Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Guns vs. Butter

Tom Laskawy is not happy. "Most advocates of school lunch reform, including the White House, agree that the program needs at least $1 billion dollars in additional money to make school meals healthier and more accessible," he writes. That's not a ton of money, but then, few see school lunches as a particularly high priority. Few think this has much chance of happening amid record deficits and seas of debt. And then you read things like this:

The Senate voted Wednesday to spend $2.5 billion on 10 military cargo jets that the Obama administration does not want.

The 64-34 vote came on an amendment to the defense appropriations bill. The House has already approved a defense appropriations bill that includes money for the C-17s.

The difference between guns and butter is that Congress is willing to admit that butter costs money.

By Ezra Klein  |  October 1, 2009; 4:22 PM ET
Categories:  Food  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Many Public Option Compromises
Next: What If They Passed Single-Payer and Didn't Tell Anyone?

Comments

Maybe they can airlift the lunches to the kids that need them. MRE anyone?

Posted by: srw3 | October 1, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

We have to find a way to get a Constitutional version of the line item veto passed again. Representative democracy simply does not work for defense appropriations when 95% of Senators get jobs for their state through those appropriations.

Posted by: Jenn2 | October 1, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

No, the difference between guns and butter is that buying more guns puts people in congressional districts to work, directly. Buying more butter just feeds a bunch of kids who can't vote.

Posted by: karlpopper1 | October 1, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Well theres no such thing as a free lunch. But 'free iraq' or 'free kosovo' are real.

Posted by: yoyoy | October 1, 2009 10:19 PM | Report abuse

"The difference between guns and butter is that Congress is willing to admit that butter costs money."

Truth.

Posted by: rt42 | October 2, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

To karlpopper1, while I know you're being facetious, on the point of putting people to work, it's worth checking out a University of Massachusetts study showing how defense spending is not the best way to create jobs - http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/PERI_IPS_WAND_study.pdf

Posted by: ohiotodc815 | October 2, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Wait, are you saying more butter in the school lunches would be good, or bad? Butter is a natural food...to replace it, you need to use an unnatural food such as trans fat, which most don't do anymore but who knows (and <.5g of trans fat doesn't need to be reported on labels), or an oil. Show of hands, who thinks the school lunch program uses olive oil? Anyone? OK, how about coconut oil .. another natural one. No? Let's see ... corn oil, soybean oil, now those are the likely winners ... loaded with omega 6, created through highly unnatural processes. Careful whatcha wish for...

Posted by: mb129 | October 2, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company