Rep. Lynn Woolsey [clueless]: Fighting Childhood Obesity at School
July 2, 2010
Note: We are going to add comments in the body of the blog article to refute what she is saying. – Editor
It’s been 30 years since the regulations limiting junk food sales in schools were updated, despite big changes in nutrition science. Today, 23 million children and adolescents are obese or overweight. Obesity rates for children between 6 and 11 years old have more than tripled over the last 40 years. [Note: so has this ban helped? NO! Liberals think that by limiting something they can change people's behavior, but obesity is on the RISE! Take a look in the mirror, Lynn. You're getting up there yourself!]
Throughout their lives, these children are at greater risk for heart disease, Type 2 Diabetes, stroke, cancer, and social and psychological problems. One of the most important ways to help fight this epidemic is to ensure that higher quality, more nutritious foods are sold throughout the day in our schools. [Note: This will not solve the problem. What it will take is a change in mindset!]
This is why I have introduced H.R. 1324, the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act, which requires that all foods sold in schools throughout the entire school day are based on the most current nutrition science. [Note: More nanny state government bureaucracy! We're too stupid to think for ourselves!]
This bill has 170 cosponsors and has been endorsed by over 90 public health, school, food and beverage industry, and nutrition groups, including the American Beverage Association, General Mills, and the American Heart Association. I am pleased that this language has been included in Chairman George Miller’s (D-CA) H.R. 5504, the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act. [Note: And if everyone said it was a good idea to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you do it, Lynn? (Please say yes!}]
This provision does not affect school parties or foods sold during sporting events or band concerts in which parents are present. It only regulates foods sold in schools, and allows USDA to exempt foods sold as part of fundraisers. It’s also important to realize that schools that are switching to selling healthier foods and are not losing revenue.
Studies by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Center for Weight and Health at U.C. Berkeley found that the majority of schools switching to healthier foods in their vending machines and a la carte lines actually increased their total revenues.
In other words, it is a win-win situation for schools—healthier students and a healthier bottom line as well.
[Note: This is a lose-lose for our schools since kids will now go off campus to the 7/11 or Safeway to buy their junk, leaving less time for studies. Lynne Woolsey, you are a loser! Resign now and let the grown ups run the government!]
Lynn Woolsey’s Arrogance Shows Again
June 21, 2010
Hey, Lynn! The Marin taxpayers own half the Golden Gate Bridge if anyone does. Our tolls keep it open! – FedUpEditor
I am Lynn Woolsey, congresswoman from Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, which means that I own half of the Golden Gate Bridge, so that makes me perfectly situated to talk about poor people, right? No, but I am perfectly prepared because I was one, a person in need of a lot of the discussion that you have in your volume that I am going to participate in and I was honored to be able to contribute to the volume about how culture shapes the way people in poverty live. I mean, we have to think about that, don’t we? What a concept. Values, norms, beliefs play very important roles in the way people meet the challenges of poverty, and as one of the essays in your volume illustrates, they also play important roles in shaping how lawmakers choose to address poverty issues. And it is a shame, a lot of people that make these decisions around here have never lived through anything but a really comfortable, easy life. But you know what? There are also a lot of members, even though they have not, that they get the picture. Our speaker [Nancy Pelosi] is one; I mean, she has had a very nice life. She understands and she cares very much about people who have less. So you do not have to have lived the life that I went through with my children at one point when we were on welfare to really get the picture. But, unfortunately, too many don’t and you can see it when all of a sudden the light goes on because they have got a grandchild with a disease, diabetes let us say, or something that they are facing – oh my goodness, this does happen. I am going on about my colleagues, but it is very important that even if they have not lived through something that you help them see and this volume that I participated in I hope they will read. The lesson I take from all of this is that those of us in Congress must constantly re-examine the way we frame problems on Capitol Hill. We have to see if we are keeping up with the changing reality on the ground.
In my commentary, I examined one area where lawmakers’ thinking and legislating has not kept pace at all, and that is the relationship between work and family. We are just starting to talk about that now, but it has been clear for many years now that the typical American family has changed. We used to be a nation of predominantly nuclear families, complete with one breadwinner, usually the male, and one at-home, full-time parent, 99.9 percent the female, home with the children, after school, what a nice way to live, Ozzie and Harriet. For the first time in history now women make up one-half of the workforce. Today four in five families with children still at home do not consist of the traditional male worker and the female homemaker. In addition, nearly four in ten mothers are primary breadwinners – primary breadwinners – for their families, while nearly two-thirds are breadwinners or co-breadwinners, bringing home at least a quarter of their family’s earnings. While there is a growing cultural awareness of this change, the laws governing work-life balance have not kept up. In fact, our country, the wealthiest country on this globe, ranks at the bottom of industrialized nations when it comes to such issues as paid sick and maternal and paternal leave, access to affordable childcare, policies that promote flexible workplaces. Lawmakers have been slow to recognize that the traditional distinctions between home and work and between sole breadwinner and stay-at-home mom have collapsed. The worlds of work and home have become interdependent and our legislation needs to reflect this. I mean, we have a society-and we are very responsible for that as legislators-we have a society where if a child is lucky enough to have two parents, both of those parents are in the workforce, not always but usually, and if the child has one parent, that parent certainly is in the workforce. So we need steps to integrate our laws in a more holistic way of seeing the relationship between family and work. Most notably, the Family Medical Leave Act [FMLA] with its provisions for unpaid, protected leave. A bill I have introduced and reintroduced and reintroduced, called The Balancing Act, will carry us much further in the direction we need to go. It is comprehensive legislation, it is a package that includes bills introduced by other members of Congress; it is an omnibus bill, it is huge. And when I talk in front of Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs I watch the women business people at it, I watch the older businessmen – this is a surprise – who have daughters and in the workforce now-get it, and then there is the group in between who say, “Well, Congresswoman, this is all very nice but we cannot afford it,” and all I say is we cannot afford not to do this. Figure it out. The Balancing Act would provide paid family medical leave for workers to care for family members – so that they can bond with new children at the birth, and then not just the mother, the father too – or for recovering from an illness or helping a parent, there is this sandwich generation, I am looking around at you, a lot of you in this room are going to be taking care of your parents as well as taking care of children. So we would expand FMLA to cover more workers, to provide leave for children’s extracurricular activities, to allow workers time to cope with the effects of domestic violence. I mean right now, domestic violence – you do not get paid time off or you do not get protected if you have to take time off from your job. So the package also provides grants to build childcare centers and for schools to offer hot breakfasts, as well as to expand before- and after-school activities, and for voluntary universal preschool – so you can see it is huge. It has provisions to give part-time workers benefits – what a concept – and the bill would also encourage employers to allow their employees to telecommute and it supports flexible work schedules. There are other bills that recognize the new reality for American families, including efforts to permit employees to request flexible hours, expand the Family Medical Leave Act to cover domestic partners, and allow breast-feeding in the workplace. The fact that these bills have been introduced shows that more and more lawmakers are recognizing the new reality of the American family. The fact that none of these bills has passed shows that we still have a very, very long way to go. So your efforts here are not wasted on most of us; it will be good I think to make sure that we get that out to all members of the House and the Senate so they cannot pretend like they have not seen it and it will not be the first time they have heard about these issues but maybe they can concentrate on one or two of them. And staff, staff are very important, so make sure that legislative staff know that you have put together this wonderful, wonderful piece of work. So, I thank you all. I do not know if you want questions and answers or for me to just go away, I will do whatever you want.
Editor’s note: Remember, Democrats have been working on poverty since before FDR and have not solved the problem yet. As long as Woolsey thinks she can keep her job talking about solving the problem, she’ll appease everyone. Jim Judd, on the other hand, is a business man who has actually created jobs and wealth in his community of Cotati instead of talking about it. A vote for him will go a long way to putting Woolsey out to pasture where she belongs!
You Already Know This – OPINION
June 14, 2010
Lynn Woolsey called for a “progressive resurgence” in a Hill blog article today. Who the heck does she think got us to this horrible mess in the first place? Look who has been running government for the past 3+ years! Besides, there really hasn’t been time to have a real conservative resurgence… yet. Maybe she is looking into the future and what November will bring.
The problem with progressivism is that, just because it sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean the federal government should be doing it or spending money on it. After all, their track record of success is pretty bleak no matter how noble they think their causes are.
The original founders saw the USA as a collection of individual countries (states) united under one limited federal government so that we would not end up where we are today; top down central planning. Instead they saw a country with a small federal government and strong state governments. Yet here we are 234 years after the Declaration of Independence, and we are exactly where they feared we would be; huge federal government (much more powerful than King George was?), unbridled deficit spending, freedoms being incrementally taken away in the name of “fairness” and religion kicked to the curb (unless you are a Muslim extremist). How did this happen? Over time, that’s how.
There is only so much bandwidth and money with which to tackle all the unconstitutional laws that have been passed over the years. And then our congressmen use those bad laws which survive to serve as precedents upon which to write more bad laws. This is the reason for the Constitution. It is a measuring stick by which laws are to be written (or not). But with Federal Judges seeing it as a “living, breathing document” they have twisted the Constitution to mean something other than what was originally intended. So it would seem the problem with progressivism is that in top down planning everyone must do it the same way regardless if it’s a good idea or not. Where’s the freedom? Besides that, it is not “constitutional”.
The original idea was that each state was a unique experiment free to try different things to see what worked to solve their challenges. It was even codified in the 10th Amendment in case the original version of the Constitution didn’t make that clear. It says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Obama and Progressives call this a “negative” right. Actually, it is exactly right (correct)… period. Each state government was supposed to decide for itself how it should be run. They could then look to other states and see what worked in order to implement or improve upon those which their constituents found favorable. Not so today. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any area in any state that didn’t come under the rule of some bureau of the federal government.
The original purpose of the Federal Government was to solve disputes and problems which crossed state lines. Read George Washington’s biography and you will learn that he viewed the federal government as a necessary evil and loathed the thought of it. He knew what “progressives” would do if given half a chance.
Examples of the founders intent for responsibilities of Federal government would be building and maintaining bridges between bordering states, or regulating commerce on shared waterways that touch several states. Two of the things the federal government is actually supposed to do, defending our borders or protecting our freedom overseas, are the same things Progressives complain about spending money on. They say we should be spending the money here on infrastructure or education. As in debt as we are, we probably shouldn’t be spending the money anywhere!
If you want to see the failures of progressivism you only need to look at states like Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii or California and cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, etc. to see that the progressive experiment doesn’t work. High crime and high unemployment are the norm for liberal bastions such as these. Yet what happens when Lynn Woolsey talks about how we need a progressive resurgence? Socialist ideologues come out of the woodwork and praise her, even though she and her buddies have spent us into the poor house thanks to progressives. Those people will never be persuaded to see the truth.
It is my belief that the majority of people in this area are liberal because they can afford to be. Things are pretty good for many people in Marin County. Fortunately, the high unemployment rate in California hasn’t really hit the San Francisco Bay Area yet… yet. Does that mean we should wait until it gets worse before we do something? Unlike an Obama administration spokesperson, we are not looking for a crisis to use to our advantage. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that to change people’s minds.
What we must do is seek out the reasonable Democrats, the patriotic ones who love our country and believe the party has left them, and turn them to our side like Reagan did. There are common sense, patriotic people on the other side who don’t like what their Democratic Party has become. They may not change parties, but they can be persuaded to vote for a candidate who wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy and help businesses create jobs, among other ideals that will truly embody progress.
- FedUpEditor
Health Care… STILL?
June 8, 2010
Today President Obama will hold a tele-townhall in the administration’s latest attempt to try and sell the new health care law that a majority of Ohioans (and Americans) continue to reject. It’s time the administration admitted that the problem isn’t in the sales pitch, it’s the policy. Small businesses don’t want all the new taxes and job-killing mandates; seniors don’t want the $500 billion in Medicare cuts; and middle-class families don’t want the higher health care costs that even the Obama Administration admits will result from the new law. That’s why I’m fighting to repeal this costly health care law, and replace it with common-sense solutions to lower the costs and increase access to quality care. Also in this week’s E-Bulletin you’ll find the times and locations for my weekly “Open Door” program, as well as the latest on the nation’s fiscal health and America Speaking Out. Please continue to keep me updated on the issues that concern you.
Sincerely,
John Boehner
Liberal Papers, Marin IJ and Press Democrat Support Halliwell – Judd is Favorite of Conservatives!
June 2, 2010
It’s no surprise that liberal papers like the Marin Independent Journal and Santa Rosa’s Press Democrat have thrown their support behind Mike Halliwell, a two time loser to unseat Woolsey. However, conservatives and business people have thrown support behind newcomer Jim Judd in hopes of making real change that will bring back conservative values in northern California!
Here is an Editorial from the PD and the link to it online
EDITOR: The Press Democrat’s recommendation of Mike Halliwell as the 6th District Republican primary choice is not a surprise considering what’s at stake come November (“A debate,” Editorial, Thursday).
This will present an opportunity for badly needed change to fight the flood of entitlement programs that have been and will continue to be foisted on a tax weary public, and we will need the leadership of a realist such as Jim Judd.
I’ve known and done business with Judd for more than 20 years and have seen this businessman guide his company through three recessions, including the current one. The “most conservative elements” that The Press Democrat pins on him are in fact the core values that have helped him manage this and that all Americans should possess: family, national pride and fiscal responsibility.
I’m sure Halliwell may have these same values along with some political experience, but his presentation of them has failed to unseat Woolsey the past two elections. Why throw this real chance for change under the political bus with the same old rhetoric?
Judd understands what has brought us into the liberal quagmire and has the leadership skills and understanding of what it will take to get us out of it with his real world views.
CHUCK HOWARD
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa Student at Tea Party!
April 22, 2010
Face to Face with Jim Judd for Congress – 6th District California opposing Lynn Woolsey
April 22, 2010
Poll: Chuck surges, catching Carly
April 22, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — DeVore for California today responded to the release of the Capitol Weekly/Probolsky Research poll on the Republican race for U.S. Senate in California, in which Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina are shown to be in a statistical tie. The poll, with a margin of error of +/-3.7%, showed Tom Campbell with 31%, Carly Fiorina with 17%, and Chuck DeVore with 14%. These numbers continue the polling trend in this race, with Campbell essentially flat, Fiorina continuing her steady decline, and DeVore continuing his steady rise.
Chuck DeVore said, “The story of my campaign has been the story of a slow and steady rise in voter awareness and enthusiasm. California’s Republicans are realizing that I am the only proven conservative in this race — and the only one who can beat Barbara Boxer. With this poll, my rising support finally intersects Carly Fiorina’s falling support. It won’t be the last time we overtake a rival between now and November.”
Leisa Brug Kline, DeVore for California campaign manager, said, “Chuck DeVore continues his climb in the polls first and foremost because he’s a strong candidate with an outstanding record. But he also benefits as Republicans turn away from the failing effort of Carly Fiorina. Her campaign is now in crisis: not only is she tied with us, but her FEC reports from the first quarter of 2010 reveal a financially troubled operation that is — when backing out the Potemkin village of the untouched self-loan and the massive unpaid debts — nearly half a million dollars in the red.
“What’s all that money gotten her? Nothing. That’s an operation that’s crumbling under its own weight; and it’s one that, for all its pretensions of facing Barbara Boxer, won’t make it past June 8th. Rumors are swirling that Fiorina is set to sack many of her high-priced and ineffective consultants, but it’s too late. There’s only one direction left for Carly for California: downward.”
Joshua Treviño, DeVore for California communications director, said, “In November 2009, Carly Fiorina became a conservative for the first time in her life. She insists it’s a genuine conversion, and now she has the opportunity to prove it. If the conservative vote is divided between a surging Chuck DeVore and a foundering Carly Fiorina, California’s Republicans face the real danger of nominating the pro-tax, pro-spending, pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage Tom Campbell. Conservatives must unify against this threat. In that light, we invite Carly Fiorina to end her candidacy and support a winning conservative: Chuck DeVore.”
Tea Party Just Following Clinton’s Words
April 22, 2010
MORON (More On) VAT Tax , the Economy and Turning Lemons into Lemonade – OPINION
April 21, 2010
As I sit in Realtors’ sales meetings, I hear all this talk about how to maximize a down market. It’s like settling for mediocrity as if it’s noble to aim lower. Short sales are becoming the new “money making” thing. It’s hard work, but there’s money to be made doing it.
And after all, if it’s worth doing, it’s worth making a profit at it, right? You wouldn’t think so to hear some liberals talk. And what amazes me is the number of San Francisco Realtors who really think this administration and our Congress is doing a good job while the rest of us in the outlying areas are being put out of business.
Why do they support him? Because the really bad market hasn’t hit them yet. Yes, San Francisco sales are down, but that has happened in other years. No big deal. So again it’s a case of, “it’s all about me.” It’s selfish and it’s un-American. Being economically naive, they don’t realize that what Obama and his Democrat pals in Congress are doing and planning on doing is going to take us into that double dip recession experts have been talking about. Just because it’s not bad yet doesn’t mean it can’t get that way… and fast!
Ask me if big government and over-regulation are bad, I say yes they are. But the market is very dynamic. Eventually it finds equilibrium. Regulators have put all sorts of restrictions on business for years. Usually, once things calm down, the business figures out a way to get back to doing business. When things are stable, business owners can make plans even if the government has made bad decisions and sticks with them.
But what has happened during this administration is the constant changing of rules so that, in this chaos, none of the businesses have a chance to regroup and figure out how to turn that profit. With new Health Care regulations, Cap and Trade around the corner and a VAT tax on the horizon (even though the Senate passed a resolution against it), we could be in big trouble because businesses can’t make plans. It’s like building a house on shifting sand. It can’t be done.
Think of it. A national sales tax at every level of production, in addition to the ones already in effect, will drive up costs for everyone. After all, to stay in business, a company has to have a profit to be a going concern. A national sales tax of 0.05% doesn’t sound like much until you start talking about really big numbers. And we all know that just as compound interest can make us really rich, so can compound taxes can make us really poor.
If this bunch of politicians were purposely trying to send us into a depression, they are doing all the right things. Raising taxes during a recession will only stagnate our economy and could possibly cause it to fail. More businesses will lay people off because it will be just too expensive to keep them with the shrinking margins. Other businesses will give up and go under creating new unemployment. With people out of work, unable to pay their mortgages and property taxes, foreclosures will increase dramatically.
Short sales might be a new “industry” for Realtors, the lemonade made from lemons in this case. But what if we prefer caviar? More on this later.
FedUpEditor
