TEA Bagger Ramps Up His Crusade to Create Massive Food Police Bureacracy

Using his signature method of anecdotes and unsupported claims, Rep. Burnett (R-Bozeman) is ramping up his crusade for a massive food police bureaucracy to restrict food to needy children.

The Montana TEA Party legislator stated in a Wisconsin newspaper this week that we shouldn’t be helping needy kids who don’t get school lunch because school is out–in spite of the increase in hungry kids seeking food in the last five years.

As the Green Bay Press Gazette reports:

But some, like Montana legislator Tom Burnett, think the numbers are inflated. He argues that the spike in summer food program growth comes from a “relaxing of restrictions” that is allowing students of any income bracket to receive a free lunch.“One of my daughters went to a park with her friend where food was served, and the friend ran up and got a free lunch no problem,” said Burnett, a Republican

Burnett’s statement to a Wisconsin paper makes it clear that he appears to be the one person in the U.S. willing speak out publicly against feeding hungry kids.  Apparently no one in Wisconsin was willing to sign their name to such a ludicrous statement.

Perhaps he believes that a team of bureaucrats at summer food sites and making kids carry around their parents proof of income statements is what is called for.  Maybe the kids of low-income people should be tattooed with a mark so that we can make sure no friend of a poor child gets a baggie of carrots  and a turkey sandwich. Perhaps he doesn’t understand that the cost of creating such a system is astronomical compared to a few pieces of bread that were shared with a friend or dropped on accident.

Burnett has penned bizarre 53-page treatise in favor of massive federal food police bureaucracy to crack down on the poor to stop them from getting food that Burnett feels they don’t deserve.   In “Hunger in America: The Myth [word doc].” Burnett writes that hunger doesn’t exist because he hasn’t seen it:

No advocates parade a line of emaciated children at any school or playground. They just can’t be found.

But that’s not the only reason Representative Burnett has come to the conclusion that no one is really going hungry.  He also bases his case on…wait for it…pictures of fat people he found on the Internet (see right), which he includes in his article as “evidence.”More Burnett evidence....is this guy naked?

In addition to claiming that hunger doesn’t exist.  He also sanely tells us that not being hungry “kills,”

Hunger is a normal part of a healthy person’s day. One should expect to be hungry six hours per day, the two hours preceding each meal. Satiety kills.

Those in need, says Burnett are characterized by “Indolence. Shirking responsibility. Indulgence. Enabled laziness.”

They don’t budget or plan. Lack of foresight is common in this population. They don’t restrain their impulses, one of the definitions of management problems. They don’t discipline themselves to stay in school, to turn in their homework, to get out of bed on time, to study when they’d rather watch movies.

Republicans in Congress and the Montana Legislature have made several recent attempts slash the budget for help for hungry kids.


26 Comments on "TEA Bagger Ramps Up His Crusade to Create Massive Food Police Bureacracy"

  1. You are aware that both of Burnett’s House District 63 opponents have withdrawn from the race – according to the Secretary of State’s website?
    ( http://bit.ly/NdyjhN )

    Why would you waste your time on an article against him?

  2. Jennifer Davies | July 10, 2012 8:33 AM at 8:33 AM |

    You don’t think the people of Bozeman have a right to know what their elected representative in the Montana legislature is up to? You don’t think Montanans deserve to know what Republican legislators believe?

    • It’s not just Burnett, but the Heritage Foundation, found this on Jon Tester’s Facebook page

      “When 80% of a bill’s spending goes towards food stamps, that’s not a Farm Bill; that’s a Welfare Bill.

      SHARE this post and click here to tell your U.S. Representatives to “trim the fat” from this giant welfare bill in disguise! http://bit.ly/PFZYek

      Tryed to do a screen shot but no luck

  3. Burnett will most certainly have a Democratic challenger this fall.
    Because Livingston withdrew 85 days before the general election, the party has the ability to nominate a candidate to fill the vacant ballot spot.
    Until the candidate is known, Burnett’s crazy should be well publicized.

    • Damn, D beat me to it. I agree that Burnett’s insanity should be publicised – as should the insanity of any of our “representatives”. If people do not stand up and fight against this insanity, we are only going to recieve the representation our apathy deserves.

  4. Burnett has a challenger, alright. How about Franke Wilmer!

  5. Like a lot of other districts, Burnett’s district need smarter, better informed, and kinder voters.

    Burnett also needs a fitting nickname. I’ll start the discussion with: Tom “Keep ’em hungry” Burnett.

    • I work with several people who live in HD63. After reading Chris Mora’s tweet, I only had a chance to talk to one of them, the ‘informed’ FOX viewer of the bunch. He didn’t recognize Burnett’s name until I pointed out that was his Representative. He then informed me that Burnett has that district “locked up”. Not a chance.

      In 2008, with a great deal of state party and soft money support, Burnett lost to J. P. Pomnichowski by 225 votes. That was a heavy turnout year for Democrats, but not a repressed year for Republicans by any means. In 2010, Burnett won the seat by a whopping 71 votes in a year where Republican turnout was high, Democratic turnout was mediocre and the TEA peep sweep was, shall we say, brutal. I completely recognize that a 71 vote win against any incumbent is an achievement, and if Tom ‘Antoinette’ were running against someone of limited name or resource he would probably walk on his way back to Helena. Against Franke? I think the little lordling has a fight on his hands.

    • Burnett should spend less time trying to deprive poor children of food and spend more time trying to figure out what is depriving the oxygen from his brain. I think his tinfoil hat is too tight.

  6. Yikes…I don’t usually comment on blogs, but what a bunch of spin and hate. I hope your readers read the PDF and don’t rely on this drive by hatchet job.

    How do you jump to “He also bases his case on…wait for it…pictures of fat people he found on the Internet”? This is the quote I’m assuming you are referring to “Obesity rampages across the land. Evidence, scholarly and visual, is everywhere.” Just because he has some pictures of overweight people in his PDF you jump to say he is using them a evidence? Do you really believe this or just want those of us that may not have the time to read the PDF to jump onto your hate bandwagon? There are actually some (51) good reference in the PDF.

    Just for the few people that do read your blog and don’t have the time to read the PDF here are Burnett’s conclusions..

    “We reach two conclusions: 1) claims of food insecurity, hunger and childhood
    hunger ought to be taken skeptically, and, 2) government programs ought to be
    substantially revised in the interest of taxpayers and for the health of recipients.
    The food stamp allowed food list should be like WIC’s, plus staples. Expanded free
    school lunch is unwarranted. Outreach to enroll more food stamp recipients should

    To look at something skeptically and a government program ought to be substantially revised. Doesn’t sound too terrible to me. Well at least not so sinister to merit juvenile name calling…but then again I just moved to MT and don’t know the ropes.

    • It never fails to amuse me when some idjit claims protection by being ignorant of custom while loudly blasting everyone else with their opinion. If you are new to Montana, and don’t know what’s going on? STFU. If you don’t comment on blogs and are unfamiliar with surroundings? STFU. Hiding yourself while making claims about what others have or haven’t read? You’re a liar, so STFU.

      I’ve read the PDF, many times. Allow me to reiterate what I’ve pointed out before (oh wait, you have no control here, so forget any request from me.)

      1) claims of food insecurity, hunger and childhood
      hunger ought to be taken skeptically,

      Which Tom Antoinette proves with pictures of fat adults. His claim should be met with skepticism.

      2) government programs ought to be
      substantially revised in the interest of taxpayers and for the health of recipients.

      No argument, except that isn’t what Tom Antoinette has written. What he wrote was precisely the equivalent of Marie Antoinette saying “Let them eat cake”. He’s already said what revisions he wants, and his ideas are repugnant.

      So, unless you wish to offer your skeptical view of those claims by Burnett, perhaps you’d best STFU.

  7. Jennifer Davies | July 10, 2012 9:41 PM at 9:41 PM |

    I guess the Republicans are quite sensitive about being portrayed and against giving food to needy kids. Somebody should tell that to their elected legislators like Liz Bangerter, Tom Burnett, and Art Wittich.

  8. Where do you have proof he’s a Tea Party member? You seem to throw around things like GOP/Republican/Tea party interchangeably here. You attacks might seem a little more credible if you could actually distinguish between the spectrum of people on the right instead of lumping everyone you disagree with into the “crazy” category.

  9. Never mind. Found the previous post. You should consider hot linking it. Newer readers aren’t going to just understand everything if it’s not referenced. Cheers.

  10. People. Tom Burnett isn’t trying to take food from needy kids. Trash bins of bones and rotting food will be placed in strategic locations throughout “certain” neighborhoods for the spawn of the local underclass to root through and pick over, so how can anyone complain? Trickle-down economics at work. He calls this “gleaning.” A legislative interim committee is already investigating the possibility of tax breaks for businesses who contribute to said bins.

Comments are closed.