Nutrition bill

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2005
Nutrition bill
32
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 8:33am






Michelle Obama's nutrition bill fails in the House

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42970.html#ixzz116sSE2VS


By ABBY PHILLIP | 9/30/10 4:31 PM EDT Updated: 10/1/10 7:55 AM EDT












A bloc of progressive House Democrats resisted heavy White House lobbying and an 11th-hour push to broker a compromise on a child nutrition bill, ending chances that the legislation — a pet project of first lady Michelle Obama — would pass before the November midterm elections.



At the root of the impasse: a proposed $2.2 billion cut in future funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food stamps for the poor. Despite personal appeals by the first lady, the Democrats balked at what they saw as a plan to pay for the nutrition bill by quietly cutting SNAP — an essential food safety net that lawmakers had already borrowed from to pay for emergency aid to states.







White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said the administration has committed to restoring any proposed cuts to SNAP and will do all it can to move the $8 billion bill forward.



“SNAP is not blocking the bill,” he said. “We’re working with the House leadership to schedule the bill as soon as it fits into the House schedule.”



But Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who co-wrote a letter to the White House opposing the use of SNAP funds, told POLITICO that he and 106 others who signed it “have been saying everything we possibly could to make it clear that this would be a problem.”



Still, “there is a pledge to try to help us work this out,” he said.



Advocates for the poor and most Capitol Hill Democrats eagerly support the child nutrition bill’s provisions, which include broader access to free or reduced-price school meal programs and improved nutritional standards. The bill dovetails with the first lady’s high-profile “Let’s Move!” initiative to reduce childhood obesity, and she was personally involved in moving the bill through the legislative process.



But observers say the White House should have seen trouble coming in August, when the Senate passed a less ambitious version of the bill and proposed funding it with another cut to the food stamp program. Lobbying House Democrats to support the smaller Senate bill didn’t begin until late September — too late to iron out a deal before the midterm elections, when Republicans are poised to make big gains and perhaps take control of the House.



Advocates also say the House never had the option to pass their larger bill, despite attempts stretching into September to find ways to pay for it without adding to the deficit. Opponents of the smaller Senate bill say their opposition to SNAP cuts had been well known since August.



“A lot of the progressive Democrats were unrealistic about what could be done,” said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “If wanted their own bill, they should have finished it before the August recess.”



Unaccustomed to counting congressional votes for nutrition legislation that is reauthorized every six years without much drama, advocates galvanized early this week to push reluctant Democrats. They were stunned by the last-minute House gridlock, compared with the Senate, which passed the bill by unanimous consent in August as part of its usual bipartisan effort to reauthorize federal nutrition programs.



But as the search for alternative funding for the House version stretched into the fall, key anti-hunger organizations like Feeding America and the Food Research and Action Center, which supported the original bill, bucked the first lady and dug in their heels when the scaled-down Senate version became the standard — and SNAP cuts were part of the bargain.



Wednesday night, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office said she is committed to bringing up the bill when the House reconvenes after the elections, but passing it during a lame-duck session is a gamble at best.



“I would love to be on that phone call where Nancy Pelosi has to tell the first lady why she wasn’t able to pass this,” said one nutrition advocate who spoke on condition of anonymity.









Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 10:11am

Making sure I have this right.......I hate to make a comment and then be told I misunderstood.



The bill did not pass because the funding for the new program was going to be paid for by taking funds from the food stamp program?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2005
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 10:17am
According to the WH, that part was going to be 'fixed'....I don't think the Dems believed the WH would fix it.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2005
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 10:19am

The bill actually passed the Senate with 100% support...here is that info



http://markbittman.com/senate-passes-child-nutrition-bill








iVillage Member
Registered: 11-02-2009
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 10:48am

It's reaching to pretend to know what was in the minds of Democrats who denied passage of the bill.

The federal free and reduced meal programs for children are quite generous currently. No need to change and take money out of the hands of underfed adults and children not in school. It's a recession, we tighten our belts.

If money were taken away from the Food Stamp program, the lost funds would come from somewhere else. Mismanagement of funds is a well-known Republican value.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 10:51am
Hm.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 10:53am

"The federal free and reduced meal programs for children are quite generous currently."



But nutritionally, school food isn't that great.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-02-2009
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 11:12am

Not funds. Rather, parents. Administrators. School leaders.

THAT's what our Congress should do - instead of mismanaging tax money. Demand nutritious meals or withdraw federal funding to the states who don't offer nutritious menus and use decent catering companies. It's done all the time. No additional money required.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2010
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 11:31am
Having raised two sons who could care less about nutrition, I have to wonder about this whole thing. My sons simply wouldn't eat school lunch meals that were "nutritious," because neither one cared whether he is hungry by 4 p.m. If a school lunch was something they didn't like (such as liver, brussel sprouts, and salad), they'd simply not partake. The junky lunches in their high school cafeteria were foods that appealed to young people (pizza, tacos, hamburgers, hot dogs). I absolutely agree that lunches should be nutritious, but I feel like it would be foolish to prepare lunches that young people won't eat. No amount of funding will change the bad eating habits of young people.
~Opal~
~Opal~    
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-10-2010
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 11:39am

Yeah, but nutrious doesn't have to be liver and brussel sprouts.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: nivri_bug
Fri, 10-01-2010 - 1:13pm

<>



I disagree with that. It would take a lot of funding, but you can teach young people to eat well.

 


 


I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure

Pages