It began as a pet-project for our First Lady, Michelle (please note the Phd. in Nutrition attached to her title). Appalled by the novel awareness of childhood obesity, no doubt discussed in great length at several of the $5,000-per plate dinner parties, the need to ‘fix’ such malaise became of pinnacle importance. The ‘deal’, probably sealed at a moment of pillow-talk, allegedly broadens the availability of qualified food to those in need–hungry kids; and this is a good thing. The government would subsidize the acquisition and distribution of food to the needy, via the school systems, to the tune of an additional 6 cents per needy child. I’m thinking the government buys groceries at a better rate than most of us, so this nickel-and-penny seems a plausible, workable figure. However, such benevolence needs to be more comprehensive and the clause that’s attached to this is that the government now determines what foods become available to the children while in school. Here, the focus is to remove those popular Twinkies from the vending machine in lieu of vacuum-sealed carrot sticks. I’m pretty sure that Hostess will support the change, understanding that they’re the culprit and not the one who’s dropping quarters in the machine. Yes, this is a well-thought-out program. It must have appealed to all those folks who know so much more about our kids than we do; it (the bill) didn’t hit the slightest of speed bump as it made its quick journey through the House and Senate.
Let’s examine some of the irony here; and explore, a little, on how narrow sighted this bill is when it actually becomes exercised.
To begin, let me hypothesize a moment in a mock, fictional interview with a grade-school child I will call, ‘Danny’.
“So, Danny, tell me, what did you have for breakfast yesterday?”
“Biscuits and gravy with bacon and sausage…and a Coke”, he replies.
“For lunch, at school?”
“They served us a vegetable plate with low-fat dressing and skim milk; but no one ate it. There’s a sixth-grader, ‘Eddie’, who sells Snickers and Butterfingers for $1.50 out of his backpack; and he does a good business. I pawned my Dad’s electric drill for $10, so I’m good for the week.”
“And what about dinner?”
“Fried chicken with gravy, mashed potatoes with gravy, black beans with gravy, peas with gravy, and a Coke.”
Everyone understand where this is going? That model Obama couple has circumvented the natural process of family structure, and how the individual family operates. Would educating the adults have any realistic impact on the goals set forth? Yes, there probably would be some positive results that would be created over time in conjunction with supporting, financially, the availability of ‘better’ food; but this isn’t as sensational as the Obama Nutrition plan and is therefore left to rot.
In passing this bill, the government, once again, enters into our homes and regulates how we may conduct our lives; and this is not good. Are we to expect, when dining out that the menu at our favorite restaurant will be riddled with ‘Government Approved Entrees’; or, better yet, that it will only serve such things? This country has always thrived as a model of choice and opportunity, and it should remain as such a model. This bill needs to die and Barack needs to be honest with his well-intentioned wife and explain to her the error of her shallow thinking.