I just filled up my gas tank and I didn’t want to cry -- I actually did cry. At $4 per gallon, it cost me nearly a c-note to fill up my mid-size SUV. That’s not for the fancy high-octane stuff either; we’re talking regular unleaded.
We don’t have room in our budget to increase the amount of money we spend on gas, so this means we’ll be doing a lot less driving. Fewer trips to visit friends in neighboring cities, no running back to the store for that one thing we forgot, and definitely no drives through the countryside.
I’ve had to do a lot of economizing in the kitchen too, as the price of food has been going up and up. The First Lady likes to tout the benefits of organic rabbit food (which, by the way, children would rather throw away than eat), but she’s not the one trying to pay for it on a modest salary.
Organic farming is much more expensive than farming with pesticides. Without pesticides, there’s nothing to kill the hungry bugs in the fields, which means that actual people need to be employed to keep the produce from being chomped to the vine by the creepy-crawlers. Employing people to care for the plants in organic farms is much more expensive than hiring a crop-duster once or twice a season.
Unfortunately, it’s not just the cost of organic food, but all food that has climbed in recent months and years. In fact, food prices rose more last month than they have in 36 years.
From the AP:
Food prices soared 3.9 percent last month, the biggest gain since November 1974. Most of that increase was due to a sharp rise in vegetable costs, which increased nearly 50 percent. That was the most in almost a year. Meat and dairy products also rose.
Energy prices rose 3.3 percent last month, led by a 3.7 percent increase in gasoline costs.
The rising cost of gas and food should be called Environmental Taxation. We can’t drill for oil, build new coal or nuclear plants, or even develop green energy properly because windmills are ugly. Farms in California, one of the most fertile growing regions in the country, are being denied access to water. Not only do we have less vegetation to cultivate, it’s now more expensive to transport it to the grocery stores.
Grocery stores (where most people purchase their food) are not only paying more for their product, they’re paying more for their overhead, thanks to Obamacare mandates, extended unemployment, and the aforementioned cost of energy. Those freezer cases aren’t powered by pixie dust.
President Obama may have prevented the largest tax hike in history when he extended the Bush tax rate for the next two years, but his policies have skyrocketed hidden green taxes.
Photo via Jim Legans, Jr/Flickr


Tie-Dye for the Fourth of July!
Mom Survives Horrific Domestic Abuse
Kim and Kanye's Baby Name Predictions!
Moms Love Birthday Parties, Too!


















Comments 11
I too want gas prices down to an insufferable level but ya know what else? I long ago figured SUV's being the HUGE WASTE OF GAS that they are, are not something I will ever own. On, and throwing in that slight dig at Michelle Obama for daring to care what people eat? Whats she doing that is so wrong? I get that Organic food is more expensive, heck I don't even buy it most of the time, but what exactly is so wrong with encouraging healthy eating? Oh, and maybe if those tax hikes hadn't been delayed there would have been a way to pay for that unemployment. When you're the one facing staggering unemployment with almost nowhere to turn then maybe you might get it.
Michelle Obama for daring to care what people eat? Whats she doing that is so wrong? ....what exactly is so wrong with encouraging healthy eating?
I love it when someone asks this question. First off, she's not encouraging healthy eating, she's trying to legislate healthy eating, which is an unwelcomed over-reach of government into my life. Second, MObama is in no position to dole out suggestions on eating and being healthy - she's overweight herself. In the past 2 years, she's had access to all the healthiest, organic, fresh food this country has to offer, along with personal chefs to prepare it for her (something the rest of us can only dream of) - and she's still managed to pack on at least 25 pounds. That's what is so wrong with what she's doing. Look at it this way - If Nancy Reagan was taking bong hits in the oval office while preaching "Just Say No", wouldn't you find fault with that? You can't step up on a soap box without practicing what you preach.
Um, exactly how is she "legislating" what people eat? By making it easier to buy organic food from grocery stores? By saying that you should (gasp) give your child a piece of fruit instead of a vegetable. By (more gasps) encouraging kids to get excercise? Her Let's Move organization presents valid facts on obesity, eating fewer calories, exercise through play, etc. What is wrong with that? It's no more wrong than Laura Bush's efforts to get more people to read- hows that not an "unwelcome" over-reach of government. And yes, in fact she can step on a soap box and preach because look at precious Bristol Palin or her mother for that matter. It goes both ways. Michelle Obama is merely trying to get the american people to make better choices, no worse than any other first lady
Seriously? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/02/statement-first-lady-house-passing-child-nutrition-legislation .
Laura Bush's efforts to get people reading were valid because Laura Bush can (gasp!) read. MObama's efforts to get people to combat obesity with healthy are not valid because she's losing her own battle with the bulge.
Didn't address the other obvious point dear. Why is precious Bristol Palin allowed to speak on "abstinence only" when she obviously didn't follow her own advice before and obviously has a son when michelle obama can't encourage somethings that is FAR easier to actually accomplish, eating heathy. I really don't have a problem with Bristol or her message but you can't sit there and say Michelle can't speak on healthy eating because she's gained a few pounds when precious Bristol Palin didn't follow her own advice before so why would SHE expect anyone else to follow hers now? Can't have it both ways.
And that little "legistlation" your talking about? You want to know what it does?
Improves nutrition and focuses on reducing childhood obesity by setting national nutritional standards and subsidizing school lunch meals.
Increases access to school meal programs for more than 115,000 children, many of whom reside in areas with high poverty rates.
Calls for program monitoring to ensure that schools adhere to nutritional standards.
Tell me ONE THING that is so wrong about this legislation which, by the way, was largely supported by members of BOTH parties. I'm sorry but I would MUCH RATHER the government use our tax dollars for healthy school lunches than junk.
The ONE THING that is so wrong with this, and similar (proposed) legislation is that people accept the governmental rules regarding personal choices because it's 'not hurting anyone'. But what about when the government tries to stomp all over a woman's personal choice regarding reproduction? Two sides of the same coin, both aimed at controlling what goes on with your body - you either accept government controlling it all, or nothing - you shouldn't cherry-pick based on your feelings, or ignorance, or indifference.
And, dear, I never applauded Bristol Palin's preaching abstinence - that's your arguement with yourself. But the hypocrisy of denouncing Palin while applauding MObama is really amusing.
I'm not denouncing Palin, I think what she is doing, teaching from her experience is great. All the healhy eating legislation did was expand on programs already in place, school lunches. And I'm sorry but if the government is going to spend money feeding our children I would rather it be healthy and nutritious lunches than waste money on stuff that isn't good for them. And why is it wrong to increase access to school meal programs to children who can't afford them. And how is it wrong to subsidize school lunches for children? And actually you can "cherry pick" what you want the government involved in based on your feelings because some things are right no matter what.
The 'some thing' you are talking about here is government interference with personal choice. Your view that 'some things are right no matter what' is ignorant - NOTHING is 'right" no matter what, because what's "right" for you might not be "right" for someone else, and having the government dictate food choices isn't "right" for anyone. If something was right for everyone, there'd be no need to legislate it because we'd all be doing on our own. So you can slap whatever pretty color of lipstick on that pig that you want - even that popular Leftist shade of "Some things are right no matter what", but it's still a pig.