The move afoot to increase school nutrition money by taking it out of food stamps is as bad an idea as funding the education jobs bill by, yes, taking it out of food stamps. In the case of child nutrition, you're in many cases taking dinner money away from the whole family to give more money for the kids' lunches. (The income eligibility requirements for school lunches are higher than that of food stamps, so kids whose families do not qualify for food stamps may qualify for free or reduced lunches.) In many cases in Worcester, the schools are feeding kids two of their three meals a day--it's important--but we'd like to be sure they get dinner, too.
Congressman McGovern's got this one absolutely right:
--'though perhaps it's more like robbing Peter's dinner to pay for Peter's lunch.
“I want to pass a child nutrition bill. I am committed to the first lady’s campaign. I want to be helpful. But I won’t vote for a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul. The White House needs to work with us to find a better way to offset the cost.”
This is the end result of the Democrats capitulating and allowing the Republicans to frame the debate with their rhetoric. The Repbublicans frame the debate, the Democrats fumble all over themselves trying to fit the frame, then the Republicans do the exact opposite of what they suggested after the Democrats have spent considerable time looking like bumbling idiots. At the end of the day it's all based around the inability of the Democratic Party to learn basic marketing techniques.
ReplyDeleteThe Political Mind by George Lakoff explains the whole thing, but the Democrats are looking for sound bytes and catch phrases and not a strategy that leads to success.