Michelle's Food Fight and Fire Shinseki

Mark Levy
Fri, 30 May 2014 21:00:00 -0700
Opinion

Dear Mark: Why does everything have to be political? Now Republicans are going after First Lady Michelle Obama and her pursuit of healthier kids through better nutrition. Healthy kids should be a universal goal supported by both parties, yet Republicans are trying to undo all of Michelle's progress. Isn't there anything the Obama's do that pleases Republicans? — Happy Vegan in Nevada

Dear Happy: This is not about politics other than a bill before congress; this is about money — plain and simple. Many school systems across the country are having trouble making ends meet due to the federal nutrition regulations implemented in 2010. The cost of a school lunch has gone up, while the participation rate has decreased sharply, causing school districts to lose money.

In acting more like a drama queen than a First Lady, Michelle Obama has gone hyperbolic claiming Republicans in the House want to "roll back everything we have worked for." That is hardly the case. According to the USA Today, "House Republicans said the proposal — part of an Agriculture Department appropriations bill would be a temporary waiver for schools that are having financial trouble meeting the new food standards."
Updated: Sat May 31, 2014

Dear Mark: Why does everything have to be political? Now Republicans are going after First Lady Michelle Obama and her pursuit of healthier kids through better nutrition. Healthy kids should be a universal goal supported by both parties, yet Republicans are trying to undo all of Michelle's progress. Isn't there anything the Obama's do that pleases Republicans? — Happy Vegan in Nevada

Dear Happy: This is not about politics other than a bill before congress; this is about money — plain and simple. Many school systems across the country are having trouble making ends meet due to the federal nutrition regulations implemented in 2010. The cost of a school lunch has gone up, while the participation rate has decreased sharply, causing school districts to lose money.

In acting more like a drama queen than a First Lady, Michelle Obama has gone hyperbolic claiming Republicans in the House want to "roll back everything we have worked for." That is hardly the case. According to the USA Today, "House Republicans said the proposal — part of an Agriculture Department appropriations bill would be a temporary waiver for schools that are having financial trouble meeting the new food standards."

Basically, this bill gives school districts the choice to opt out of the federal lunch mandates if they are losing money. How could Michelle and Democrats be against choice? So let's see if I've got this right. According to the First Lady, a woman has the right to choose to kill her unborn baby, but a local school district should not have the right to choose mashed potatoes over bean sprouts.

The First Lady also went after Republicans in a New York Times Op-Ed bemoaning the fact that some politicians want white potatoes "included on the list of foods that can be purchased using WIC dollars." Gosh, does everything have to be about race? While Mrs. Obama is whining about the dangers of white potatoes to low-income women, infants and children, she might want to investigate the crap that food stamp recipients buy with their EBT cards. Oh, wait, Democrats wouldn't want to anger one of their major voting blocs, now would they?

Washington may have a printing press to crank out more cash, but your local ISD doesn't. This speaks to the larger problem of a bloated government micromanaging every aspect of our lives. If Washington insists on ramming through unaffordable nutrition standards, then other areas of education will have to suffer. Although the First Lady's intentions may be honorable, the reality is not working. Therefore decisions such as these are best left to local school boards.

On a side note, if President Obama would go after Syria, North Korea and Iran with half the aggressiveness that his wife goes after hamburgers, the world would be a much safer place.

Dear Mark: The VA scandal appears to be increasing exponentially with more clinics reporting serious problems. With the ever-increasing bad news, pressure is mounting to fire Veteran's Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki. Should he be fired? — Wiley Veteran

Dear Wiley: Heck yes he should be fired. Although Shinseki is a highly decorated military veteran, he has been head of the VA for almost six years and should have had a firmer grasp of what was going on. What's he been doing all these years?

Those who are against firing Shinseki argue that removing him does not solve the problem. And who would replace him anyway? The devil you know versus the devil you don't know makes sense if one is thinking about simply replacing Shinseki with another government lifer, but let's think outside the box. There's got to be somebody out there who has real world experience successfully salvaging flailing ventures.

Anybody have Mitt Romney's cell number?