plan Removes Federal Mandates, Subsidies And Price Controls To Reduce Costs
MANCHESTER, NH- 1st District Congressional Candidate John Stephen today released a plan to reduce food costs, which have skyrocketed over the past year.  Stephen noted that the price of corn has grown by 150% in less than three years and that wheat has increased by 109% in just the past year.  He called for immediate action by Congress to eliminate the ethanol mandate for gasoline, to get rid of farm subsidies that cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year and raise the cost of grain, to remove the federal price floors which hike crop prices and make it difficult for American farmers to sell overseas, to stop paying farmers to farm on bad land and, modeling on programs currently run by New Hampshire counties, to start using non-violent federal prisoners to farm available and open federal land on prison grounds to provide food to pantries and nutrition programs servicing low-income seniors.  Each of these plans would help to lower the price of food for American consumers.
            "Most Americans cringe today when they approach the checkout line at the supermarket because of the bite that soaring food costs are taking out of their wallets," said Stephen.  "What many don't realize is that failed federal policy has dramatically increased their grocery bill.  It's time for Congress to have a farm policy that makes sense and works for the families of America, not against them.  We need change in Washington to lower food prices, and I know just the recipe."
            Stephen noted that the farm bill (HR 2419), which recently passed the House and Senate, continues the existing policies that have driven up prices.  Locally, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter voted in favor of the legislation, while Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu voted against the measure, in large part due to the impact of food costs.
            "The idea of taking a farm policy that not only raises our taxes by billions of dollars each year but also leads to higher food prices, and expanding it is outrageous," added Stephen.  "We need leaders who can stand up to special interests do what's right for New Hampshire.  Our taxpayers and everyone who waits in line at the deli counter and the produce section deserve relief from bad federal policy that is costing them hundreds or thousands of dollars each year. Washington has broken our agricultural policy.  Now we need to fix it."
Stephen is the former Commissioner of Health and Human Services. Prior to that position, he served as the Assistant Commissioner of Safety, where he also served as the state's Coordinator of Homeland Security. Stephen also served as a prosecutor for 10 years, in Hillsborough County and as an Assistant Attorney General. He is a Manchester resident.
###

Today, many Americans are struggling with the skyrocketing cost of food.  Trips to the grocery store become a painful experience as many goods have experienced massive price increases over the past few years and the last year in particular.
While Congress should not consider controlling the prices of food items, our representatives should get rid of the many federal government programs, regulations and incentives that increase the cost of food to the nation's shoppers.  These mandates have added huge costs to Americans both in terms of higher taxes and greater prices for goods. 
Our farm policy has let the working families of America down.  Intended to bring stability to the agricultural industry, federal management of farming has done nothing to stop crops from regularly resetting record high prices recently.
It's time to have Congress work for the American people, not against them.  Accordingly, in Congress, I pledge to support the following efforts to reduce the cost of food.

• Eliminate Ethanol Mandates and Subsidies- In the energy bill of 2005, Congress mandated that gasoline include ethanol blended in the supply.  At the same time, ethanol makers receive a $0.51 per gallon subsidy on production.  The mandate and incentive have combined to divert corn production away from food and into fuel.  Now, more than one quarter of the corn crop nationally is used to make fuel, not food.  This has created a significant competition for corn, and the prices reflect that, with the price per bushel of corn growing from $2 per bushel in 2005 to over $5 per bushel now.  This greater than 150% cost increase is passed onto consumers through higher food prices.  As a result of these higher prices for corn, farmers are switching wheat fields to corn in order to make ethanol and now wheat costs have grown over 100% in just the past year!  Ethanol should be forced to stand up on its own, without government support.

The environmental benefits for the ethanol mandate are inconclusive.  Ethanol production puts stress on water supplies, especially now that corn production is being expanded in locales where rainfall is insufficient and irrigation is needed.  Even land that is now protected under federal conservation programs may soon be cleared for corn.  In addition, the facilities that turn corn into ethanol create emissions issues of their own. A goal of the ethanol mandate was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but after taking into account the carbon dioxide emitted from ethanol production, any reduction in emissions is modest. These effects on the land, air, and water have already raised significant concerns, and America is only one-quarter of the way toward the 36 billion gallon target.  Clearly, the food and fuel impacts cannot be justified by environmental benefits.
Even worse is the impact of ethanol on a major environmental issue of the day, carbon emissions.  Proponents of ethanol and other biofuels claimed that they would be responsible for lower carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions than the gasoline they displace, but several recent studies challenge this assertion and argue that biofuels actually increase such emissions, while at the same time reducing mileage, thus increasing fuel usage.

• Eliminate Farm Subsidies- In addition to costing American taxpayers billions each year to pay for these programs, farm subsidies drive up the cost to consumers by having farmers grow crops inefficiently.  Today, farmers often decide what crops to plant based on the subsidy, not the market need.  This creates oversupply of unneeded crops and shortages of some crops.  These shortages drive up costs to consumers, while the government buys the oversupply, which often sits rotting in federal silos.

• Eliminate Target Prices for Crops- By setting a minimum price floor for various crops, the federal government is artificially increasing the price of food.  If supply exceeds demand for a certain crop, the market should determine what the price of that good should be, not some government bureaucrat.  The consumer pays a higher cost as a result, and the farmer suffers as well, as prices are often too high to sell excess crops in the world market, undermining trade.

• Stop Paying and Insuring Farmers for Using Bad Land- Today the federal government pays farmers to farm in bad lands, with insuring them against the losses if crops fail.  This diverts time and energy from productive soil which can be farmed more efficiently and reduce overall food costs.

• Use Federal Prisoners to Grow Crops on Federal Prison Land to Support Low-Income Senior Nutrition Programs- This represents bringing New Hampshire ingenuity and hard work to solve a national problem.  In some counties across the Granite State, county prisoners currently work county land near the jail to produce crops for low-income seniors.  There is no reason that federal non-violent prisoners cannot do the same.  This will help seniors who currently receive nutritional programs like the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and Meals on Wheels.  By increasing the supply to these programs, it will reduce demand for crops elsewhere in the market, lowering prices.  This will also give one more disincentive to commit crime.  Furthermore, the idea of those responsible for the Enron scandal tilling soil and picking potatoes is very appealing.