USDA Thrifty Food Plan

As everyone is aware we're in the middle of the worst economic situation since probably the Great Depression of 1929. The national unemployment rate hasn't been this high in over 25 years, and some areas of the country have unemployment rates higher than the national rate. People are still losing their jobs or afraid they're going to lose their jobs.

Our government authorized huge bailouts to banks that have amounted to billions upon billions of dollars in hopes of averting an all out depression. The government stepped in and gave money to car manufacturers to assist them and hopefully keep them afloat. All presumably in order to avoid more layoffs and keep more people from becoming unemployed.

We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting a war and conflict that many Americans don't even agree with anymore. Billions upon billions of dollars are being spent on these wars or conflicts (take your pick on which word to use), and when it's all said and done what was really accomplished? The accomplishment is thousands of our young men and women dead and thousands wounded either physically or emotionally or both.

So you're probably asking: What does this have to do with the USDA Thrifty Food Plan? The answer will become clear in a few moments. The USDA is a department of the federal government. The letters stand for United States Department of Agriculture. These folks administer programs that assist farmers. This is also the department responsible for inspecting facilities to make sure the foods we eat are being prepared safely and according to the standards and guidelines that are in place for all our safety.

The USDA developed what's known as the "Thrifty Food Plan." The latest revision to this plan was done back in 2006, and this "plan" is used when people apply for food stamps here in the USA. This plan is supposed to "serve as the national standard for a nutritious diet at low cost." The plan is broken down by gender and age groups starting as young as 1 year old all the way to 71 years old and over.

According to the USDA's "Thrifty Food Plan" a woman aged 35 should be able to buy food that provides a "nutritious diet" that will last one full week for $33.40. Really, $33.40 for a "nutritious diet"? I write a blog under the pen name of "The Discount Queen" and I consider myself to be a pretty good shopper. Getting the most I can for my dollar is like a "game." I agree that I could probably find food to live on for one week for under $34.00, but I wouldn't call that food "nutritious." I think I could get quite a bit of Ramen noodles, pasta, maybe a dozen eggs, a gallon of milk, and a couple of cans of tomato sauce for the pasta. I could also buy those frozen burritos that tend to be on sale for 4 and 5 for $1.00 or really splurge and get quite a stockpile of quick cook macaroni and cheese. However, what I just don't see myself getting is anything that even remotely resembles "nutritious." Oh wait, I forgot. I could also throw in a box of oatmeal (non-instant). Food that allows me to stay alive rather than die from starvation isn't what I'd call "nutritious."

I'm shocked and appalled in country that has so much abundance in so many areas (except maybe jobs at the moment) would expect a 35 year old woman to find "nutritious food to live on for a week for under $34.00.

How could *any*presidency think this is an adequate amount of money to be allocated for a weekly food budget, even if it is for a single female? Would ANY of our elected officials or the people in the USDA like to live using these guidelines? Actually, I think whoever researched this plan and had a hand in getting is approved SHOULD have to live on this budget for their appropriate age and gender for at least one month. How many of you think they'd all lose weight on this budget? Perhaps it would be just the reverse. I personally think they'd gain weight, since cheaper foods are made of flour and high in carbohydrates. Statistically more overweight people are found at the lower end of the socio-economic scale than at the high end of the scale.

After spending close to $692 billion dollars on the war in Iraq, and nearly another $230 billion on the war in Afghanistan, and $787 billion dollars on the so-called stimulus package(that in my opinion hasn't stimulated ANYTHING except the size of our national debt) I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the powers that be to try living on the "Thrifty Food Plan" approved and recommended by the USDA. After all, isn't this supposed to be a government that's "for the people and by the people"? If that's the case, then our government should try living the way they suggest we should be "able" to live.

Sources:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR66/ERR66Appc.pdf

http://costofwar.com/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-02-12-stimulus-package-effects_N.htm