Last year, the United States found 727,304 homeless people nationwide, meaning about one in every 400 Americans were without a home, according to the Human Rights Record of the United States in 2005 issued by the Information Office of China's State Council Thursday.

The figures came from The USA Today published on Oct. 12, 2005.

"The Los Angeles County has become 'the homeless capital of America,' with the average number of vagabonds or people in shelters hitting 90,000 a day, including 35,000 people chronically homeless," the report quotes an article of The Los Angeles Times on June 16, 2005 as saying.

"The United States dubs the world's richest country, however, it maintains the highest poverty rate among developed countries," the report says, given a study of eight advanced countries by London School of Economics in 2005, which found that the United States had the worst social inequality.

On the one hand, the report says, in recent years the fortunes of the rich have continued to rise in the United States. According to two new studies by Spectrem Group, a Chicago-based wealth-research firm, and the Boston Consulting Group, millionaire households (excluding the value of primary residences) in the United States controlled more than 11 trillion in assets in 2004, up more than 8 percent from 2003.

Meanwhile, the income of ordinary employees in the United States has seen a sharp decline, causing the increase of poor population. The data issued by the U.S. Census Bureau said that the nation's official poverty rate rose from 12.5 percent in 2003 to 12.7 percent in 2004, with the number of people in poverty rising by 1.1 million from 35.9 million to 37 million, which means one in every eight Americans live in poverty. Poverty rates in cities such as Detroit, Miami and Newark exceeded 28 percent.

These problems indicate that poverty, hunger and homelessness are quite serious in America, worker's economic, social and cultural rights are not guaranteed, the report says.

But it was in the ballpark with consumers' feelings about economic conditions in March of last year, when the index stood at 84.2.

"Consumers aren't knocking the cover off the ball. Their confidence isn't a grand slam, but they aren't striking out, either," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research.

Even with the drop, analysts believe consumers are in a generally good frame of mind about the economy, although they are growing more anxious about the future.

Analysts believe that angst is tied to consumer concerns about whether the housing market this year will slow gradually, as most economists predict, or whether it might crash.

Other things also may be coloring consumers' perception about the future, including rising interest rates and energy bills, economists said.

"It is the litany of uncertainty this year - the housing market moderation, worry about energy prices_ that may be factoring into peoples' views about the future," said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at LaSalle Bank.

A measure looking at consumers' expectations over the next six months, including conditions where they live or work and their own financial positions, showed the most deterioration in March from February.

That expectations gauge fell to 40.7 in March, compared with 59.4 in February. A year ago, the expectations measure stood at 52.6.

Economists track consumer confidence for clues about consumers' willingness to spend, an important force shaping overall economic activity.

Analysts believe economic growth will clock in at 4.5 percent pace or possibly higher in the January-to-March period. That would mark a rebound from the 1.6 percent growth rate in the final quarter of 2005. Belt tightening by consumers was a factor in that weak performance.

Economic growth in the April-to-June quarter is also expected to be solid, analysts said.

"It is a little surprising given the strength of the economy that there is a perception - at least among some of the public - that the economy is not very good," said Edward Lazear, chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers.

When it comes to the economy, what really counts is what consumers do, rather than what they say.

"Are people behaving as if they believe this is a weak economy? I see no indication of that. In fact, I see the contrary," Lazear said.

President Bush, however, continues to cope with sagging job-approval ratings. Just 37 percent approve of his overall performance, the lowest level of his presidency, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

On the consumer confidence front, attitudes about current economic conditions dipped to 103.9 in March, a still good showing, economists said. That was down from 111.6 in February but better than the reading of 92.9 in March of last year.

Another index tracking consumers' feelings about making a purchase, saving and other investment decisions was 98.6 in March, down from 101.5 in February. A year ago, this measure stood at 88.5.

For nearly two years, the
Federal Reserve has been boosting short-term interest rates to keep the economy and inflation on an even keel. Rates are expected to go up again on March 28.

Borrowers do not like rising rates. Nor do homeowners with short-term adjustable rate mortgages, which have been climbing. But for savers higher interest rates means better returns.

A measure on consumers sentiments about the jobs climate slipped to 118.5 in March, from 119.3 in February. In March of last year, the jobs index was 119.2.

The overall confidence index is benchmarked to a reading of 100 on January 2002, when Ipsos started the gauge.

The RBC consumer confidence index and the AP-Ipsos poll for March were based on results of 1,000 adults surveyed Monday through Wednesday about their attitudes on politics, personal finance and the economy. Results of the survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The study, released by the powerful lobby group of the major Hollywood studios, the Motion Picture Association of America, however gave the industry some reason for hope amid sliding ticket receipts, the MPAA maintained.

Most movie-goers were satisfied with their recent experiences at the movies and felt the movies were a "good investment of their time and money," the Nielsen study reported.

"Despite increasing competition for consumers' time and entertainment dollars, theater-going remains a satisfying constant in people's lives," said MPAA chief executive Dan Glickman.

"That said, we can't bury our heads in the sand. We have to do more to attract customers and keep regulars coming back. It is no secret that our industry faces new challenges but with every challenge, there is an exciting opportunity," Glickman added.

The MPAA noted that eight movies had raked in more than 200 million dollars at the box office last year, compared with just five in 2004.

The total number of films released in the United States increased by 5.6 percent from 2004, while new releases by the major motion picture studios grossed an average of 37 million dollars in 2005, an increase of seven percent over the past five years," the industry group said.

Most movie-goers in 2005 went out to catch family films, with movies rated PG-13, meaning that children under 13 must be accompanied by an adult, accounting for 85 percent of the most watched films in 2005.

The MPAA also reported that the average production cost of a movie in 2005 remained below 100 million dollars and dipped slightly to 96.2 million dollars.

Marketing costs however rose by 5.2 percent, while production costs went down four percent from 2004.

The big studios that make up the MPAA spent more on network television and Internet advertising and less on newspapers and local television, the group said.

"Technology has not only changed the way people are able to view movies, it has changed the way our industry produces and advertises movies," said Glickman.

"We are exploring new ways to reach more people using innovative methods of communication and distribution. This data reflects those changes and also demonstrates the strength of the movie industry." MPAA members include the top Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Warner Bros, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Universal Studios Inc, Walt Disney Co. and 20th Century Fox.

His 50 billion dollar fortune marked an increase of 3.5 billion dollars from the 2005 Forbes list.

The magazine said strong markets around the world contributed to the surge in wealth, as the total net worth of the list jumped to 2.6 trillion dollars -- more than the annual GDP of Germany.

"Making a billion just isn't what it used to be," observed Forbes Associate Editor Luisa Kroll, who noted that the number of billionaires had grown by more than 300 in the past three years.

While US names accounted for nearly half the fortunes on the roster, this year's ranking was notable for the influx of newcomers from Brazil, India, Russia and other emerging economies.

Oil baron and Chelsea football club owner Roman Abramovich jumped 10 places to 11th in the global ranking with a nest egg of 18.2 billion dollars.

"Why is the list growing? The answer is an obvious one -- the global economy is growing," said Forbes editor-in-chief
Steve Forbes.

"In the last few years the global economy has grown at rates not seen since the end of World War II. It is phenomenal and it's been fuelled by a commodities boom," Forbes said.

The summit of the cash mountain had a familiar look with Gates followed by investment wizard and perennial runner-up,
Warren Buffett, with a 42-billion-dollar fortune. Buffett's pile has fallen by two billion dollars, however.

Mexican telecom magnate Carlos Slim jumped a place to third with 30 billion dollars, while Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad of Sweden moved up two spots to fourth with 28 billion dollars.

Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal dropped two places to fifth with 23.5 billion dollars -- down 1.5 billion dollars.

Newcomers to the top 10 chart included the French luxury retailer Bernard Arnault who made seventh spot with 21.5 billion dollars, and Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing in 10th place with 18.8 billion dollars.

Hind Hariri, the 22-year-old daughter of slain Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, beat out Germany's Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis by eight months for the title of the world's youngest billionaire.

At the other end of the age spectrum was American John Simplot, 96, who made his fortune processing potatoes.

Thirty-nine people fell off the Forbes list, victims of market forces, dubious ethics and, in 11 cases, death.

Notable disappearances included US lifestyle guru
Martha Stewart, who debuted on the list last year despite serving a five-month prison term, and then found that freedom doesn't pay as her net worth declined to 500 million dollars after her release.

The 2006 roster counted billionaires from 49 countries, with the Czech Republic making its first appearance, and New Zealand and Lebanon both returning after an absence of several years.

The United States boasted 371 names on the list with a collective net worth of 1.1 trillion dollars, while Europe's 196 billionaires enjoyed combined wealth of 802 billion dollars.

Europe's rising star was Russia, with 33 names including seven new faces.

"Russia continues to astound," said Kroll. "For a long time there were questions about where they got their money ... but now the story is just the enormous wealth that is being created from strong commodities markets there."

In the Asia-Pacific region -- home to 115 billionaires -- the standout was India which added 10 new faces to total 23 on the list with a combined worth of 99 billion dollars, 60 percent more than last year.

China saw its presence in the rankings grow from just two billionaires last year to eight.

Of the 793 who made the global list, 452 were self-made billionaires.

The number of women increased by 10 from the previous year to 78 and included US talk show queen Oprah Winfrey who pulled in an extra 100 million dollars over the year to rank 562nd overal with 1.4 billion dollars.

New York has the highest number of resident billionaires with 40, Moscow is second with 25 and London third with 23.

Recently George W. Bush insulted working Americans by saying that we need eleven million illegal immigrants here in the United States because (in a slightly cleaned-up version of the more blatantly racist comments of Vicente Fox) there are some jobs that "American's won't do." As the modern-day Sago miners, and the 1950s Ed Norton character Art Carney played on the old Jackie Gleason show (who worked in the sewers of NYC) prove, the reality is that there are virtually no jobs Americans won't do – for an appropriate paycheck.

It's really all about breaking the back of the most democratic (and Democratic) of American institutions – the American middle class.

One of the tools conservatives have used very successfully over the past 25 years to drive down wages, bust unions, and increase CEO salaries has been to encourage illegal immigrant labor in the U.S. Their technique is transparently simple.

Conservatives well understand supply and demand. If there's more of something, its price goes down. If it becomes scarce, its price goes up.

They also understand that this applies just as readily to labor as it does to houses, cars, soybeans, or oil. While the history of much of the progressive movement in the United States has been to control the supply of labor (mostly through pushing for maximum-hour, right-to-strike, and child-labor laws) to thus be able to bargain decent wages for working people, the history of conservative America has, from its earliest days grounded in slavery and indentured workers from Europe, been to increase the supply of labor and drive down its cost.

In the 1980s, for example, the increasing supply of labor (both from Reagan-allowed consolidations eliminating redundant jobs, and from illegal immigration, which was around 3 million illegals by the time Reagan left office) fed massive union-busting in industry sectors from those directly hit with illegal immigrant labor (like construction and agriculture) to those who only felt its fallout but nonetheless were pressed (like coal mining). In part, because of these national downward pressures on organized labor, the miners who died in the International Coal Group's Sago Mine didn't have union protection.

Indeed, as the International Coal Group's June 2005 form S-A/1 filing notes about one of their other recent mine acquisitions: ".assets are high quality reserves strategically located in Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, are union free, have limited reclamation liabilities and are substantially free of other legacy liabilities." Similarly, it's estimated that the construction industry enhanced their profits last year by over a billion dollars because the availability of illegal immigrant labor has so significantly pushed down the price of construction labor.

"Union free" is good for the CEOs and stockholders of giant corporations. Reagan helped make it possible by reducing enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust and similar acts, by making the Labor Department hostile to labor, and by thus producing an environment into which illegal immigrant labor could step. He busted PATCO and popularized anti-union rhetoric, at a time when union membership was one of the primary boundaries that keep illegal labor out of the marketplace.

Today, this fundamental economic rule of labor supply and demand is most conspicuous in the conservative reluctance to stop illegal immigration into the United States. All those extra (illegal) workers, after all, drive up the supply – and thus drive down the cost – of labor. Even in areas where there are not high populations of illegal immigrants, their presence elsewhere in the American workforce drives down overall the cost of labor nationwide. And when the cost of labor goes down, there's more money left over for CEOs and stockholder dividends.

Conservatives can't just come out and say that they are pleased with the estimated eleven million illegal workers in the United States driving down wages. They can't brag that, behind oil revenue, Mexico's second largest source of income is money sent home from illegal "cheap labor" workers in the United States. They can't point out that before Reagan declared war on working people in 1981 we didn't "need a fence" to keep out illegal immigrants from the south, in large part because the high rate of unionization in America at that time, and enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, served as barriers to the entry of illegals into the workforce. They won't acknowledge the corporate benefits of a workforce whose healthcare is paid for by taxpayers but whose productivity belongs to their corporate masters.

But conservative strategists have noticed that the workers – and the voters – of the United States are getting nervous about nearly 10 percent of our workforce being both illegal and cheap. This has led conservative commentators and politicians to resort to classic "wedge issue" rhetoric, exploiting Americans' fears – while working to keep conditions relatively the same as they are today.

They talk about building fences. They worry out loud about brown-skinned Middle Eastern terrorists slipping in amongst the brown-skinned South- and Central Americans. They warn us of all the social security money we'll lose if illegals have to leave the country and stop paying into a system from which they'll never be able to collect. They even find themselves obligated – catering to both working-class fears and to the bigots among us – to promote the idea of giant fences around the country to keep illegals out. (A fence that would, no doubt, tremendously profit their big contractor friends.)

At the same time, catering to compassionate Americans who don't realize this is all about driving up corporate profits and driving down workers' wages, cons like Arlen Specter are promoting legislation that would decriminalize the illegals currently in the United States, thus making legal our increased workforce. As Rachel L. Swarns reported in The New York Times on February 25, 2006: "Advocates for immigrants said the [Bush/Specter] plan failed to protect the rights of immigrant workers, who they argue deserve a clear path to citizenship. And the AFL-CIO warned that a guest worker program of unlimited scale would depress wages and working conditions while creating a perpetual underclass of foreign workers."

None of the various con proposals – from a fence to amnesty – address the fundamental truth of the situation: Conservatives and the businesses they represent want to maintain a large, illegal or marginally legal, and thus powerless workforce in the United States, to keep down the price of labor and help them finally destroy the union movement – and, thus, that politically pesky middle class.

The reason for all these lies and obfuscations is simple, and found in the core notions of conservatism, articulated from Burke in the late 1700s to Kirk in 1953 and Greenspan over the past two decades. It's all about power, and since wealth equals power, about the control of wealth in society.

Conservatives believe that what John Adams called "the rabble" – you and me – can't really be trusted with governance, and therefore that job should be kept to an elite few. The big difference between the old-line Burke conservatives and modern conservatives is that Burke and the cons of his day felt that an hereditary ruling class was desirable (because it would inculcate rulers with a sense of "noblesse oblige"), whereas modern cons like Adams, McKinley, Kirk, and Bush believe that the ruling class should be more of a meritocracy – rule by the "best."

And – in the finest tradition of John Calvin (who suggested that wealth was a sign of God's blessing) – what better indication of "best" could there be than "richest"? They believe there should be a thin veneer of democracy on these old conservative notions of aristocracy in order to placate the masses, but are quite certain that it would be a disaster should the rabble ever actually have a strong say in running the country.

This is, at its core, why conservatives embrace the idea of eliminating the American middle class and replacing it with a Dickensian "working poor" class, and are working so hard to use illegal immigrant labor as the lever to bring this about.

As the '60's and '70's showed – during the height of the American middle class's economic and political power – a strong middle class will challenge corporate power and assert itself economically and politically. This represents a very real threat to conservative ruling elites. "The people" may even suggest that the most elite of the elites should pay stiffer taxes on the top end of their income, so that money can be used to provide the economically most disadvantaged with an opportunity to become socially and economically mobile. It would reduce the most massive of the wealth and the power of the most elite of our conservative elites.

Offshoring, union-busting, and nurturing a huge population of illegal workers (while pretending to be frantic about it and bleating about building fences, fielding vigilantes, or offering "amnesty") are the core ways to destroy an economic middle class, thus ensuring the ongoing political power of the conservative elite takeover that began with the so-called "Reagan revolution" and continues to this day.

This is why conservatives who complain about illegal immigration in front of the cameras won't lift a finger in the halls of congress to pass legislation that would put employers of illegals into jail. (They may support "tough fines," just so long as they're high enough to sound like a lot of money to the average working stiff but low enough to be a "cost of business" for a corporation that gets caught.)

If Congress were to pass a law that said, quite simply, that the CEO of any business that was caught employing illegal immigrants went to jail for a year – no exceptions – then within a month there would be ten million (more or less) people lined up at the Mexican border trying to get out of the United States. The US unemployment rate would drop close to zero, and wages would begin to rise. The American middle class would begin to return to viability, as would the union movement in this nation.

Legal immigration is a good and healthy thing for a nation, because it is done at a rate and in a way that allows a country to collectively decide what sort of labor/jobs ratios it wants to maintain. Limitless illegal immigration, however, leads to the modern-day equivalent of slavery, benefiting only the conservative corporate elites.

Thus, progressives need to begin a new dialogue about immigration in the United States. (Similar discussions are already underway in many of the countries of Western Europe.) Issues include:

To what extent should the United States bleed its middle class because Mexico is a corrupt oligarchy run by a corrupt former Coca-Cola executive?
How do we work out fair and reasonable options for illegal families living and working here who have birthed "anchor children" in the U.S., now citizens of this nation?
How can we ensure "security" along our southern border in an "age of terrorism"? (A good start may be to stop promulgating policies that cause the world to hate us, but that's another article.)
How do we recalibrate our business and tax laws so businesses – particularly small and middle-sized businesses – can adjust away from depending on a terrified "working-poor-competing-with-even-more-terrified-illegal-labor" workforce and move toward being able to pay a more robust, domestic, unionized workforce?
How can progressives join with the few remaining populist Republicans (like Lou Dobbs and Patrick Buchanan) to forge an alliance to make this an all-American effort and not have it further split the nation?
And how can we all collectively work to prevent Bush and Specter from re-instituting the brutal Bracero "guest worker" program of the last century?

As the anguished mining families in West Virginia show, Bush was wrong when he said there were jobs Americans "won't do." But in the face of massive illegal immigration and the union-busting and wage deflation it spawns, there are increasingly jobs that Americans "can't do" and still maintain a viable lifestyle.

While some geographically-specific industries (like coal mining) don't appear overwhelmed by illegal immigrant labor, its impact on the nation as a whole has made it easier for union-busting to take place from the construction industry in New Mexico to the coal mines of West Virginia. Directly or indirectly, illegal immigration affects all working Americans.

Condemning the frightened working-class white guys organizing citizens' militias along our southern border, or vilifying those who listen to Limbaugh and are convinced that "liberals" are in some sort of collective plot to undermine America may feel good, but it doesn't address the real problem. Progressives will be most effective when we reach across the divides created by Bush, Specter, et al, and point out how this is really all about corporate conservative efforts to replace the American middle class with a workforce of "working poor" Americans and powerless illegal immigrants (or powerless "amnestied" workers) – all so CEOs can fatten their paychecks and further reward the "conservative" investor class.

Only then will Mexico and other countries to our south have an incentive to get their own houses in order, and will our middle class begin to recover decent bargaining power and the living wages that accompany it.

Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books include What Would Jefferson Do? and Ultimate Sacrifice (co-authored with Lamar Waldron). His next book, due out this autumn, is Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It.

Mike shrugged off suggestions that he's picking smokers' pockets a tad aggressively. "It's not a revenue source," he announced, and he's right about that. It's a revenue geyser. "We're trying to save the lives of our children."

I won't pretend to understand how bankrupting their parents saves children's lives, but perhaps Mike's onto something here. Can taxing smokers and other dangerous folks really save lives? If so, let's tax politicians.

Smokers and politicians have more in common than you might think. Both blow smoke. Both stink the place up. Both stand around in the cold and solicit strangers, one for a light, the other for votes. Both are addicted, though smokers kick their filthy habit a heck of a lot more easily and often than politicians do.

Think how many lives would be saved had we taxed politicians all along. No more Americans dying of boredom during endless political campaigns and debates. Outraged citizens would never again suffer heart attacks over the latest Congressional scandal. And without politicians' pork larding the budget, government spending should shrink so we're less likely to keel over from shock after figuring our taxes every April.

But the number of lives saved here is modest compared to those spared by our tax's effect on war. I predict this scourge will disappear once politicians are too busy coughing up their tax bills to shove troops at the world's hot spots. With the biggest killer of all time eliminated, life expectancy should zoom.

There are other, less obvious ways that taxing politicians back into the holes they popped out of will save lives. For starters, it should scare the daylights out of their appointees at bureaucracies large and small. Those at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may well be so terrified we'll tax them, too, that they'll release the cures for cancer they're delaying – or at least the remedies for obesity and crow's feet. Perhaps the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) will become too nervous to demonize and regulate alcohol. Red wine could finally prevent as much heart disease here as it does in France.

With any luck, we'll observe the same chastening effect at the other alphabet agencies, including those that may not directly take lives but try their hardest to ruin them. Name your poison – the IRS, FEMA, the TSA, the DEA – and imagine the furor as their employees dive for cover.

Given stakes this high, we want our tax to succeed, so let's take some pointers from Mike the Knife. First, the rate should be exorbitant enough that folks think we're joking. But of course we're not: lives hang in the balance. So don't be shy. Pull a number out of the air and double it. Now triple it. We want politicians to gasp as loudly as smokers have.

Secondly, notice that Mike foists his preposterous tax on an unpopular minority. The minority we're targeting is even more loathed than smokers. Also in our favor is that politicians tend to be millionaires, while smokers cluster at the lower end of the economy. If Mike can justify picking on the poor for their own good, how much more can we justify taxing politicians for ours?

The IRS's sliding scale has snagged trillions of our taxes over the years; I bet it'll work for us, too. We'll tax city councillors at 100% of their paychecks; mayors at 200%; State Assemblymen, 300%; US Congressmen and Senators, 400 and 450%, respectively, and Presidents at 1000% – 2000% if they ask, "What Constitution?"

What will we do with all this loot? The sky's the limit, but we might consider funding preliminary R&D on a PAC patch or governing gum. If those wean politicians from their cravings as well as nicotine patches and gums wean smokers from theirs, we'll research a vacillation vaccine next.

Some might call my tax a pipe dream. But with a bit of tinkering, it should work. So sit back, relax, and get ready to enjoy a politician-free paradise!

DATA COLLECTED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT show that the nutritional content of America's vegetables and fruits has declined during the past 50 years -- in some cases dramatically. Donald Davis, a biochemist at the University of Texas, said that of 13 major nutrients in fruits and vegetables tracked by the Agriculture Department from 1950 to 1999, six showed noticeable declines --- protein, calcium phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C. The declines ranged from six percent for protein, 15% for iron, 20% for vitamin C, and 38% for riboflavin.

WAL-MART WITH NEARLY 2,000 SUPERCENTERS in the United States and plans for 280 more this year, is the country's largest food retailer, according to Retail Forward, a research firm in Columbus, Ohio. Data from food and beverage companies indicates that Wal-Mart represents 14% to 18% of all food and beverage sales.

AD AGE reports that the giant international mega-conglomerate Tyson Foods -- twice as large as any competitor in the meat-and-chicken industry -- is now trying to sell God along with its chickens, beef, and pre-prepared frozen meals. Tyson is distributing "mealtime prayer booklets" for a variety of faiths all over the world. . . Ad Age reports: "What started out as the internal manifestation of Tyson's mission statement --- a set of core values that includes 'striving to be a faith-friendly company . . . and to honor God . . . ' --- has over the last few years morphed into placing 128 part-time chaplains in 78 plants across the country and, now, the external marketing initiative to play a part in mealtime prayer."

AMERICAN CONSUMERS CAN'T GET ENOUGH organic foods with producers unable to meet demand. As a result most sectors of the organic food industry are suffering undersupply, which is stunting market growth. Shortage of organic products is making producers look outbound for raw materials. Increasing volume of organic fruit, vegetables, grains, seeds, beans, and herbs are being imported into the US. Finished products are also imported to meet consumer demand for all things organic. The flood of imports is making the organic food trade gap widen. It is estimated that over U.S. $1.5 billion of organic products are imported into the U.S., compared to about U.S. $150 million in American exports.

FARMERS WILL SEE THEIR INCOMES plunge in 2006 coming off two years of unusually high prices and record crops, the USDA reports. Rising energy costs and interest rates are impacting the bottom line for farmers, analysts say. On average, net income for a farmer should be $48,600 this year, down from $68,300 last year, according to forecasts from the department. The average was $52,500 from 2000 through 2005.

CALIFORNIA'S AGRICULTURALLY rich San Joaquin Valley may be the new Appalachia, a new congressional study suggests. Poverty is high, education is low, and social needs abound. The Congressional Research Service 365-page regional report card concludes: "By a wide range of indicators, the San Joaquin Valley is one of the most economically depressed regions of the United States." Per-capita income is lower in the Valley's eight counties than in the 68-county area known as Central Appalachia. Also the Valley's public assistance rates are higher than Appalachia's. Per-capita federal spending overall was likewise lower in the San Joaquin Valley than in the depressed Central Appalachian subregion, the report added.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, which at one time was the home to a $500-million dairy industry, one of the nation's largest concentrations of dairy farms, is rapidly evaporating as dozens of farmers sell out to real estate developers. In the last two years, more than 160 dairies --- nearly 80% of those operating just a year ago --- have either been sold or are in escrow, according to the Milk Producers Council, a trade association based in Chino. Some dairymen are being offered up to $550,000 an acre --- a strip they may have purchased for $3,000 some 40 or 50 years ago.

"They're saying, 'All we've done for you guys, all our purchases, we'll stop it, we'll just yank it,'" the source said.

Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.

It is not clear how much of Dubai's behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal.

The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing's largest 777 customer.

Dubai in mid-February also established the Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, a $15 billion investment to create a company that will lease planes, develop airports and make aircraft parts to tap into growing demand for air travel in the Middle East and Asia.

The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials.

The UAE military also bought Boeing's Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.

An industry official with knowledge of Boeing's contracts with Dubai said that the company has been involved in the emirate and that it would take a lot "to knock" those relationships.

"Nothing about the [ports] controversy diminishes our commitment to the region," said John Dern, Boeing's corporate spokesman. He added that at this point the company has no indication that there is or will be an impact on the company.

Any repercussion to Boeing could put House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a delicate position. Boeing's decision to move its headquarters to Chicago has been seen as calculated to facilitate a close relationship with Hastert. He is against the ports deal, and his office did not return calls by press time.

Several businesses have expressed concern that the controversy over the $6.8 billion ports deal could damage trade with the UAE. Dubai is one of the seven emirates. The United States and the UAE are meeting next week for a fourth round of talks to sign a free-trade agreement. The American Business Group of Abu Dhabi, which has no affiliation with the U.S. government, said that Arabs may hesitate to invest into the United States, according to a report by Reuters.

A Republican trade lobbyist said that because the ports deal is a national-security issue blocking it would not be in violation of World Trade Agreement rules.

"In terms of them retaliating legally against the U.S. ... I don't think there are many options there," the lobbyist said.

But when it comes to the emirates' cooperation in the war on terrorism and in intelligence gathering, there is concern that some help may be pulled.

"If we reject the company in terms of doing the [ports] work, they are going to lose a lot of face. In the Arab culture, losing face is a big deal," a former government official said. "We risk losing that help. It is not an empty threat."

Dubai is a critical logistics hub for the U.S. Navy and a popular relaxation destination for troops fighting in the Middle East. On many occasions since the ports story erupted, the Pentagon has stressed the importance of the U.S-UAE relationship.

Last year, the U.S. Navy docked 590 supply vessels in Dubai, plus 56 warships, Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, said in a Senate hearing last month. About 77,000 military personnel went on leave in the UAE last year, he added.

During the hearing, he warned about the implications of a negative decision on the ports deal: "So obviously it would have some effect on us, and I'd not care to quantify that, because I don't have the facts to quantify it. It would certainly have an effect on us."

Although owned by the Dubai government, the company at the heart of this controversy, Dubai Ports World, is trying to distance itself from any kinds of threats, said a lobbyist closely tracking the deal.

Another lobbyist monitoring the controversy said K Street still believes there will be a compromise that allows the Dubai deal to go through while meeting congressional security concerns, even though a bill aimed at that result, put forward by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.), was widely repudiated amongst lawmakers Tuesday.

Senate leaders have indicated that they would wait to take action until the new 45-day Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review is completed.

Meanwhile, in London, DP World cleared the last hurdle for its take over of P&O. The Court of Appeal in London refused Miami-based Eller & Co., which opposed the deal, permission to appeal against clearances for the legal and financial measures necessary to implement the takeover.

P&O said it expects to file the requisite court orders, making the takeover terms binding on DP World, according to the Financial Times.

This goes far in explaining why the bird flu has caused near-hysteria in and around Paris.

The rooster has been the country's unofficial symbol since Gallic warriors fought Julius Caesar's Roman legions some 2,000 years ago. The bird can be seen on official seals as well as on the chests of national soccer team members.

The bird is also important to its economy: France is the European Union's largest poultry producer and exporter.

Since bird flu cases were first detected on a turkey farm in the southeast Ain region, poultry sales have plummeted by as much as a third in France. Some 40 countries, including Russia and Japan, two of the largest importers of French poultry, have issued an import ban on French birds.

The European Commission earlier this week called on the countries to end the ban, arguing the outbreak has been successfully contained and that exports from the rest of the country are safe -- so far without success. According to French figures, farmers there breed some 900 million chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese and other fowl per year. Their birds are healthy, farmers say, and there is no evidence that cooked poultry poses any health risk at all.

French President Jacques Chirac, in a bid to defend his farmers and restore poultry sales, has said there is an "unjustified panic" spreading across France. The industry remains concerned.

"If the sales slump continues the way it has, we are going to lose 80 million euros ($95 million) a month," Christian Marinov, head of the Confédération Francaise Aviculture, the French poultry farmers' trade union, told United Press International. He added the industry's two foremost goals were to communicate to consumers that cooked poultry is safe, and to lift the import bans.

Next-door in Germany, the virus' deadly H5N1 strain has not yet spread from wild birds to domestic poultry, but has infected several domestic cats, a move that has Agriculture Minister Horst Seehofer concerned.

"The virus has crossed the border to mammals in several cases, so it came significantly closer to the human being," he said Tuesday night on a TV show.

So far, the virus cannot spread between humans. But experts fear it will mutate and turn into a global pandemic with millions of casualties. Ninety-five people have already died of the disease, mostly in Asia.

In Germany, the virus was first detected on the Baltic Sea resort of Ruegen and has since spread to several states across the country.

German poultry farmers have seen sales plummet up to 25 percent.

"We number the current economic damage at roughly 140 million euros ($167 million)," Thomas Janning, spokesman for the ZDG association of German poultry producers, told UPI via telephone. "We are currently in talks with federal and state governments about financial support measures."

He added it was a constant communications war to tell consumers that cooked poultry is safe. Recent reports that gourmet restaurants in Berlin are taking poultry dishes off their menu only spread the hysteria, he said.

In Italy and Greece, poultry-related sales fell by as much as 50 percent. And not only are poultry farmers affected; related companies, such as those that provide machinery or stalls have also been harmed.

German tourist organizations fear travelers may cancel trips to the land of beer and sausage if the virus spreads further. The outbreak on Ruegen has led to several cancelled vacations there.

Moreover, some 1.5 million guests are expected to flock to Germany this summer to attend the FIFA Soccer World Cup. The tournament may create as much as 50,000 additional jobs, according to government figures, and the country's economy is banking on the extra money spent during that time.

And then there is the ultimate horror scenario: if the disease turns into a pandemic, it will cost the European economy up to $1 trillion, said Deutsche Bank in a study published earlier this week.