On August 24th, the Daily Sun published a series of typical left-leaning editorials to open up the new school year. One of them featured a senior nutritional science major making an argument for the expansion of government in a piece titled “Paul Ryan on Food Politics.” In it, he projected the effects of Paul Ryan’s budget on the US government's food-related expenditures. With the usual liberal gravitas, the author bemoans the lack of federal commitment to the causes of nutrition and obesity prevention. This is a brilliant example of the quintessential, “I know what's better for you than you do,” Cornell intellectual arrogance. Alas, the self-righteous left-wing ideas that stem from this mindset are as specious as they are nauseating.

While I acknowledge the persistently “progressive” editorials in the Sun are always chuckle-worthy, this particular level of unjustified anointment surpassed all the expectations I ever held for the Sun. It began with a barrage of low-level body blows against highly capable Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, even targeting his participation in a certain (very effective) P90X workout routine. Rather than acknowledging Ryan's depth of experience with nutrition and fitness as a potential asset in the field of food politics, in Byzantine liberal fashion the author immediately vilifies Mr. Ryan for his staunch commitment to fiscal solvency.

The author then complains about what he views as a lack of commitment of federal resources on issues of nutrition and well-being. The author cites the current figure of $421 per American citizen spent every year on “preventative policy.” I would agree with the author that this spending is a problem. I view this as a problem because our public debt is out of control. A debt so high every American child (obese or not) will be enslaved to repay $45,000 of it. I view this as a problem because absolutely no measured analysis has been done that substantially correlates federal spending on obesity prevention to declines in the US obesity rate.

I view this as a problem because the $500 million dollar fund specifically dedicated to childhood obesity prevention alone could have fully fed every malnourished child in Haiti. Yes, our government spends enough money to nourish a nation of starving children trying to prevent your kids from becoming too fat. And it doesn't even work.

The $421 per American citizen spent every year adds up quickly. Unfortunately, the author, evidently speaking from a position of immense financial privilege, cites this number as “not enough” as it could not “buy a yearly retail gym membership” (where the hell do you work out?).

Speaking as a student who has struggled to make ends meet, political statements like these out of the mouths of some Cornellians is utterly sickening. I can't even begin to imagine the number of people who desperately needed $400 more dollars this year. For countless families across America, money like that was the difference between making that mortgage payment and foreclosure.

Continuing such leftist ramblings, the article then decries Ryan's opposition to the expansion of the Food Stamps (SNAP) Program as being the equivalent of wanting poor people to starve. Now look, I grew up in an immigrant-dense neighborhood where local mercados would commonly not accept EBTs (the food stamp payment card) at all. Fresh fruit and vegetables were plentiful and cheap, wages were low, and yet people did not go hungry. When I took the bus down to visit my friends in San Francisco's more “ghetto” areas, I was shocked to find no fresh produce. Liquor stores price canned corn in excess of $3, yet cigarettes and alcohol are at the lowest prices I have seen on the market anywhere.

The author defends the growth of SNAP for giving poor people access to fresh food, yet it doesn't address other structural barriers that prevent people from accessing nutritious subsistence. It can be as simple as people needing gas and a vehicle to drive to Whole Foods. Since many of them have neither, and because neither can be bought with food stamps, these recipients spend their food stamp benefits at local stores, at very high premiums. If you are unfortunate enough to have been rejected by SNAP, thrown off, or in the midst of an appeal, you must pay this price premium to account for the subsidy. The ultimate result is that food becomes unnecessarily inaccessible. It is very likely that because of food stamps, more poor children go hungry. Swallow that.

Beyond the simple life in my neighborhood, I have also worked as an advocate at a local private non-profit benefits agency. I was an advocate for the poor and helpless, I helped impoverished individuals navigate the legal system and obtain the benefits they were entitled to. I have seen the racism and unmanageable bureaucracy endemic in the Food Stamps appeals system. I have sat down with countless poor clients to establish welfare budgets, and countless times I have had to explain to desperate families that the only way to receive sufficient government benefits to pay for bills and food was if the family divorced and live in separate homes. Yes, these incentives are real, and they are disgusting. To throw more money at this system would be a moral stain on this country.

A statement so begrudgingly soaked in privilege is fit to summarize the entire “college liberal” philosophy: it matters not whose money is spent or where it is coming from, only that as much of it as possible is spent on “good causes.”

You see, these liberal students have an internalized belief that a bigger and more technocratic government can solve all of society's problems, from people eating too much to eating too little. All we need to do is control and regulate people. All we need to do is spend money on the problem. People are going hungry? Throw money at the problem. Obesity is a dangerous growing trend? Tax, borrow, spend, and repeat.

When will these liberals realize you can't buy good character? How can you write an entire article about obesity and food politics without mentioning corn (high-fructose syrup) subsidies even once? When will they realize that Keynesian interventionist policies are destroying all real economic opportunity for the very people they intend to help? Can they ever understand their “humanitarian” efforts have such dire consequences? When will they admit their social experiments have failed?

Oh Cornell, please wake up. Your country needs you.

Zachary Dellé is a junior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. He can be reached at zed3@cornell.edu.