I admit that I have gradually (or, in recent years, rapidly) lost much respect for the politicians that fill our legislative offices on both the state and national levels. But today, I believe the US Congress has hit a new low.
There has been much hand-wringing and political-posturing-enhanced protest over the adjournment forced by a 1-vote margin in the House of Representatives this week. This meant that the Bush-era tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 per year have not yet been "preserved," an unthinkable act of treason if one is to believe Rep. Boehner and his GOP cohorts (see my earlier post, "What's This I Hear About an Obama 'Tax Hike?'")
Similarly, there have been lots of eyebrows raised by the House's deferral of the ethics trials of Reps. Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters, both Democratic members on whom the House apparently has the goods. They've been naughty and they should be punished.
These actions are "politics as usual" inside the Washington Beltway these days; ho-hum, too bad...what else is new?
But there was also a little noted additional victim of the abruptly shortened legislative session. It is technically known as H.R. 5504 - Improving Nutrition for America's Children Act. It was the House version of a bill already unanimously passed by the Senate that would have provided an extra $4.5 billion over 10 years to help schools improve the quality of their lunches and extra nutrition programs for children, many of them from poverty-level homes.
Now, bad jokes about soybean burgers and stewed tomatoes aside (ah, the joys of yesteryear!)-- school lunch and breakfast programs have expanded greatly in recent years, and provide much of the week's nutritional value for children who are most at risk for health problems due to malnutrition. (Why this should be so in a country like America is a whole other topic!)
But the startling fact is that the federal contribution to this "entitlement" program that supplements the food for America's school children has not increased since 1973. Freaking 1973, people-- that's the year I was a freshman in high school enjoying some of the aforementioned soybean burgers in the lunch line at dear old Westview High!
Why not pass something that would seem to be as popular as doing a better job of feeding and educating America's children? It seems that the issue had become one more political "hot potato"-- sorry, kids, didn't mean to make you hungry with that metaphor.
The bill would have been partially funded by a reduction in another federal program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. You may recognize it by its popular moniker, Food Stamps. The proposal, backed and promoted heavily by First Lady Michelle Obama, would have taken $2 billion dollars from SNAP and used it for the school nutrition program. Proponents for food stamps cried foul, and got real busy phoning and emailing representatives.
The trick is this: the $2 billion dollars in SNAP money was a temporary program authorized in 2009 in order to deal with a potential rise in food prices that never happened. That's right...the money was approved and people got more money in their food stamps, but it turns out that the extra money wasn't needed. Food prices actually went down, not up!
So now, Mrs. Obama and others who are concerned for children thought it would be a no-brainer to redirect that money. Not so fast, my friend!
Jane Black, of the Washington Post, put it this way: "Supporters of the bill say it was simply too controversial in the lead-up to the mid-term elections. Polls show that voters are keen to see cuts in spending and more limited government and some feared that the bill, which would increase access to school meals for low-income children and limit junk foods in vending machines and buffet lines, would be seen as another expansion."
In other words, it might be good for the kids, but it would be bad for my poll numbers...so to hell with you, kids!
I wonder what Charlie Moore would say about this?
No comments:
Post a Comment