DN Editorial: The Cookie Monster ignores hungry kids

IN THE SAME WEEK that it was reported that a stunning 18 percent of Americans are still struggling to find adequate food for their families, conservative icon Sarah Palin was channeling a certain clueless, 18th century French princess.

Let them eat cookies was the former vice presidential candidate's message when visiting a Christian school in Plumsteadville, Bucks County, on Tuesday. Palin brought along a couple hundred sugar cookies to mock the Pennsylvania Board of Education's recent recommendation to limit sweets at classroom parties in public schools.

"Who should be making the decisions about what you eat?" Palin asked. "Should it be government or should it be parents? It should be parents."

But, while Palin is standing strong for the inalienable rights of moms and dads to stuff their kids full of of refined sugar and fat, millions of other parents are grateful that the federal government funds free or reduced-rate school lunches, breakfasts, after-school snacks and suppers - 7 billion school meals each year. It is the only food many of these children get to eat.

Two different worlds, we live in two different worlds: Palin's sugar-sweetened universe and the one described in a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture last week. The USDA says that in August, 42,389,619 Americans (about 14 percent of the population) used food stamps. That's up 17 percent from a year ago and 58.5 percent since 2007, before the recession began.

Actually, that's good news: the Food Research Action Council estimates that an increase in food-stamp benefits and eligibility that was included in last year's federal stimulus has reduced the number of families experiencing "food hardship."

So it is nothing short of grotesque that, during the "lame duck" session that begins today, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider a bill that would end the increase in food stamps early to save $2.2 billion. The "savings" would go to pay for half of the also desperately needed $4.5 billion Child Nutrition Act.

The "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act" - let's pause a moment to savor the bitter irony - is the centerpiece of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign against childhood obesity. It would do a lot of good: increase the number of kids who are eligible for free and reduced-price school meals; establish nutritional standards for all food in schools; increase federal reimbursements for school lunches by six cents to a princely $2.78. That would allow schools to provide more fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains to the meals.

But the new law's benefits would come at the expense of other mothers' children. Drexel University professor Mariana Chilton describes this dilemma: "When an animal is stuck in a trap, sometimes the animal will have to bite off its own hand. We're stuck in that situation."

Last summer, when Democratic leadership of the U.S. Senate voted to sacrifice food-stamp funding for school-food funding, several progressive members of the House said they would oppose the outrageous choice. But if the bill isn't passed in its current form before the end of the year, its supporters would have to start all over again in the next Congress - and try to make the case for child nutrition to the new Republican majority, many of whom live in the same world as Sarah Palin.

So House members should do what they must to get out of the current trap, while holding the White House to a promise to restore food-stamp funding.

The rest of us should work for a world in which we don't rob from the poor to give to the poor. *