Saturday, December 04, 2010

Thank You, Michelle Obama

And I say that as sarcastically as I can. Sure, USDA officials say they won't really ban bake sales:

A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.

Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.

This is the kind of crap you get with activist government.

11 comments:

mazenko said...

Bake sales are already illegal under most state and county health departments. Food produced in unregulated home kitchens cannot be sold for public profit and consumption. Few places are going to bust a church or school, but I've had colleagues be shut down by county health. In one respect it's a ridiculous overreach - in another .... have you seen some people's kitchens?

maxutils said...

How would the health department know where the baked goods had been prepared?

MikeAT said...

Mike, I think you’re missing Darren’s point. It’s none of the business of B Hussein Obama, his wife or Tom Vilsack if a school decides to sell brownies to raise money of the school or allow the Girl Scouts to sell cookies for the troop. That is a decision for a school administrator (like the principal) to make.

If the “Bake sales are already illegal under most state and county health departments.” I have no issue with that…that is the business of the state and county and other local officials. Can’t speak for the People’s Republic of California or Colorado but they are still legal here!

Ellen K said...

It's just another means of controlling us. She also wants the FDA to come up with guidelines for a school dinner program. So if we are feeding the kids breakfast, lunch and dinner and providing both before and after school care, what are the parents doing?

mazenko said...

Actually, Mike, if it's food sales for public consumption, it is precisely the business of the state/county regulatory agencies. By the way, you might check your county health laws - you'd be surprised.

Max, if you are selling food for public consumption you need to provide evidence of a licensed and inspected kitchen. That burden falls on the seller if investigated - and like I said, I know of it happening.

Ellen, it's not about seeking to control - it's about seeking to help. It is precisely because the parents don't, and sometimes can't, provide it that the schools are. Certainly, it creates a potential dependency problem, but I don't see most Americans intentionally not feeding their kids because the school will. And while the Congress debates the nanny state, some kids simply need food now. You may not have any experience with this, but I have, and it's not a pretty picture out there for a lot of children.

Incidentally, one of the most significant roles schools like Geoffery Canada's HCZ plays in helping poor kids achieve is by feeding them.

Darren said...

"Ellen, it's not about seeking to control - it's about seeking to help."

What great American was it who said that the scariest words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"? (yes, I know who it was)

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster

mazenko said...

I completely concede and agree with the inherent problems and the conflict with the Constitution. But if I'm stuck with the choice of accidentally helping someone too much or duly ignoring the crisis of the truly needy, I am going to choose to err on the side of excessive compassion. Ben Franklin said, "God helps those who help themselves." But Christ didn't. And if we as a nation are going to constantly tout the Judeo-Christian ideals of our government, then we shouldn't deny the role of charity in that government.

Anonymous said...

Breakfast, lunch, dinner, before school care, after school care...

How have we gotten to the point where we don't have to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps? Sure, I know people can fall on hard times, especially in this economy, but we are talking about a whole culture dependent upon and expectant of government support.

MikeAT said...

Darren, you beat me to it....this may bring chills to you from 1/3 AD...

"We're from battatlion/division and we're here to help."

Mike

If I may quote myself, "If the 'Bake sales are already illegal under most state and county health departments.' I have no issue with that…that is the business of the state and county and other local officials." We are in agreement. That is for cities/counties/states to handle. The morons who are running the federal government are trying to stick their stupid noses into a local matter again.

Won't argue with you that I would be blown away by city and county ordinances...but we can still let our kiddies sell cokies. We don't need approval of The Deputy Junior Assistant Vice Idiot for Multicutural Food Affairs (SW Texas Division) to let the Girl Scouts loose! And I would take your judgement over B Hussein Obama, et all.

Darren said...

Mazenko, government doesn't provide charity--since government takes all its money by force.

Ellen K said...

The government's definition of "help" is the same as everyone else's defiition of demand."