Should Our Tax Money Be Used to Fund Public Service Campaigns?

or build roads and bridges?

Actually, I was thinking. Every First Lady has their cause, Michelle Obama's is "fighting childhood obesity."

Wouldn't fighting "childhood poverty" be a better cause? Fighting "childhood illiteracy."

I would think that now, with the US in the state its in, all these public service announcements should be about staying in school, working hard, getting good grades, and embracing middle class-ness, not worrying about whether or not you should be eating a bag of Fritos or a bag of carrots.

Story #7: Michelle Obama's War on Fat is Spreading

RUSH: From The Daily Caller website: "Michelle Obama isn’t the only one waging a war on obesity. Unbeknownst to them, taxpayers are too. A stimulus-funded anti-obesity campaign has spread throughout the country. And the $650 million Recovery Act program called Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) --" that sounds communist-like. Yeah, FDR-like, you know, the CCCP. That was the USSR. "The $650 million Recovery Act program called Communities Putting Prevention to Work is funding not just anti-obesity campaigns in New York City, but campaigns throughout the country.

"Thirty-one localities -- from cities in Hawaii to Maine to South Carolina -- have received grants to combat the effects of sugary drinks. The state of California was by far the biggest beneficiary, receiving $55.1 million to do things like 'reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and promote healthy eating' and 'implement physical education policies in schools.'" Now, that money would hire a lot of teachers if they were concerned about jobs. So we have a total here of $650 million spent on this anti-obesity program, 31 localities. The state of California got $55 million. Of the $55 million to study reducing sugar sweetened beverage consumption, $32 million went to Los Angeles, $16 million went to San Diego, $6.9 million went to Santa Clara, and it says here that California's one of the country's slimmest states.

"Washington State received $25.5 million in taxpayer dollars to fight obesity. The grant went directly to the Seattle and King County Department of Public Health. However, according to Forbes rankings, Seattle is one of the top ten fittest cities in America. Nonetheless, in 2010, Seattle announced a campaign to reduce consumption of sugary drinks, modeled after 'materials developed in New York City.' The Philadelphia Department of Public Health received $25.4 million to 'make healthy foods more available and affordable' and remove 'unhealthy food' from schools." Why does this cost any money? You have here a campaign, okay, don't drink sugary drinks. What does it even require? The whole thing is... I don't even want to go there. I don't even want to go to tabulating the money. The idea that taxpayer dollars in a recession were used for this during a time we were told it was all for job creation. We're talking about 75, 80% of the money in Wisconsin went to teachers. The balance of it went to stuff like this. That's why there are no new roads or bridges or any of the sort.

_________________
In the interests of Order and Method: My Schedule of Regular Posts
*Monday through Friday morning - schedules of President, VP and Secretary of State and her diplomats
*Monday through Friday afternoon - List of topics Limbaugh discussed on his program that day
*Monday through Friday througout the day - My posts on anything that I feel like talking about. At least one or two a day, sometimes more.
*Saturday through Sunday morning - An addition to my booklist of political books - covering Democrats, Republicans and other interested parties.