I went to the supermarket this morning, very early in the morning, and I allowed my inner rich Republican to come out for a little but. I only let him out for a minute or two, just so I can feel the emotions and injustice rich Republicans feel about the rest of us. It can afford great insight into their thinking. Anyway, while I was there I saw someone who had a fairly loaded cart, and in the cart were things that, honestly, I would question as nutritionally sound. Yes, coming from someone who really is a stickler for nutrition (sarcastic grin). When I was thinking that I looked at my own meager items. They were kind of nutritious but I would say a few items might be questionable considering my diabetes diagnosis. I have had people, especially my mother, who feel the need to instruct me rather vigorously about what I should and shouldn't eat. I try to listen to what they say but sometimes I want to splurge, just a bit.

On the walk home I thought about Michelle Obama and her healthy eating program for kids. You would think having the First Lady telling kids they should eat healthy would be a good thing, but some Republicans look at it, like anything supported by the Obamas, as some communist, French socialist plot to inflict a nanny state upon good working, real Americans who haven't been born in Kenya. Laura Bush can take up trying to get kids to read more but that isn't bad, even though the evidence suggests some Republicans look at 'book learning' as a gateway to the Devil. I haven't heard angry comments about the National Football League having a program getting kids to exercise for sixty minutes a day. It was predominately promoted during the pre-game Superbowl show. It is possible, since the implied implication this was for underprivileged (read poor) kids that maybe even poor Republicans didn't think the program was for their kids, which on the one hand means they don't get dictated how to raise their kids by some quasi-government agency (the program is in conjunction with Michelle Obama's program) on the other shows another safety net for the poor that Mitt Romney's Republican government doesn't have to worry about.

What has me confused about the Republican mindset is how is it not good for the government, and let's be specific the Obama government, to suggest kids eat healthy is some how a nanny state while they feel it's perfectly OK for state governments, and I guess I should clarify and say Republican led proposals in state government, to work on legislation for a nanny state?

There are lots of examples of states that are putting up legislation to regulate what citizens can do, all under the umbrella of trying to eradicate fraud in the system. Florida has been a fun state to look at because the regulations they have adopted and that are working their way through the state really treat the poor as children. Already, to apply for state aid, you have to pee in a cup. Yes, if you need welfare assistance you have to prove you aren't on drugs by taking a drug test. Much like voter registration legislation running through a lot of states, the evidence of fraud is anecdotal at best and in the case of the drug testing, what was predicted to be as high as 30% turned out to be less than 2%.

The newest restrictive law has to do with the debit cards many states use for welfare and food stamps. The cards worked like regular debit cards, and can be used anywhere. Well, it seems some legislators did like I did, pulled up their inner rich Republican and observed people with the debit cards buying non healthy items in grocery stores, or using the cards at mini-marts, casinos or strip clubs. Now I'm not saying people should cash welfare cards at strip clubs or casinos, but the argument that we should regulate where people cash the cards or what food is paid on the cards is a little too Big Brother to me. I had unemployment and got one of those cards. My own paranoia prevented me from going to a strip club to get money from it. I did buy items at a mini-mart. I did use it out of state when I went to California. Yes, the proposals I've seen on a number of legislations is you can't use the card out of state.

I know the basic argument used by people is the same tired excuse; if my tax money is being used to support 'those people' I should have a say to make sure it is being used wisely. Well guess what folks, not all people are born into poverty. Newt Gingrich is fond of saying more people have fallen into welfare under Obama than any other President ever. He calls Obama the Welfare President. Even though Obama's number is high, Bush actually had more people join the welfare roles by 50000. In the grand scheme of things they both have high numbers, but the point is these are NEW people who got on welfare. That means these were people like myself, who had jobs, lost jobs and used food stamps, unemployment insurance or other assistance programs to help them get back on their feet. Guess what, they worked so they paid taxes into the system. Just because they are in need of assistance doesn't mean they should be treated like children. Look at it this way; if you work, you have to do a reasonable amount of things to get paid. You show up for work, you do the job you are supposed to do. When you get paid, you boss can't say you have to do unreasonable things to continue to get the money. Most people might take a blood test to get a job, but they aren't tested every time they pick up a check. If there is probable cause on the job, sure you might get tested but as a condition of working you don't pee in a cup and get the check if you pass the test. If the boss is a vegan, he can't say you have to quit eating meat of you can't get paid, then puts you through a test to make sure you haven't eaten meat while away from work.

A lot of the legislation coming up supposedly trying to regulate waste put an undo burden on people.