TRUMP’S FOOD STAMP FOOD BOX - BRILLIANT STRATEGY (BLUE APRON)

TRUMP’S FOOD STAMP FOOD BOX - BRILLIANT STRATEGY (BLUE APRON):

FOOD BOXES WILL PREVENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS & FOOD STAMP CARD FRAUDSTERS FROM ABUSING SNAP SYSTEM.

PROVIDING POOR FAMILIES WITH FULLY STOCKED, NUTRITIONAL FOOD BOXES INSTEAD OF FOOD STAMP CARDS WHICH CAN BE SOLD FOR CASH.

DEMOCRATS SHOULD STOP POLITICIZING THIS IDEA AND CARE MORE ABOUT HUNGRY CHILDREN NOT BEING FED BECAUSE PARENTS ARE SELLING FOOD STAMPS.

RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR LOW INCOME WORKERS.


Sources: Washington Post, CNBC, Youtube


**** Trump wants to slash food stamps and replace them with a ‘Blue Apron-type program’


The Trump administration wants to slash food aid to low-income families and make up the difference with a box of canned goods — a change that Office of Management and budget director Mick Mulvaney described in a Monday briefing as a “Blue Apron-type program.”

“What we do is propose that for folks who are on food stamps, part — not all, part — of their benefits come in the actual sort of, and I don't want to steal somebody's copyright, but a Blue Apron-type program where you actually receive the food instead of receive the cash,” Mulvaney said. “It lowers the cost to us because we can buy [at wholesale prices] whereas they have to buy it at retail. It also makes sure they're getting nutritious food. So we're pretty excited about that.”

Mulvaney's remarks drew raised eyebrows from some critics, who accuse the Trump administration official of drawing an unfair comparison between the food stamp program, which delivers an average of $1.37 per meal to America's poorest, and a high-end meal kit that runs $10 per serving.

On Monday, the Trump administration proposed cutting food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, by $17 billion in 2019 and more than $213 billion over the next decade.

The dramatic reductions came as part of a budget proposal that made sweeping, across-the-board cuts to popular safety net programs, including federal housing subsidies and Medicaid.

But the administration's SNAP proposal was particularly striking, advocates and experts said, because it advocates a fundamental change to the program's administration. For the past 40 years, the Agriculture Department has distributed benefits as either paper coupons or virtual disbursements on Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, allowing recipients to use them as cash on foods of their choice and at their own grocery store.

But under the Trump proposal, which the Agriculture Department has dubbed “America’s Harvest Box,” all households receiving more than $90 per month in benefits — 81 percent of SNAP households overall — would begin receiving about half their benefits in the form of government-purchased, nonperishable food items.

Those foods would include shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned meat, fruits and vegetables, according to the USDA. The department estimates that it could supply these goods at about half the cost of retail, slashing the cost of SNAP while still feeding the hungry.

“USDA America’s Harvest Box is a bold, innovative approach to providing nutritious food to people who need assistance feeding themselves and their families – and all of it is home grown by American farmers and producers," Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement. "It maintains the same level of food value as SNAP participants currently receive, provides states flexibility in administering the program, and is responsible to the taxpayers.”

It is this program that Mulvaney likened to meal-kit delivery service Blue Apron — whose shipments typically include fresh fish, meat and produce — earning the derision of some on social media. A spokeswoman for Blue Apron could not immediately be reached for comment.

“Hearing that the Trump Admin is selling this as the 'Blue Apron-ing' of SNAP. Um, no,” tweeted Chad Bolt, a senior policy manager at the progressive group Indivisible.


“With Blue Apron, you get to pick your meals and decide when they come. And it gives you all the ingredients you need to complete it,” echoed New York Times op-ed writer Bryce Covert. “Under Trump's plan, the government decides what you get and when you get it.”

Many anti-hunger advocates and analysts are equally skeptical of the proposed “food box,” which — if approved — would affect 16.4 million households. They say it's unclear how USDA would deliver the boxes and how much that would cost. Equally unclear is whether USDA would allot the same foods to, say, an elderly diabetic and a family with young children.

“It boggles the mind how that would play out,” said Kathy Fisher, policy director at Philadelphia’s Coalition Against Hunger. “We know SNAP works now, when people can choose what they need. How they would distribute foods to people with specialized diets, or [to people in] rural areas … It’s very expensive and very complicated.”

The proposal is also likely to enrage food retailers — particularly Walmart, Target and Aldi — that stand to lose billions if food stamp benefits are cut, analysts say. On Monday, the Food Marketing Institute, a trade association for grocery stores, condemned the Harvest Box proposal as expensive, inefficient and unlikely to generate any long-term government savings.

Ironically, that sort of criticism has also dogged Blue Apron, which saw its customer base contract in 2017. A recent report by the market research firm Datassential found that four in 10 lapsed meal-kit subscribers dropped their service because they were too costly.

As much as a third of the price per box goes toward shipping and logistics, which remain daunting, industry analysts told The Washington Post last June. Food policy experts expressed skepticism that the government could do better.

In a statement, Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, described the proposal as a “a Rube-Goldberg designed system of commodity distribution via food boxes.”

"[It] will be administratively costly, inefficient, stigmatizing, and prone to failure,” Weill added. "[And it] will return the country to Depression-era anti-hunger approaches.”

Breastfeeding Until The Age Of 3? No Way! Kiddie Porn Or "Attachment Parenting"??

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Each time I look at the recent TIME Magazine Breastfeeding Cover I think "Kiddie Porn".

Disgusting!

I am the Mother of two Adult Sons.

When my Sons were Babies I did Breastfeed them up until almost prior to their First Birthday.

Choosing to stop Breastfeeding them just prior to Age One was my personal preference as a Mother.

However.....

I would NEVER, EVER have Breastfed my Sons up to the Age of 3!

I don't care what Dr. Bill Sears or anyone else says, choosing to Breastfeed a 3-Year-Old is NOT "Attachment Parenting", its just plain Crazy and NOT Emotionally Healthy for Children.

Especially little Boys who have to grow up & become Strong, Men!

I believe TIME Magazine's Breastfeeding Cover was Provocative, Shocking, Brilliant & Controversial as it relates to Selling Units and the Magazine's bottom line, even if it does promote a style of Parenting that may NOT be Popular.

Yes this kind of Shock value does in fact Sell, just as Sex Sells.

The ironic thing is if an Adult posts a Video of a 3 or 4-year-old Child Sucking on a Woman's Breast, that Adult would be Arrested for promoting Kiddie Porn NOT for promoting "Attachment Parenting"!

Thus the question becomes NOT "Are You Mom Enough?" but Are You "Mom Enough" to STOP Breastfeeding Your Children before the Age of One or once they are able to Walk, Talk, Use the Bathroom Alone & Eat Real Table Food just as an Older Child can?


Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?



Jamie Lynn Grumet, the 26-year-old mother featured on the cover of Time magazine breastfeeding her 3-year-old son, has done more this week than become the poster woman for “attachment parenting,” the sometimes laudable movement that advises parents to be physically and emotionally available and responsive to their children.

She has shown the limits of such a concept, and the ways in which it can be twisted into a bizarre, contemptible caricature of itself.

Grumet is a model, and models have to have at least healthy dose of narcissism (television journalists like me, too, by the way).

But I fear Grumet has more than what’s healthy.

Because she thought nothing of becoming far more famous than she ever was or ever would have been by getting naked on the cover of Time using her son as a prop—letting him, in fact, look right into the camera and be completely recognizable while sucking her nipple.

He may never be better-known for anything than for being a breastfeeding 3-year-old on the cover of a national magazine.
Ever.
When he enters school later in his young life he may be ridiculed for it.

And these realities hint at a woman who could (and I have not evaluated her) have very poor boundaries and be willing or likely not only to nurture a child, but to absorb him, deny him his personhood and render him no more than her appendage.

In short, it is not at all clear who is the “parent” in the Time magazine photograph.

Is Grumet responding to real and healthy needs emanating from her son’s psyche, or is he responding to her potentially outsized needs to be the center of attention and the object of desire (if only for warmth).

Who, we can legitimately ask, is feeding whom?

See, Grumet loves being photographed.
And she apparently loves having her son breastfeed.

And she loves attention.

And she’s happy enough to get naked in front of other people (which there may be nothing wrong with—for her).

But that may or may not be the case for her 3-year-old boy, which seems not to have mattered to her—at all. And if his will was bent to hers in order to have him suck his mother’s nipple in front of a photographer and makeup artist and art director and all of America, then it stands to reason that his will may be being bent to hers in all sorts of ways—including protracted breastfeeding.

The truth is that what Time magazine may have unwittingly captured and been party to was a grotesque form of psychological abuse—the parading into public of an intimate moment (intimate for mother and child) at the sole direction of that child’s mother, who didn’t stop to think that her child may not be able at the age of three to know what he thinks about the whole thing, much less to stop it, if he wanted to.

Grumet has stained the attachment parenting movement by documenting how easily it can go wrong, when used as an excuse for poor boundaries and manipulation.

In a way, while looking at the Time magazine cover, we are all Grumet’s son and may know something of his possible plight: finding her a compelling and dramatic presence, seduced by her combination of sex appeal and motherhood—unable, in fact, to detach from her.

Talk about a prescription for psychological disaster.

This is self-centeredness at its worst, sold as good parenting.

And this is an act of media violence against a child, committed by adult journalists who also commandeered his will (as did his mother), for sensation and profit.

Rarely do we get such evidence of how wrong parenting can go, how poorly journalists can behave and how slow we can be to recognize ugliness when it is disguised as something beautiful.


Breastfeeding Mom on Time magazine cover speaks out on ‘Today’ show

The young mom who sparked a media storm breastfeeding her 3-year-old son on the cover of Time magazine is opening up about the controversial photo.

Jamie Lynne Grumet, 26, appeared on NBC's "Today" show on Friday to discuss the cover, which shows her casually nursing her toddler Aram, who stares straight into the camera while he stands on a wooden chair.

"I do understand why Time chose this picture, because it did create such a media craze ... to get the dialogue talking," Grumet said.

The ensuing controversy focused on attachment parenting - the topic of Time's cover story - particularly extended breastfeeding.

Grumet explains that she was breastfed until she was 6-years-old and cites it as the reason she and her mother have a close bond.

Dr. Bill Sears, who developed the attachment parenting theory, also appeared on "Today" with Grumet. While both are advocates of the controversial parenting technique - which also includes co-sleeping, or letting children sleep in their parent's beds - Grumet admits it's not for everyone.

"You need to do what's best for your own baby and your family," she says.

Commenters on the Daily News' original article about the Time cover were alarmed by the Grumet's photograph, one reader even calling it "child porn."

Other commenters agreed, voicing concern that Grumet's son would endure psychological problems later on in life.

"Nice job lady," one reader wrote. "You've at best given this kid a lifetime of needing major therapy and at worst created a serial killer."

And not all of the criticism is coming from people against attachment parenting, Grumet notes.

"I understand some of the breast-feeding advocates are actually upset about this," she said on "Today."

Mommyish.com blogger Shawna Cohen, who says she practices some attachment parenting principles, wrote that she was disappointed in the Time cover.

"It angers me because it portrays AP moms as being totally extreme," she wrote in a blog post. "And in most cases, that couldn't be further from the truth."

Even celebrities chimed in - including new mom Alyssa Milano.

"Time, no! You missed the mark!" the actress wrote on Twitter. "You're supposed to be making it easier for breastfeeding moms. Your cover is exploitative and extreme."

Grumet explains that the cover didn't adequately demonstrate the nurturing side of attachment parenting.

"This isn't how we breastfeed at home," she says. "It's more of a cradling, nurturing situation."

Grumet, who has one other 5-year-old son, says she hopes to stop breastfeeding Aram, who turns 4 next month, sometime in the next year.



Sources: Morning Joe Show, MSNBC, NBC, NY Daily News, TIME Magazine, Today Show, Youtube

Charlotte's Famers Markets Eliminates "Food Deserts" With Food Stamps

Charlotte Farmers Markets Trying To Take Food Stamps


They are called "Food Deserts", Charlotte neighborhoods where people have little or no access to fresh produce and other healthy groceries.

But a new farmers market in South End is trying provide an oasis for those food deserts.

The Atherton Mill Farmers Market just decided to open more days and more hours because there’s been such a demand.

“I like to buy local produce and meat and this is the only farmers market that carries all local stuff, so that's why I like to come here,” Patti Kelly says.

She lives nearby, in South End, just outside of uptown, a part of town a recent study called a food desert.

A food desert is an area where fresh produce is hard to find or hard to get to for the people in the neighborhood. The goal is to bring more farmers markets to Charlotte and make them accessible to everyone.

“We would be able to make fresh food available to record number of low income individuals in this area,” says Lynn Shanklin Caldwell, who runs the market.

Caldwell and the vendors are trying to get permission to take food stamps.

But it's a process; right now they're trying to get approval for a state grant.

“It would be great to keep food dollars in our local economy supporting local farmers, versus supporting big box grocery store,” Caldwell says.

It would also be great Kelly says, if everyone had equal access.

“Food loses its nutrients as it travels, knowing it came less than a few hundred miles from where you live is important.”

If you want to check out the Atherton Mills Market, they are located at 2104 South Boulevard in Charlotte and have new, extended hours.

Tuesday: 3 p.m. - 7 p.m.
Wednesday: 9 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Saturday: 9 a.m. - 2 p.m.


View Larger Map


Sources: WCNC, Whitehouse.gov, Youtube, Google Maps

Michelle Obama On Larry King Live: Childhood Obesity, Health Care, etc.,

First Lady: Childhood Obesity Fight Is About Fitness, Not Looks


Michelle Obama says her call for the country to fight childhood obesity isn't about physical appearances, but rather quality of life.

"Teachers are seeing the challenges that kids with weight issues are having -- not being able to participate in gym, feeling a little more sluggish," the first lady told CNN's "Larry King Live" on Tuesday. "It's not about weight ... it's about fitness and it's about overall nutrition."

Obama earlier Tuesday introduced the "Let's Move" campaign, which aims to reduce childhood obesity in the United States within a generation. Obama asked parents, teachers, physicians, coaches and kids to get involved and suggested they look at the new Let's Move Web site for helpful tips, strategies and updates on beating obesity in children.

The first lady, during the "Larry King Live" interview, said a doctor got her own family to take a hard look at its exercise and eating habits, even though she thought she already was doing everything she could to promote healthy lifestyles for her own grade-school daughters.

The family, while her husband was campaigning, was eating too much fast food, she said. A pediatrician "saw a little uptick in the kids' [body mass index], and he kind of pulled me aside," she said.

"I was shocked at first because I thought I was doing what I was supposed to do, and I hadn't noticed any changes in my kids, so it was a little bit shocking and a little disorienting," Obama said. "But I went home, and it was kind of a wake-up call, and we made some changes even with busy schedules."

The changes, she said, included smaller portion sizes, more cooked meals, a dessert ban on weekdays and substituting sugary drinks with milk, water and fresh-squeezed juices. "The point is that small changes made a difference," she said.

That interview aired hours after she announced the Let's Move initiative at the White House. The program focuses on what families, communities and the public and private sectors can do to help fight childhood obesity, which she and health experts have termed an epidemic in the United States.

"There are more and more kids with type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure today than ever before. Things we used to see only in adults," she said at the White House.

From more farmers markets to increasing physical activity in schools or expanding and modernizing the President's Physical Fitness Challenge, the first lady said the Obama administration will partner with public health professionals and private companies to address the obesity issue.

"About one-third of our children are overweight or obese. None of us want that for our country," she said. "It's time to get moving."

Mayors, doctors, members of the Cabinet, and leaders in sports, entertainment and business joined the first lady for the announcement.

Former NFL player Tiki Barber introduced several speakers, including a pediatrician, an urban farmer and mayors from Mississippi and Massachusetts.

President Obama signed a memorandum earlier Tuesday morning establishing a federal task force to tackle childhood obesity, calling it "one of the most urgent health issues that we face in this country."

"We think that this has enormous promise in improving the health of our children, in giving support to parents to make the kinds of healthy choices that oftentimes are very difficult," he said.

The task force, according to the memorandum, will have 90 days to craft a plan encouraging "optimal coordination" between the federal government and both the private and nonprofit sectors. Several Cabinet members, including the secretaries of Interior, Agriculture and Health and Human Services, will serve on the task force to complement Michelle Obama's public awareness effort.

In the weeks leading up to the announcement, the first lady urged America's parents to turn off the television, drink more water and serve smaller portions to curb the growing public health problem.

She stressed that parents need the tools to make it easier to understand how to help their kids stay healthy. She said many parents know certain foods are bad for their kids, but don't know the solutions.

"They feel like the deck is stacked against them. They feel guilty," she said. "We need to help them."

The administration, in partnership with public health professionals and private companies, will address these issues in several ways:

First, according to Obama, package labels should be easier to read.

By the end of the year, the Food and Drug Administration will begin working with retailers and manufacturers to adopt new nutritionally sound and consumer friendly front-of-package labeling to provide 65 million parents in America and other caregivers with easy access to the information they need to make healthy choices for their children.

The average soda contains 110 calories, yet many kids drink one or more a day. In an effort to make kids and parents more aware of these calories, the American Beverage Association has voluntarily committed to put calorie labels on the front of its cans, bottles, vending and fountain machines within two years. The label will reflect total calories per container, up to 20 ounces and 12-ounce serving size in multiserve containers.

School lunches also will play a big role.

According to the White House, on school days, many American children consume more than half their daily calories at school, and more than 30 million of these kids participate in the National School Lunch Program.

With this program, students will have access to healthier food in schools through several initiatives:

• The Obama administration is requesting an investment of an additional $10 billion over 10 years, starting in 2011, to improve the quality of the school lunch and breakfast programs, increase the number of kids participating and ensure that schools have the resources they need to make program changes.

• With the money, more fruits, vegetables, whole-grain foods and low-fat dairy products will be served in school cafeterias.

• Major school food suppliers are to decrease the sugar, fat and salt in school meals over 10 years, and also increase whole grains and produce served within 10 years.

Obama also set an ambitious goal to eliminate food deserts, which are areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food.

"Let's move to ensure all our families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities," she said. "We're making a commitment to completely eliminating food deserts in America. And we plan to do that within seven years."

The Center for Science in the Public Interest applauded Obama for taking on childhood obesity.

The "first lady has the clout and visibility to change that and mobilize the nation's resources to address the problem," the nonprofit health advocacy group said.

Obama encouraged doctors and parents to work together to help kids stay healthy.

In this initiative, the American Academy of Pediatrics will educate its members about obesity to make sure pediatricians regularly measure a child's body mass index and identify a weight problem early. If a child is getting heavy, the physician can write an official prescription for healthy, active living.

Body mass index is a number -- calculated from height, weight, age and gender -- that measures body fat.

On Tuesday, Dr. Judith Palfrey, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said there are ways to encourage activity -- like making charts recording children's TV time and having children set jump-roping, running and fitness goals.

"This is a long-term commitment to our children's health," she said. "It will take a concerted effort among all of us -- the whole nation -- to create healthier communities for our children. We must take on this challenge."

The number of overweight children ages 6 to 19 has tripled since 1970, a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study found.

Obama concluded her statements quoting President Franklin Roosevelt.

"We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future."


Sources: CNN, Larry King Live, Let's Move.gov

How Do The Obamas Stay So Fit? The Obama "Balanced Diet"

Politico----



Until Michelle Obama writes a mega-selling diet book — be it “First Ladies Don’t Get Fat” or “The South Lawn Diet” — two questions loom: What do the Obamas eat at home, and how do they stay so thin?

No idle questions, these. Health care policy is dominating Capitol Hill at a time when a sports-loving president has set an example of fitness and a svelte first lady has revived the notion of the backyard vegetable garden. Yet the first couple often publicly enjoy hearty servings of not-so-healthful food — and allow their daughters to indulge, too. Little wonder that the blog Obama Foodorama, run by Eddie Gehman Kohan, has been overwhelmed with interest in the presidential meal plan. “People just don’t know how to eat — and don’t know what to eat in order not to be fat. They are looking to the Obamas like, ‘How did you do this?’” said Kohan.

Nutrition experts, too, say Americans need a much better glimpse of what’s being dished up behind the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. “We have no idea what their regular breakfasts, lunches and dinners are like,” said American Dietetic Association spokeswoman and D.C. nutritionist Katherine Tallmadge. “Burgers, that’s all I ever hear about. They go to burger joints because it shows they’re just like everybody else, but everybody else is overweight.”

That’s not exactly an exaggeration: Nearly two-thirds of all adults over age 20 are overweight or obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What’s worse, American adults are less likely to perceive themselves as overweight than they were 10 years ago, even though obesity rates increased substantially during the same period, according to a new study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Florida State University. “People base their perception of themselves on what’s average for the people around them, and that average has increased over time,” said Reserve Bank economist Mary Burke. “There are more overweight people out there who no longer think they are overweight, and that’s cause for concern.”

If the Obamas have a diet secret, it is that they’ve achieved the elusive “balanced” lifestyle — a concept that has been preached for years by health secretaries, doctors and even the fast-food, candy and beverage industries.

The first couple fit in early-morning workout sessions before the day begins, and the president is known to play basketball. A vegetable garden has been planted on the White House grounds, where daughters Sasha and Malia play on their swing set and run about with the first dog, Bo.

And as a result, they can afford some high-calorie indulgence. In a London restaurant earlier this month, Malia and Sasha ordered a cheese platter and battered fish and chips, and they drank Pepsi, according to reports. The first lady ordered a sirloin steak and wine. And yes, there are the presidential runs to Ben’s Chili Bowl, Five Guys and Ray’s Hell Burger.

“We try not to do diets, as opposed to just change our lifestyle,” White House chef Sam Kass said in a White House video earlier this month. “A diet means you’re inherently going to fall off of it.”

On the policy side, striking a balance between government intervention on America’s waistlines and motivating by example may be more difficult. Some health experts say that sections of America could be resistant to Obama’s policies, especially if his family eating habits swing too far from that of the average Joe, an unpleasant intrusion for the palates of a nation that invented the Luther Burger — a bacon cheeseburger squeezed between a grilled Krispy Kreme doughnut.

The White House has seemingly acknowledged that Americans need some leadership in the kitchen — if not outright hand-holding. Obama’s Health and Human Services Department appointments so far have favored officials who have helped slap calorie counts on menus and imposed aggressive smoking bans. But that approach could encourage Americans to depend on the government for their weight control, according to Center for Consumer Freedom senior research analyst J. Justin Wilson. “He’s been fair in talking about physical activity — calories in versus calories out. Yet with these appointments, it seems to me he’s suggesting that obesity is a government problem.”

The politics of food and willpower is often a tough act for politicians. Americans love sharing their tastiest morsels with elected officials — and it’s hard to pass up spending time with constituents at diners, apple pie festivals and hometown fair BBQ stands.

“The pressure for politicians to eat like the common guy is part of the human condition. Eating with someone means connecting by sharing their kind of food,” said Tufts University nutrition associate professor Parke Wilde. “You can’t refuse to participate in the way most people eat.”

On the campaign trail, Obama ate his share of pie — or at least talked about how much he loves it. But he wasn’t without foodie missteps. The press famously bemoaned Obama’s perceived lack of connection with rural voters in 2007 when he asked an Iowa farm crowd if anyone had “gone into Whole Foods lately and seen what they charge for arugula.”

For the Obama administration, simply finding a delicate way to highlight the nation’s waistline expansion while avoiding the holier-than-thou image of a thin president wagging his finger at the fat populace won’t be easy. But the lesson of moderation may be best communicated through the family’s failings, rather than its perfections. “People don’t all perceive him as a health perfectionist. As someone who already struggles with a health decision — smoking — that sets him apart,” said MeMe Roth, founder of National Action Against Obesity. “He has to come across as health conscious, not a foodie.”


Sources: Politico, Day Life, Reuters