Government Announces New Food Programs
Journalists Predict Libertarians Complain

AP (Associated Poets)
oday the U.S. government announced that it is planning to expand its existing school breakfast program to cover middle-income, and not just low-income, students. The program, tentatively called "Bad Food For Breakfast II," is to go into effect in pilot cities starting in February. So far all free breakfast programs, which come under the US Department of Shitty Food, have been targeted at low-income students, and are designed to boost academic performance. This new program will be targeted at kids who might benefit not because they are poor, but because they might not be given time to eat in the morning by parents who have to get to work early.

"Research has shown that, when kids eat breakfast in the morning, their academic performance improves. Average math grades have gone from C's to B's in schools that have breakfast programs," says Ruthie Goldblatten, executive director for the Center For Bad Food Research. "For kids from whom society expects nothing, this is a pretty tremendous thing. 15% of students, over half of which are in elementary school, don't eat breakfast on any given day. You've got a lot of kids out there who are chronically poor achievers because their brains are too starved to think. We'd like to expand the success we've had with low-income children to middle-class children."

"If they can't pay for it, then they shouldn't have it. This goes for food, water; hell, even air."

Predictably, however, there are critics. Victor Johnson of the Libertarian think tank Nudnik said, "We're outraged by this proposition. The whole idea of providing free anything to anyone is simply noxious, no matter what the reason. If they can't pay for it, then they simply shouldn't have it. This goes for food, water; hell, even air."

"We predicted that Nudnik would complain first out of all Libertarian groups," said Gloria McPhnee of the Sane Journalists Group. "There was a chance that the Foundation for the Conservation of money would get there first, but we predicted that Nudnik had an 85% chance of beating them."

"Hey, we figure that we're paying too many taxes on our inheritances and capital gains to be paying for anyone to eat," says Johnson. "Or go to school. My great-great- great grandfather had to sell newspapers on the street to afford school books. He had to pull himself up by his bootstraps in order to provide my generation with the wealth they have today. I don't see why the current generation of seven-year-olds can't do the same thing."

Donald Howsley of the Foundation for the Conservation of Money concurs. "We'd actually like to see an end to all Bad Government Food Programs. That food, instead of being given to school lunch programs, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, tribal governments, battered womens shelters, or schools, should be stored in warehouses owned by the extremely wealthy. That is, by us."

"I'm not eating that crap. That's all there is to it."

"See, I wonder if the excessively wealthy would actually eat the food they want to horde so badly. You can give a bowl of USDA cereal to a seven-year-old, and as long as they can dump a bunch of sugar on it, they'll eat it," says McPhnee. "But I doubt these rich yahoos would ever even touch the stuff."

"Of course, I'm not allowed to officially speculate on whether or not these people would eat government food, or even whether or not these think tanks are filled with really irritating people. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to," Goldblatten stated.

When asked if they would even eat canned pork or USDA cereal, both Johnson and Howsley said that no, they would not. Said Howsley, "That stuff is terrible. That's all there is to it. I'm not eating that crap."