Sesame Street: There is such a thing as a free lunch
The Obama economy is taking it’s toll in unexpected areas. Now even one of the Muppets is going hungry. Oh wait, it’s not PC to say she’s going hungry. She’s “food insecure”.
The difference is really important because referring to her as hungry might make people think she doesn’t have enough food to eat. By calling her “food insecure”, everyone will know that she actually doesn’t have enough food to eat. Er… wait.
The newest muppet to be created is named Lily and she is food insecure. Of course, the question no one seems to be asking is: If Sesame Street is having this much trouble making ends meet, why do they keep “creating” more muppets they can’t support? Maybe we’ve found the source of the problem.
In any event, a group of progressives is sending DVDs of Lily into schools throughout the country to propagandize students into supporting federal welfare programs.
At the National Press Club this week, Lily was busy giving a guilt-trip about the national school lunch program:
“Sometimes we can’t always afford to buy all the food that we need,” Lily said. “I mean, but we’ve been finding lots of ways that we can get help…Yeah, for example, at school I get a free breakfast and a lunch…part of the meal plan.”
But if the kids that are getting these DVDs from the Food for Thought program are old enough to learn about starvation in the world, they’re plenty old enough to learn that there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
It’s time for someone to create Les – the heavy tax burden Muppet. He can go to schools and teach kids about the other side of Lily’s situation that no one in the media likes to talk about.
Les could go to the National Press Club and tell everyone:
“I don’t always get to see my mommy and daddy as much as I want to… Yeah, I get lonely sometimes. They have to work really long hours to pay for all their taxes.
You see… some people go to school and think that their lunch is free… but it’s really not. The government actually takes money away from my mommy and daddy to pay for it. So every time they go to work and earn money for our family, people from the government come and take about half of it away from us.
You’d think that the mommies and daddies of the kids like Lily who get those lunches at school would appreciate everything my mommy and daddy give to them. But a lot of them don’t! Some of them even went to a rally on Wall Street to demand that the government take even more money away from my family.
Last night, I heard my mommy tell my daddy that it wasn’t worth working so hard anymore… Yeah, so they might just quit working so other people will have to give them things.”
After hearing that, there will certainly be people hyperventilating and screaming, “So it’s ok to let children starve just to avoid raising taxes?” No, it’s not ok to let children starve. However, the federal government might be the single worst organization to help them.
Just take a look at Congress. Most of these people can barely run their own personal lives let alone someone else’s. This is the same group of people who – when faced with the single biggest financial crisis the world has ever seen – focused their attention on legalizing bestiality in the military and the eating of horses. And these are the people that children should rely on to feed them?
But the bigger problem here is that when Lily advocates free lunches, she is teaching children that they have a right to take other people’s property. It teaches students that, if they hit a rough patch in life, they have a right to demand that other people provide for them.
Having some trouble paying all the bills at the end of the month? Don’t bother canceling the cable or the cell phone. Just go to the government and demand that it take other people’s money to provide “free” lunches and health care and who knows what else.
This is the wrong message to send to children. Children need to learn to respect the God-given right every individual has to keep the property he has created. It is immoral to confiscate a person’s honestly created property for any reason.
If a person who was
food insecure going hungry went into someone else’s house and just took money to buy food, nearly everyone would agree that that was wrong. Why is it better if that hungry person asks the government to go into someone else’s house and take the money on his behalf?
Again, the progressives scream, “So it’s ok to let them starve then?” No – the government isn’t the answer to every problem. The most effective way to help people (and Muppets) in Lily’s situation is through private charity.
The argument here isn’t that Lily should continue to starve. The argument is that there are organizations to help her that are much more effective than the federal government and that don’t involve violating the property rights of millions of Americans.
For example, the Rockford Rescue Mission feeds hundreds of people every day – without a dime of federal funding. In other words, everyone who supports the Mission does so voluntarily, without having their property confiscated.
Private organizations like the Rockford Rescue Mission are the examples that should be held up as an example for children. These are groups of Americans who have made a personal decision to get directly involved in helping less fortunate people in their community put their lives back together. Not because they are forced to by the government – but because they choose to.
If Sesame Street were simply trying to help children understand and appreciate that there are people in the world who don’t always have enough to eat – then that is a laudable goal. But it didn’t. Instead, Sesame Street chose to use childhood hunger as an excuse to push socialism in a blatant piece of propaganda. Shameless doesn’t even begin to describe it.