Lunch Politics

First off, I am for healthy foods. Pre-packaged foods are bad for you and you should have more fruits and vegetables. But I’m just not for the Government mandating it. What’s next, the Adults? 🙂

New school lunch standards implemented as a result of First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign have led to more than 1 million children leaving the lunch line, according to a new report.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a wide-ranging audit of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act nutrition standards last week, finding 48 out of 50 states faced challenges complying with Mrs. Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.

The new standards led to kids throwing out their fruits and vegetables, student boycotts, higher lunch costs, and odd food pairings such as “cheese stick with shrimp” in order for schools to comply with the complicated rules.

The National School Lunch Program saw a sharp decline in participation once the healthy standards went into effect during the 2012-2013 school year. A total of 1,086,000 students stopped buying school lunch, after participation had increased steadily for nearly a decade.

The report found that 321 districts left the National School Lunch Program altogether, many of which cited the new standards as a factor.

The decline was “influenced by changes made to comply with the new lunch content and nutrition standards,” state and local officials said.

Though the USDA has claimed the standards were “proving popular,” the GAO report cited numerous cases where kids are unhappy with their new menus.

In Georgia, kids resisted the loss of their beloved fried chicken. In New Mexico, whole-wheat tortillas went straight to the trash can. And in Tennessee, after schools replaced familiar flaky white biscuits with a whole-grain variety, one official reported a “severe amount of rejection.”

What began as an effort led by first lady Michelle Obama to serve more-healthful food to American schoolchildren has turned into a clash of cultures across the country — and, now, a high-profile Washington lobbying battle.

So it’s gone Political. YOU will comply with MAMMA Government!! 🙂

Some school officials, particularly in rural communities, have complained about the White House seeking to impose costly food standards on districts that don’t want them. Several of these critics, speaking with reporters this week, complained about cafeteria garbage cans swelling with fruits, veggies and other healthful foods rejected by students.

“We can’t force students to eat something they don’t want,” said Lyman Graham, food service director for consolidated schools near Roswell, N.M. “Many families in the Southwest will not accept whole-grain tortillas.

“Schools can’t change cultural preferences,” Graham added. “And with sky-high produce costs, we simply cannot afford to feed our trash cans.”

BUT WE ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE SANCTIMONIOUS CRONY LIBERALS WE KNOW BEST!! So just shut up and eat your government prepared food and like it or else!

So what if your food costs go sky high why the hell would we care? Look what we’re doing to your Gasoline and Electric Bills!

It’s for your Own Good! Government knows Best!  Momma Obama knows best!

And you don’t want to make Momma mad now do you?! 🙂

The standards forced some schools to stop serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and led middle school and high school students to opt for vending machines or buying food off campus to avoid the lunch line.

Jonathan Dickl, school nutrition director in Knox County, Tenn., described anger over the demise of traditional biscuits, a food he called a “mainstay” in the South.

The GAO conducted a nationwide survey of nutrition directors and visited 17 schools in eight school districts for the audit. In each district, “students expressed dislike for certain foods that were served to comply with the new requirements, such as whole grain-rich products and vegetables in the beans and peas (legumes) and red-orange sub-groups, and this may have affected participation.”

The standards brought “negative student reactions.” In one case, middle school and high school students organized a three-week boycott after their school changed their sandwiches to comply with the rules.

All eight School Food Authorities (SFAs) the GAO visited “modified or eliminated” popular food items. One district had to cut cheeseburgers because “adding cheese to the district’s burger patties would have made it difficult to stay within the weekly meat maximums.”

The new standards are exhaustive, including calorie ranges for each age group, sodium limits, zero tolerance for trans fats, and specific ounce amounts for meats and grains. White bread will be mostly phased out beginning in 2014 because only “whole grain rich” items will be allowed.

Portion requirements and calorie limits are also in conflict, leading some SFAs to add unhealthy food such as pudding or potato chips to the menu, and serve odd food combinations in order to meet the rules.

“For example, one SFA served saltine crackers and croutons with certain salads to meet the minimum daily grain requirement and a cheese stick with shrimp to meet the minimum daily meat requirement,” the GAO said.

Unappetizing food led to the biggest problem school officials faced: food waste.

“Students may take the food components they are required to as part of the school lunch but then choose not to eat them,” the GAO said. As a result, 48 out of 50 states cited waste as a challenge.

“In our lunch period observations in 7 of 17 schools, we saw many students throw away some or all of their fruits and vegetables,” the GAO said.

The “morale” for cafeteria workers has also suffered under the new standards.

“Staff in one SFA noted that the increased amount of time and effort to prepare fruits and vegetables also led to morale issues when staff saw students throw the fruits and vegetables in the trash,” the GAO said.

Lunchroom costs are also going up due to the need for “new spoons and ladles to match the new portion size requirements.” Thirty-one percent of SFAs nationwide said they needed additional kitchen equipment to comply with the new lunch requirements last school year.

The law mandated that schools increase the price of school lunches, causing students to stop buying “because they felt they were being asked to pay more for less food.” Kids who pay full price for meals declined by 10 percent last school year, the lowest rate in over a decade.

Challenges with the school lunch program, which cost $11.6 billion in 2012, are expected to continue, as further regulations go into effect. The “first of three” sodium limits starts in 2014-2015, though “many of the foods available from manufacturers do not yet comply with these limits.”

School officials noted, “it will be very difficult” to serve food that is “palatable to students” under the sodium standards.

As for the other requirements, the GAO said students would get used to it.

“Although school lunch participation has declined, it is likely that participation will improve over time as students adjust to the lunch changes,” they said.

Because they will have no choice. Eat Momma Government’s porridge or Starve!

The Adults are next!

<<maniacal Laugh>>

 

Advertisements

Check Your Privilege

Liberals have a new word for what normal people call “success.” They call it “privilege,” as if a happy, prosperous life is the result of some magic process related to where your great-great-great-grandfather came from.

It’s the latest leftist argument tactic, which means it is a tactic designed to prevent any argument and to beat you into rhetorical submission. Conservatives, don’t play their game.

It’s easy to see that this notion that accomplishment comes not from hard work but from some mysterious force, operating out there in the ether, is essential to liberal thought. To excuse the dole-devouring layabouts who form so much of the Democrat voting base, it is critical that they undermine the achievements of those who support themselves. We can’t have the American people thinking that hard work leads to success; people might start asking why liberal constituencies don’t just work harder instead of demanding more money from those who actually produce something.

This “Check your privilege” meme is the newest trump card du jour on college campuses and in other domains of progressive tyranny. It morphed into existence from the “You racist!” wolf-cry that is now so discredited that it produces little but snickers even among liberal fellow travelers. After all, if everyone is racist – and to the progressives, everyone is except themselves – then no one is really racist. And it’s kind of hard to take seriously being called “racist” by adherents of a political party that made a KKK kleagle its Senate majority leader.

So how do we deal with this idiocy?

The proper response to the privilege gambit is laughter. The super-serious zealots of progressivism hate being laughed at, but there’s really no other appropriate response outside of a stream of obscenities. The privilege game is designed to circumvent arguments based on reason and facts and evidence, so the way to win it is to defeat it on its own terms.

Call: “Check your privilege!”

Response: “What you call ‘privilege’ is just me being better than you.”

They won’t like it. It will make them angry. Good. Because tactics like “Check your privilege” are designed to make us angry, to put us off-balance, to baffle us and suck us down into a rabbit hole of leftist jargon and progressive stupidity.

Don’t follow them. Mock them. Accuse them of adhering to a transphobic cisnormative paradigm and start shrieking “Hate crime!”

Don’t worry about not making sense. They’re college students. They are used to not understanding what people smarter than they are tell them.

Respectful argument should be reserved for those who respect the concept of argument. The sulky sophomores who babble about privilege do not. They only understand power. And we give them power when we give their nonsense the respect we would give a coherent argument.

They deserve only laughter. And to laugh at them, we simply need to refuse to be intimidated.

The plain fact is that what they understand to be “privilege” is really just what regular people understand is a “consequence.” It is a consequence of hard work, of delaying gratification and of sacrifice. No one came and bestowed this country upon us. We built it. Some of us died doing so. If we have privilege, it was earned at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg and Normandy. It’s not a function of skin tone or the number of vowels in your name; it’s a function of character.

Unlike them, many of us have lived overseas, and often in rather bullet-rich environs. Our life experience consists of more than reading Herbert Marcuse and showing solidarity with oppressed Guatemalan banana pickers by boycotting Chiquita. What we have today in this country is not anything to be ashamed of or to apologize for, but to be proud of.

Their poisonous notion of privilege is really just another way for liberals to pick winners and losers based not upon who has won or lost in the real world, but upon who is useful and not useful to the progressive project at any given moment.

This is why you see young people descended from Holocaust survivors tagged as bearers of “privilege” when their tattooed, emaciated grand-parents landed here with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Others who grew up in luxury get to bear the label of “unprivileged” because ten generations ago some relative came from a particular continent.

It’s idiocy. It’s immoral. We need to say so. For too long we’ve put up with this silliness.

What’s particularly amusing when you push back on these clowns is that they are so surprised to experience resistance to their petty fascism. Many of them, being the special snowflakes that they are, have never had anyone express to them the notion that they might be wrong. University administrators are too terrified of these whiny pipsqueaks to correct them. Certainly their helicopter parents never did – Gaia forbid that their little psyches be harmed by confronting them with their foolishness.

For too long we conservatives have played nicely, being good sports about being slandered and returning respect when offered contempt. It didn’t work. It’s time to try something new. And that something new is not taking guff from some 20 year-old gender studies major with a stupid tribal tatt, a sense of entitlement and a big mouth.

AMEN!

What they say is privilege is what we say is a reward for doing more with our lives than waiting for Uncle Sucker to refill our EBT cards. “Privilege” is a result of not being a human sloth, of not doing drugs, of not having kids we can’t afford them, and of not living our lives as a practical exercise in chaos theory.

Check my privilege? I just did, and it’s doing great. If you want some privilege too, maybe you ought to get your sorry behind a job. (Kurt Schlichter)

And that would not be the $15/hr burger flipper you think you deserve.

My first job was for 4.15/hr and I “detailed” cars (washed) in 115 degrees in the summer. I was very “privileged” to have that job. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

White Common Core

“The reason why I helped write the [Common Core] standards and the reason why I am here today is that, as a white male in society, I am given a lot of privilege that I didn’t earn,” said Dr. David Pook at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

The irony here is that this self-professed “privileged white male” teaches at an expensive school for the white privileged and that the Common Core standards he helped design are not good enough for his students.

Consider these recent news stories on the controversial curriculum:

Unsurprisingly, the Derryfield School where Pook teaches considers the Common Core standards “inferior” and doesn’t use them.

Pook has said: “As a white male in society, I’m given a lot of privilege I didn’t earn.  And, as a result, I think it’s really important that all the kids get an equal opportunity to learn how to read.” (CNS)

Just don’t think politically incorrect thoughts.

No indoctrination here…Move along… 🙂

In case you missed it over the long holiday weekend, in an attempt to prove “white privilege” is a thing, notorious race-baiter, former boarding school student, privileged first-class flyer and MSNBC host Toure said surviving the holocaust is a result of “the power of whiteness.”

He gets pummeled and blames it on 140 character limit on Twitter. I doubt the longer dissertation on this would have improved it any.

Imagine if a Conservative said this?

Nope, no hypocrisy here. 🙂

More on this, this weekend.

148987 600 Show of Force cartoons

 

148535 600 Govt Health Care cartoons

Fatal Conceit

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel prize in economics in part because of his prescient warning about what he called “the fatal conceit,” of intellectuals, who tend to believe that they are capable of centrally planning life for everyone.

The keyword is “conceit” or arrogance. The feeling of superiority of will and calrity of “vision”. The “conceit” of I must be right because I am doing “good” and my intentions are “good”.

I can make everyone “happy” and everything “fair”.

The bankruptcy of that model was evident with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the move toward capitalism in China, and the tragic deprivation in places like Cuba and North Korea. So why does Washington keep thinking that it can micromanage entire industries?

This fatal conceit is at or near the epicenter of nearly every crisis of recent times in America. Start with the housing bubble. A vast over allocation of resources by the federal government seduced Americans into buying a home, whether they could afford it or not.

On the eve of the financial meltdown in 2008, nearly the entire mortgage industry was subsidized By Uncle Sam. This over allocation of resources into homes caused housing prices to explode and it also rewarded massive speculation and fraud.

Who was hurt most? The very people it was designed to help: those at the bottom. They had to borrow more money to buy a home at what then seemed to be ever increasing prices.

Then the housing market collapsed and the poor lost their homes and their credit ratings. The massive intrusion of government into housing produced a worldwide financial catastrophe that brought the economies of the Western World, in particular, to a screeching halt.

Then came ObamaCare, which was designed to improve the delivery of medical goods and services, which constitute about 17% of the economy. The most successful economy in the history of man was going to be fixed with a law 974 pages long.

Put that into perspective. The Federal Reserve Act was about 50 pages. Now only partially in place, some 15,000 pages of ObamaCare regulation — a pile 7 feet tall — will have to be read, deciphered, and in many cases litigated.

Ask yourself, is that an environment that encourages entrepreneurs, innovators? Or is that an environment that encourages crony capitalism? This is a critical distinction?

Then there is the energy revolution in America. Only a few years ago, not one expert, and not one government policy, entertained even the remotest possibility that the U.S. could ever be energy independent, that North America could have the largest reservoir of hydrocarbons in the world.

The central planners, the intellectuals, told us we needed to invest billions of taxpayer money in alternative energy. Our president told us, as recently as three years ago, we were running out of oil and gas.

Wrong again. Today we are rapidly becoming energy independent. We now know North America has the largest reservoir of hydrocarbons in the world. This world changing event happened not because of top-down planning, but in spite of it. The “Shale Revolution” was created by what the late Julian Simon called “the ultimate resource” — the ingenuity of human beings.

This resource is not only the ultimate resource, it is a resource widely dispersed across the globe without limits. It does not need to be either mined or drilled, its fertilized—with freedom, with personal liberty.

All that has to happen for life-changing innovations to happen as a normal course of events is for government planners to stay out of the way. This was the central message of Hayek and he stated it so elegantly in his lecture “The Pretense of Knowledge,” delivered in Stockholm 40 years ago, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Here’s Hayek in 1974: “If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order (that’s ObamaCare), he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible.

“He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.

“There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, ‘dizzy with success’… to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will (that’s ObamaCare).

“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson, of humility, which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society (that’s ObamaCare) — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization, which no brain has designed, but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

The tragedy is that 40 years later, Washington still can’t get this right.

• Thomas A. Smith is president of Prescott Investors and was this year’s recipient of the Alexander Hamilton Award given out by the Manhattan Institute. This is a condensation of his remarks. (IBD)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

148961 600 VA Red Tape cartoons

 

Common Core

Cass Sunsteen “Regulatory Czar” for Obama is the author of this, Be Afraid:

Suppose that an authoritarian government decides to embark on a program of curricular reform, with the explicit goal of indoctrinating the nation’s high school students. Suppose that it wants to change the curriculum to teach students that their government is good and trustworthy, that their system is democratic and committed to the rule of law, and that free markets are a big problem.

You don’t have to, it’s called “Common Core” and it was authored by the very Progressive Liberals Mr Sunsteen is a party to.

Will such a government succeed? Or will high school students simply roll their eyes?

Questions of this kind have long been debated, but without the benefit of reliable evidence. New research, from Davide Cantoni of the University of Munich and several co-authors, shows that recent curricular reforms in China, explicitly designed to transform students’ political views, have mostly worked. The findings offer remarkable evidence about the potential influence of the high school curriculum on what students end up thinking — and they give us some important insights into contemporary China as well.

AND PROGRESSIVE ORWELLIAN LIBERAL DEMOCRATS…

Here’s the background. Starting in 2001, China decided to engage in a nationwide reform of its curriculum, including significant changes in the textbooks used by students in grades 10, 11 and 12. In that year, China’s Ministry of Education stated that education should “form in students a correct worldview, a correct view on life, and a correct value system.”

The reforms, implemented a few years later, had six major goals:

1. Students should learn about, and value, Chinese “democracy” and political participation.

2. Students should learn about the importance of the rule of law for legitimizing the Chinese government.

3. Students should study the “Three Represents” ideology set out by Jiang Zemin, who served as China’s president from 1993 to 2003. The idea of the “Three Represents” is to extend political influence to people who were traditionally excluded from power under communism, but who are important to the nation’s socioeconomic success (such as managers and employees working for private business).

4. Students should understand the limits of free markets, and should form a positive view about China’s distinctive approach to the economy.

5. Students should be conscious of environmental issues.

6. Students should develop an appreciation for the diversity of ethnic heritages in China, and the Han majority should not have discriminatory views about minorities.

Sound Familiar?? 🙂

Because different provinces adopted the new curriculum at different times, Cantoni and his co-authors were able to isolate its effects on students’ views. They surveyed almost 2,000 Chinese university students, many of whom studied under the new curriculum, but many of whom did not.

The crucial finding from the study is that the new curriculum greatly affected students’ thinking. They became more likely to count the Chinese political system as democratic. They displayed a higher level of trust in public officials. They were more skeptical of free markets, and more likely to reject the view that a market economy is preferable to any other economic system. They were more likely to want to extend political influence to groups outside of the Chinese Communist Party.

On two questions, however, the curricular reforms failed. Students didn’t become more favorably disposed toward environmental protection. They were not more likely to give the environment priority over economic growth, and they were not more willing to give up some of their income to protect the environment. Nor was there a significant change in the attitudes of Han Chinese students (the majority) toward minorities.

Give them time. It’s taken Liberals in this country several generations…

These findings raise a host of questions. Why were the last two reforms unsuccessful? It is reasonable to speculate that in recent years, Chinese students have been concerned above all about economic growth and therefore were less willing to want to focus their attention on environmental protection. With respect to minorities, the students’ beliefs appear to be deeply engrained, and essentially impervious to curricular influences.

Notwithstanding the two failures, it is striking, and somewhat ominous, that government planners were able to succeed in altering students’ views on fundamental questions about their nation. As Cantoni and his co-authors summarize their various findings, “the state can effectively indoctrinate students.” To be sure, families and friends matter, as do economic incentives, but if an authoritarian government is determined to move students in major ways, it may well be able to do so.

 

Is this conclusion limited to authoritarian nations? In a democratic country with a flourishing civil society, a high degree of pluralism, and ample room for disagreement and dissent — like the U.S. — it may well be harder to use the curriculum to change the political views of young people. But even in such societies, high schools probably have a significant ability to move students toward what they consider “a correct worldview, a correct view on life, and a correct value system.” That’s an opportunity, to be sure, but it is also a warning.

Wise parents should think twice about enrolling their children in government schools. And if they do, they should keep close tabs on what they’re being taught.

Reading, writing and arithmetic are not as important anymore in many classrooms.

Learning the evils of private ownership and “white privilege” are the main lessons they want children to learn.

P.s From The Politically Correct BBC:

They edited the word “girl” out as viewers might take offensive from a program re-broadcast.

Critics, however, attacked the move. Tory MP Philip Davies, who sits on the Commons culture, media and sport committee, said: ‘They are finding offence where none is taken or intended.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘Mark didn’t mean to cause offense. But the word “girl” was taken out just in case it did.’

‘We are going to end up in a situation where nobody is going to dare say anything lest some politically correct zealot deems it offensive.’

Already there, you “racist”, “homophobe”  “extremist” “teabagger” of “white privilege”. 🙂

And the state teaches you from The Ministry of Truth’s  approved “common” State Handbook.

Ah, 1984, it seems like only yesterday…

 

Dining Out

The fight over the minimum wage, which President Obama and Democrats hope to make a centerpiece of this year’s midterm elections, comes down to two simple arguments. Obama says low-income working Americans deserve a raise, while Republicans say raising the minimum wage would cost jobs.

It was a mostly theoretical argument until Feb. 12, when Obama signed an executive order raising the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors to $10.10 an hour from $7.25.

“This will make a difference for folks,” Obama said at a White House signing ceremony. “Right now, there’s a dishwasher at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas making $7.76 an hour — $7.76 an hour. There’s a fast-food worker at Andrews, right down the street, making $8.91 an hour. There’s a laundry worker at Camp Dodge in Iowa making $9.03 an hour. Once I sign this order, starting next year, as their contracts come up, each of them and many of their fellow coworkers are going to get a raise.”

Obama’s order does not take effect until January 1, 2015. But there are signs it is already having an effect — and it is not what the president and his party said it would be.

In late March, the publication Military Times reported that three McDonald’s fast-food restaurants, plus one other lesser-known food outlet, will soon close at Navy bases, while other national-name chains have “asked to be released from their Army and Air Force Exchange Service contracts to operate fast-food restaurants at two other installations.”

Military Times quoted sources saying the closures are related to the coming mandatory wage increases, with one source saying they are “the tip of the iceberg.”

The closures, real and contemplated, are a serious concern to 40 Republican members of the House Armed Services and Education and Workforce committees, who this month wrote Labor Secretary Thomas Perez asking that the mandatory increase not apply to some businesses on military bases.

“Should these policy changes be fully implemented, we are concerned they will eliminate jobs, negatively impact recreational services on military bases, and limit the dining options for servicemen and women on military installations,” the lawmakers wrote.

The administration is making it very expensive to do business on military bases, and not just because of the minimum wage. Under federal contracting law, some businesses operating on military installations must also pay their workers something called a health and welfare payment, which last year was $2.56 an hour but which the administration has now raised to $3.81 an hour.

In the past, fast-food employers did not have to pay the health and welfare payment, but last fall the Obama Labor Department ruled that they must. So add $3.81 per hour, per employee to the employers’ cost. And then add Obama’s $2.85 an hour increase in the minimum wage. Together, employers are looking at paying $6.66 more per hour, per employee. That’s a back-breaking burden. (Just for good measure, the administration also demanded such employers provide paid holidays and vacation time.)

And one more thing. Military contracting laws do not allow businesses to raise their prices above the level prevailing in the local community. The fast-food operators can’t charge more to make up their losses.

One group perhaps most concerned about the administration’s increases is the military itself. Earlier this month, Russell Beland, who is deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for military manpower and personnel, wrote a letter to the Labor Department asking for relief for fast-food contractors.

“Given the business model typical in the fast-food industry, this increase in the cost of labor dramatically disrupts the profitability and viability of food service operators” on military bases, Beland wrote. “The increased labor burden resulting from the new (wage structure) eliminates any profit the operator might otherwise realize and puts him in an impossible business dilemma.”

Beland wrote that Navy exchange officials estimate that 390 fast-food concessions in the U.S. and territories will close because of the increased costs. “Closure of these facilities would result in loss of work for nearly 5,750 contracted concession employees who are currently gainfully employed,” Beland wrote.

And that’s just for the Navy and Marines. The Army exchange system is much bigger, and including the Air Force, could affect as many as 10,000 more jobs.

The Obama administration knows it is placing a massive burden on businesses that operate on military bases. A few days ago, the Labor Department temporarily rescinded some of the new costs while it “re-evaluates” its actions. But President Obama’s executive order is still there, waiting to go into effect.

Under any conceivable scenario, Obama’s edict, combined with his administration’s policies, will place unbearable new burdens on businesses at military bases and, yes, result in fewer jobs. It looks like the president’s critics were right. (Bryon York)

The LEFT’s response:

But labor activist George Faraday told The Fiscal Times the argument against the new wage rules is bunk:

“The specter of mass layoffs being raised is an illusion. If they care about the welfare of military spouses they should care about whether military spouses [working at fast food outlets] are making a living wage.”

The Daily Kos:

If companies can afford to pay their CEO between $3125 and $4206 an hour, they can afford to pay their front line employees $10.10 to $15.00 an hour. The argument that they would need to raise the price of food to subsidize this pay raise is also faulty. Instead of raising food prices and closing restaurants to pay for an across the board pay increase for their lowest paid front line employees, maybe they should cut bloated executive pay. It would take someone earning the average wage at McDonald’s 523 years to make what the CEO makes in a year.

Does Class Warfare/Class Envy/Hatred get any clearer than that?? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel