Coalition lobbies House to pass Michelle Obama-backed child nutrition bill ($4.5 billion)

The Hill ^ | 11/10/2010 | Julian Pecquet`

[Brookhaven]

More than 1,100 groups signed a letter distributed Thursday on Capitol Hill that asks House members to immediately pass a childhood nutrition bill when they return next week.

Signers include food, beverage and supermarket companies; public health, education, anti-hunger, faith-based, children's, women's, minority groups; and unions. They want the House to pass a $4.5 billion bill that cleared the Senate by unanimous consent just before the August recess.

[CaliforniaCon]

RE: “One place to save...

Stop all school based food programs.

We provide food stamps to families. They can feed their own.

I took a lunch to school every day. Somehow I survived. The lunch was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich each day. I loved it.

You can’t tell me that people who want to support their kids can’t find a way to come up with the few dollars needed to feed them.

Oatmeal isn’t that expensive. Cream of wheat isn’t that expensive. A few eggs per week, aren’t that expensive.

Bread isn’t that expensive. Generic brands of peanut butter aren’t that expensive.

And if families don’t want to feed their kids, then put the kids in a kid friendly place where they can be fed an taught some good values. It sure beats the gang infested areas we have today.

My heart has bled enough. It’s time to clean up our act. And this school breakfast program is worthless.”

*********************

Agree — a friend is a long-time substitute teacher for LAUSD, in the ‘city’ neighborhoods. He has seen it all — and one of the things he’s seen is parents or whomever taking the kids from school directly to whatever fast food joint happens to be across the street from school — this...after the same kids have consumed, or at least been offered, the free lunch AND BREAKFAST in some cases.

Heaven forbid those who should be responsible for kids actually have to make sure they get three meals a day. Reports are that there is terrible waste, as kids don’t find the offerings all that appealing at times.

These same kids are, in about half the cases, OVERWEIGHT in the first place. Yeah, if I were getting food at school and from fast food joints and undoubtedly at home as well, I’d be really overweight, too.

I am so sick of all this catering to the so-called unfortunates and/or illegals that I can’t stand it anymore. I am almost ready to trade great weather and 55 years in L.A. for a more ‘normal’ environment in some ‘red’ state.

If the USA would just STOP this insane spending, zip up the borders, drop the feeding and education of illegals and most of all, STOP employers from giving work to illegals, a lot of our problems would resolve. But we know that won’t be happening.................. what a pathetic mess we are in.

[N3WBI3]

Anyone who wants to see what “Government Standards” do to the ability to serve healthy food should watch “Food Revolution”..

When the federal govt can say what is and what is not a healthy food (e.g. food we will pay you to serve) Potatoes get counted as vegetables (no doubt someone in a potato producing state pushed that one, I’m looking at you Idaho).

So a healthy meal *include french fries*

Watch food revolution, lobby your congress-critter to take control of the lunch room out of DC, and get engaged with your kids school about what they serve.

[LadyShires]

Amen! You know, I still love a fried egg sandwich to this day and so does my sister. That’s what I took to elementary school in my “Bonanza” lunch pail :).

[Finop]

One cannot legislate the morality or health of another. What the Monkey woman is attempting to do is legally extort money from the taxpayer under the guise of helping children. What a sick individual.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

[SMARTY]

Were you ever in the checkout behind an overweight person? Did you notice what they bought?

UNBELIEVEABLE!!!!! I don't eat THAT much junk food in a YEAR... and THEY call it ‘groceries’!!!

[LadyShires]

Ever notice how those who “can’t feed their kids” usually smoke a couple packs a day? Either that or they weigh more than my horse.

[Armando Guerra]

And so it begins. By not funding it Republicans will be accused of wanting school kids to be malnourished. I said it in another post and I will say it here. The Republicans need to set a strict budget amount and argue the priorities of what gets funded. Instead of it being that the Republicans want kids to eat poorly it can be that Obama picked the kids lunches over granny's meds.

[Wuli]

I have a better idea:

(a) reduce Federal income taxes by $4.499,000 billion, leaving that money in the states, regions and localities where it came from,

(b) allow the difference - $0.001,000 billion to be spent on publishing “voluntary nutrition information guidelines” for schools and

(c) leaving 100% of the balance of the benevolent intentions to the states and localities to deal with however they chose (or chose not) to deal with.

If “we” have the money for this program, and if “we” want to give it a priority for it, there is no need to take the money for it out of the states and localities, give it to the corrupt swamp known as Washington D.C., return a portion of the money back to the states and localities as some sort of “gift” from Washington D.C. for this program, reduce local control and increase federal power; when all we need to do is make such programs ourselves in our states and localities - IF WE WANT TO. OR, spend the money on more pressing needs!!!

[N3WBI3]

Read the Article... They are going to take the 4.5 Billion from food stamps...

It’s like using Discover to pay off your visa...

[mmercier]

In my experience, if you want to stop children from becoming obese, you stop feeding them.

In my experience, the obese children I know live with obese mothers who sell their food cards for half on the dollar value and buy drugs.

This is nothing more than an attempt to extend federal control over every aspect required for survival.

These people in control of the government became the same pigs they bitched about in the 60’s and 70’s. The caveat being the reality that they shall now determine who is granted the privilege to be either a buyer or seller of everything required to survive. They control the banking system, they may have assumed control of the health care system; all that remains is control over your food.

This is nothing new.

We will likely submit to this to avoid mass mayhem.

I know these animals like I know every scar on my body. I also know that mayhem and bad actions are the only method to eradicate such varmints.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate both of your comments in response to my post. Thank you.

CaliforniaCon, you touched on the kids who are heavy-set. The Left plays both ends of the spectrum on the issue of school food. We must have it because kids are going hungry. At the same time they are telling us all our kids are obese and we need to cut the calories they are eating. So which is it?

Yes, these kids are eating fast food. We all know it. Go to their homes and you’ll find bags of chips and unhealthy choices galore. We all know it. This isn’t rocket science.

LadyShires, you mentioned egg sandwiches. Our big treat on Saturday night as kids was having egg sandwiches and popcorn. We thought we had died and gone to heaven.

I realize we live in a more complex world today, but these aren’t empty suggestions or remembrances. When you don’t have a lot, you find a way to make do.

I don’t think there’s a church out there that wouldn’t scrape up some food for a family in need. If I were leaned upon in that setting, I would be glad to voluntarily help out. So would most people.

This would create a one on one contact that could help the family develop income streams.

These government handouts are defeatist, wasteful, and extremely ill-advised IMO.

[mmercier]

Your post is prescient, and will likely be either ignored or derided.

This is what is happening in our midst.

[quintr]

Instead of passing this expensive bill, why not collect unpaid income taxes that federal employees owe?

[Fast Moving Angel]

Just one question ... who the hell elected HER?

[Maryland Man]

“It’s my buck asshole.”

Name calling — great. Welcome to FR.

Your idea of taking the children from the parent and putting them in a safe environment. Very good - are you willing to pay for that? How do you propose that be done? It is easy to write about it without being required to take action.

Take a good hard look at the program before making your assumptions and where the money is really going. Like I said, I do not agree with the whole bill and question the need for increased spending. I have also made that point with the USDA, most likely with no avail. There are those of us within the government programs trying to make them more efficient from within and being successful at it. Unfortunately there are not enough of us.

[DoughtyOne]

“It’s my buck asshole.”

Name calling — great. Welcome to FR.

Look, you may be doing your best to make the system work well, but you are still taking my money to do it.  And if I object stridently, I'm the problem.  I am NOT the problem.  People who think it's okay to take my money and spend it any way they like ARE.

Your idea of taking the children from the parent and putting them in a safe environment. Very good - are you willing to pay for that?

I'd be far more willing to support that, than I would be to support sending those kids back to a home where the parents don't care enough to feed them.

How do you propose that be done? It is easy to write about it without being required to take action.

I would support there being 'Boys Town' type facilities where kids could be looked after, fed, clothed, and educated.  Why?

All of a sudden you would see kids fed at home.  All of a sudden you would see parents snap to attention rather than lose their chidlren.  Children would come to school with manners and respect.  Parents wouldn't be able to exhibit any sort of behavior and get away with keeping their kids in the home, or allowing them to participate in gangs, or just screw off instead of study.

So what we would see, is far less children being neglected at home.  Only a very small percentage of these kids would need to be institutionalized.

And yes, funds to provide this would be taken from me too.  The fact of the matter is that our society would turn out far better adults than we are now.  These kids that don't get fed are not being supported at home.  How's that working out for us?  Today we feed this little urchins and tomorrow we scrape them off the pavement after they've destroyed property, others, and themselves.

The fact of the matter is, in a number of these instances funds for the care of the child would be transferred from the family setting to the insitutional setting anyway.

Take a good hard look at the program before making your assumptions and where the money is really going.

Aren't the funds going to feed children?  Shouldn't those children be fed at home?  What am I missing?

Like I said, I do not agree with the whole bill and question the need for increased spending. I have also made that point with the USDA, most likely with no avail. There are those of us within the government programs trying to make them more efficient from within and being successful at it. Unfortunately there are not enough of us.

I have a relative who provides health care to children at school.  If they didn't, the kids probably woudn't get fundamental health care.  Am I in favor of the program?  No.  Parents need to provide for their children.  The government (and what we're really talking about here is you, I, and others) should not be underwriting this.

This cradle to the grave conept drives me nuts.  People are free to persue their own goals.  The government does not owe them anything.  Period.

The only reason why I would sign on to a 'Boys Town' type effort, is to protect society from what these kids will become if we don't step in.  They will constantly be a drain on our society as they sap law enforcement, health care, welfare, counseling, housing, food stamp, and other service dollars out of our economy.

Either demand the parents help them become productive members of society, or take them out of the loop.  This generational nightmare needs to end.

Imagine whole neighborhoods in the inner city without graphitti, without vandelism, without drugs, without drive-by shootings.  I think the food programs are masking far more dire situations.

[AbolishCSEU]

she’s GOTTA be wearing a weave/wig. Your hair falls out when you are that thin. I lost 60 lbs and hair fell out in handfuls. Thank god it’s back now.

[Maryland Man]

We do agree on much and can ahve a great discussion without name-calling.

The primary problem in all this is the breakdown of the family unit - fatherless homes - a culture that does not feel the family home responsibility is important.

Dan Qauyle was assailed in the early 90’s when he questioned the character of Murphy Brown promoting having a child without a father. How many people, who agreed with Quayle, had the courage to stand with him. Very few.

I see too many young boys in schools with no father figure or mentor, who will end up hooking up with someone willing to take that role to their own advantage, and the cycle continues.

[DoughtyOne]

We do agree on much and can ahve a great discussion without name-calling.

There are some programs that really push my buttons.  This is one of them.  Sometimes I'll enter a thread on a subject like this full tilt rather than with finesse.  Your comments about name calling aren't unreasoned at all.

On top of the issues I've already addressed, other programs are tied to the numbers of kids on food programs.  Some schools encourage kids to get on the program, even if they don't qualify, in part due to the impact on other funding.  So this goes beyond the obvious.

The primary problem in all this is the breakdown of the family unit - fatherless homes - a culture that does not feel the family home responsibility is important.

I completely agree.  This is at least one root of the problem.  It's also a problem of children being in our nation that don't belong here.  In my region, that's as big an issue as the other.

Dan Qauyle was assailed in the early 90’s when he questioned the character of Murphy Brown promoting having a child without a father. How many people, who agreed with Quayle, had the courage to stand with him. Very few.

Well, I agreed with him.  I voiced agreement for all the good it did.  We didn't have much of a voice in those days.  Those days are over.

I see too many young boys in schools with no father figure or mentor, who will end up hooking up with someone willing to take that role to their own advantage, and the cycle continues.

That's true.  It's also one of the reasons why it is so destructive to watch the liberals and race-baiters enable illegality and abysmal behavior.  "Oh it's society's fault don't you know..."

Thanks for the additional comments.  I appreciate it.