Can you tell me how the milk bought from the dairy producers in America is calculated? How the price that is paid to the producers is figured?

Can you tell me how come the producers have to accept that price? What reasoning is behind the price?

Can you explain why in a few short paragraphs? It has to be a simple explaination since it is set so low to the producers.

Now I could see if the producers were paid on a quart of milk, or pint of cream, or a gallon of cream (heavy whipping cream), or by the half pint. That would be difficult I am sure even for you to break it down to just pennies. It can't be too complicated since all the producers that I talk to say "we got in our first check" (which is a good indicator I guess) of what they were going to get paid for the month. Most of them also say that it is not enough money to cover their costs. They say their electricity bills are high, their fertilizer is high, their cost of repairs of their bulk tanks is high and they have to make sure the chemicals that are used to keep pipelines up to inspection is high. They also say that they have to buy retail for most of all they consume, but get a milk check thats not enough to cover all the bills for any given month.

Some of them budget their money on the need of the day. Some of them keep hoping the milk check will get bigger and all of them (*all of them) want to be successful because they know how to produce milk; they are very good at managing their cows and breeding and calving and planting and harvesting and being good stewards of the land. They all want to be as good as they can be so somone, somewhere will buy a quart of milk, or a half pint of their cream to enjoy on short cake or butter for bread.

I think a person to ask who might be able to give you the answer is a co-op board member.They have to be milking cows in order to be a member of the board I do believe that there are only like 14 major co-ops in america.I am sure they could help answer any questions.

I am sure that any co-op board member could simply explain the reason milk price is calculated the way it is. They would be the person to change your milk price.

I know that a federal order, if they are still federally ordered, was designed to pay producers an adequate amount for their milk so as to keep producers in that given boundry producing enough milk for the inhabitants of that given order. Now that’s a lot of people to feed and keep supplying with milk, cheese, butter, cream, ice cream and yougurt. Seems to me to be like ten million people in federal order 1, That’s one..The laws may have changed but I am sure that there are not even one million producers in all the federal orders.

I am under the impression that something is calculated wrong. How many people does one producer have to supply? Maybe something should be done before it is too late?

I do know that the federal order system used to keep a (minimum) price under your milk price.Thank God for that or you would be getting free market price for your milk. Maybe you all need to ask for more money for your milk? Maybe you should ask for more than the minimum price that the govenrment sets. Ask again and again.

Could it be calculated like the old story about the two brothers from New York that drove down to Florida every year and bought watermellons for one dollar each and brought them back to the city and sold them for one dollar apiece. After a few years of this the one brother commented to the other we are not making any money driving down and back and selling them for a dollar, maybe we should buy a bigger truck? Na, that can't happen with milk? Could it? Milk more cows for less money? Na that can't happen in America?

Seems to me that the producers put on more cows if they have to buy a new mower or a silo, or just try to make their job easier!

Sincerely,

Peter A.Seman

Thompson, Pa

During the 2012 Voting Season the issue of voters showing their ID’s was plaguing many Pennsylvanian Residents. Some were on board and others were not so on board with the idea of it all. Those who were against, mainly thought that this law was being passed to allow a certain party to gain ground in the state, so their candidate could win the state in this year’s election. As a 33 year old voter, who votes for the best person for the job and not the one that is in the party I am in, I found myself debating on the issue and often leaned toward it being a very good idea.

The reasons I feel that is a good idea is because it allows those younger generations that are taking roles on their community’s board of elections the opportunity to get to know the people who vote in the district. I can say that it was a struggle for me to step into a position in my local board and being forced to ask many voters who they were and get at times some snippy or snide comments back. I will say that there were some voters who understood that I was new to the position and respected when I asked them who they were. Also, in many voting districts new voters are moving into the area, because of local job opportunities in the gas and oil drilling industries. Finally, the law would make sure that your board officials are able to find your name faster in the poll book in which all voters sign. For example there are times when John or Jane Doe came into vote, but their last name is not how they pronounce it, it is actually Dough. If the ID law were to go into place it would make it easier for new poll workers, such as me.

Just a heads up, although the law did not pass this time, board officials will still be asking voters to show ID to get them ready if and when the law is passed. Your board officials now will be identified as well. Each member of your local poll workers will be wearing name tags from here on out that lets the voter know who they are and what position they hold on their board of elections. So, all in all this is indeed a Good ID’ah.

Sincerely,

Brandon Adee

Susquehanna, PA

The year of crisis: 2013. At the last stroke of twelve, midnight, January 1, 2013, New Year's Day will start with a sham, a charade, and a slash. A triple whammy that will knock the U.S. economy flat on its back.

The Sham: “mandatory” spending cuts of $1.2 trillion sliced from the federal budget on January 1.

It began when a deal was brokered by the Reds and Blues to raise the debt ceiling by $2 trillion with the proviso that a Super Committee would be formed to find bipartisan cuts in the budget of $1.2 trillion.

A gun was put to the collective heads of Congress to find these cuts or “mandatory” reductions split evenly between defense spending and non-defense spending would “automatically” kick in.

But the proverbial gun held to Congress' head was a water pistol.

The $1.2 trillion in cuts are to be spread over ten years, that's $120 billion a year. But comparing the $120 billion yearly cuts to this year's budget projected deficit of $1.3 trillion amounts to an unimpressive 9 percent of the deficit. In other words, after the first year the deficit would be $1.17 trillion instead of $1.3 trillion.

The Super Committee's cuts weren't super, they were wimpy. They only amounted to a slight decrease in the ever growing federal deficit. But even this is a sham.

In Washington-speak “mandatory” means maybe and “automatically” is likewise redefined by convenience.

“Federal budget agreements have seldom, if ever, gone the distance,” noted Stan Collender, a Democratic budget expert. “Instead,” he continued, “they have always been changed, waived, ignored, or abandoned.” How nice. Congress has a choice.

The Charade: the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire on New Year's Day.

The Bush tax is slated to end when the “mandatory” budget cuts begin on January 1. A resumption of these taxes would amount to a de facto tax increase of $440 billion. This is sure to start a firefight on the Hill.

The Republicans will fight for their extension. The Democrats will agree providing there is a tax increase on the “rich,” i.e., households earning $250,000 or more. Who will blink? The stare-down has all the making of a Mexican standoff which would mean a cancellation of the tax cuts.

The most likely turn of events is for an extension of the suspended taxes. But this foreshadows its own hobos' pot of unpalatable consequence, mainly, sending federal debt to the moon and beyond.

The Slash: credit rating agencies around the world already took note of the U.S.'s rocketing debt.

July 18, 2011. Egan-Jones, one of the top four credit rating agencies in the world, downgraded U.S. credit worthiness from AAA to AA+.

August 3, 2011. A largely unknown but all important credit company, Dagong Global Credit Rating, reduced its evaluation of U.S. credit from A+ to A. Dagong is China-based and is understandably concerned about the ability of the U.S. to redeem China's $1.5 trillion of U.S. Treasury paper.

August 5, 2011. A major U.S. credit rating agency, Standard and Poor, followed Egan-Jones changing its rating of U.S. credit from AAA to AA+.

April 5, 2012. Egan-Jones, which started the credit cascade nine months ago, took U.S. credit down another notch from AA+ to AA. Fears grow that Egan-Jones may once again be first in line for another round of credit markdowns.

Lowered credit ratings means purchasers of U.S. Treasuries will demand higher interest rates. The federal government must accede to their demands or no one will buy our debt. The result: mortgage rates will spike overnight. This will devastate an already crippled housing market.

So what will happen? The Federal Reserve Bank will do what it did three times before, print play money to buy the unsold Treasury paper and bank liabilities. But printing-press money creates a future inflationary firestorm. A devalued dollar will send the price of imports beyond the reach of all but a few---and we import just about everything.

In the affairs of men, there comes a point of no return, a tipping point where collapse becomes inevitable. Is this what awaits the U.S. when the recession butts up against spending cuts, a tax increase, and a slash in credit rating? It all comes to a head in a perfect fiscal storm on January 1, 2013? It's only weeks away.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA