Posted on 09/28/2012 7:11:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
In response to the growing outrage over the one-size-fits-all, top-down lunch menu regulations handed down by Michelle Obama and bureaucrats in Washington, DC, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack offered an incredible response: Let them eat snacks!
Translation: no need to evaluate the program that is being met with dissatisfaction from coast-to-coast. We’ll just create another program.
"It's not surprising that some youngsters will in the middle of the day be hungry,” Vilsack told ABC News, responding to the controversy. “I remember my two boys when they came back from school they were always hungry, we always had snacks prepared for them.”
Vilsack said the Obama Administration is working with school districts to create snack programs and encouraging parents to pack extra food for their active students to munch on before football practice or band rehearsal.
Why not just give them enough to eat at lunch?
"’We understand that change is difficult,’ Vilsack said. ‘Some folks love it, some folks have had questions about it, but that's to be expected when you're dealing with 32 million children and you're dealing with over a hundred thousand school districts.’"
So Vilsack’s answer to upset students in Wisconsin: eat a snack. The same message goes for hungry kids who have spoken out in South Dakota and Massachusetts: eat a snack. And the school cafeteria worker in Montana who dared to question the program: serve the food and pipe down.
Apparently the government is not interested in listening to the people about the problem it’s created. But what else is new?
Why not just give them enough to eat at lunch?
Even if it’s a big lunch, a normal kid will probably be hungry again a couple hours after they eat it.
Aren’t snacks counter to the wookies’ stop obesity program?
A snack doesn’t mean it has to be a case of Ding Dongs. It can be an apple.
They are just ripping the kids off ,stealing kids lunch money
Back in the 1950s and ‘60s most schools had a privately owned ice cream shop near that served hotdogs and hamburgers to those students who chose not to eat at the school cafeteria.
The “closed Campus” policies of the 1970s killed off that competition.
You forgot the little warning flags.
“’We understand that change is difficult,’ Vilsack said. ‘Some folks love it, some folks have had questions about it, but that’s to be expected when you’re dealing with 32 million children and you’re dealing with over a hundred thousand school districts.’”
But, one size fits all. That is the message you get. Just like healthcare. Yeah, changing from Freedom to tyranny is difficult.
I remember my grammar school years (1952-60). Every week we paid our milk money charge. Every day we had one container of milk in class. We were allowed to bring a snack from home too, and I always brought saltine crackers spread with butter.
Oh, man, I had forgotten how GOOD those were ...
What else could it be? Michelle should know that no two kids have the same caloric needs.
(h/t Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist)
(can someone put this Hitler mustache on Moochelle?)
Yeah, back then you went to the grammar school in your neighborhood. Ours was about 5 minutes from our house. We used to go home for lunch everyday. One of my favorites was tomato soup and a bottle of Nehi Cherry soda. Don't ask me why, but I liked having a slice or two of bologna, and dip it in the soup before eating it. I was a very picky eater back then, and the thought of doing that with bologna and tomato soup today turns my stomach.
It’s already happening. In one school, I think in Mass, a kikd brought chocolate sauce to school and was selling it for a quarter a shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.