Over the past year, consumers from Mexico to Indonesia have been protesting the increasing cost of staples such as corn and soybeans, which has been linked to the rising demand for biofuel. And while Americans have been largely sheltered from rising food costs that eat into their income, there are signs that the rush to convert commodity crops into fuel may be starting to have an impact on the food budgets of poor American consumers as well.

As way of background, the ever-expanding number of ethanol plants in the U.S. are consuming greater and greater shares of domestic corn supplies. This has pushed corn prices to a record high, and as farmers shift their crops to keep up with the increasing demand, they are planting fewer acres of wheat and other crops, pushing up prices for those staples as well.

Poor people in developing countries by and large bear the brunt of increased prices for these staples, but poor American consumers are starting to feel the pinch as well, in the form of higher prices for milk and eggs, which rose 29 percent and 36 percent last year, respectively (corn forms the basis of the feed used for cows and chickens). Since corn is also widely used in most processed foods, the cost of everything from hot dog buns to soft drinks may start to rise as well. And although Americans spend a relatively small amount of their incomes on food, the poor, who already pay a disproportionate amount of their paychecks at the grocery store, will be impacted the most, especially since they tend to consume mainly processed foods. While the extent to which biofuel is alone responsible for resulting price increases at the supermarket is still being debated, it is undeniable that it is having an impact.

As the IMF reports, "until new technologies are developed, using food to produce biofuels might further strain already tight supplies of arable land and water all over the world, thereby pushing food prices up even further."

So what's to be done? The rising demand for corn-based ethanol and other biofuels has meant the expansion of crops that already depend on government subsidies. Eliminating subsidies and tariffs on these crops would have the greatest impact in the short term, and would help lower-cost foreign producers get in on the game, ultimately lowering prices. But ditching subsidies is never a politically popular idea, and is even more unlikely with the country heading into an election year (and possibly a recession). In addition, there is growing alarm about the ultimate environmental impact growing biofuel crops may have, to the extent that the EU has proposed restrictions on biofuels, and Brazil is discussing a moratorium on burning large swaths of the rainforest to grow sugarcane used for fuel. Other ideas, like a radical shift in the way we produce and eat our food in this country, seem equally unlikely and politically unpopular. In the meantime, poor Americans may have to fork out increasing amounts of their take-home pay to put food on the table.

Biofuel may be able to lead us out of the wilderness of foreign energy dependence, but at what cost?

Should middle and high school start later in the day?  Will it improve our education system?  According to numerous studies and an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times, teenager's bodies are set to a different sleep schedule than younger children and adults. Teenagers naturally go to bed later due to the sleep-inducing hormone, melatonin, kicking in around 11 pm, instead of earlier in the night.  Thus, they wake up every school day with what some call sleep deprivation.   It is estimated that over 28% of teenagers fall asleep during first period class, wasting precious class time.  Additionally, insufficient sleep has been linked to teenage dropout rates and failing grades, along with learning disabilities and obesity.

Nancy Kalish, the op-ed author, recommends that politicians address this problem by changing the hours of the school day, pushing it back for teenagers and lengthening it for younger children.  For example, teenagers could attend school from 9 - 5, while younger children could start at the earlier time but extend the school day  until 4 or 5 by increasing both scholastic and creative subjects.  Kalish bases her recommendation on several examples of schools across the country who have done this and who are seeing improvements in test scores, drop out rates, attendance rates, grades and reduced behavioral problems.  It seems to be true that starting school later could have tremendous results.

But is that enough?  Obviously, there have been successful results in some schools, plus there are numerous benefits to having parents and children on the same schedule.  But in today's failing education system, I am not so sure this will cause a nation wide effect.  Instead I think this is a small recommendation for a much larger policy initiative.  We can not simply forget about other elements for education reform, such as overhauling our standardized testing system.  Instead our politicians need to develop/restructure our education policy, taking every aspect into consideration.

Denver teachers' merit-pay plan is receiving attention among 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, and for good reason.  The program is designed to reward teachers who document student progress, improve their teaching skills and agree to work in hard-to-serve schools.  Those who meet these criteria are eligible for a $1026 bonus.

Charged with the most important job in the country, teachers are finally being given an incentive to challenge themselves and our children to push the (mostly) mediocre boundaries of this nation's educational system.  This country's CEOs lead many of the most important companies in the world, and they are compensated on the basis of their performance.  So don't we owe it to our children and our prospects for continued economic growth to compensate our teachers on their performance?  After all, teachers are shaping our future human resource pipeline.  If they do not have the tools and the incentives to produce the best and brightest graduates in the world, our CEOs will soon be replaced by more competent ones from other countries.

Merit-pay represents systemic change in our present education system, potentially requiring a great deal of persistence, short-term sacrifice and goodwill; however, if we don't move ahead we will continue to nourish a system of disincentives that is broadening our children's achievement gap internationally.