TheBakersfieldCalifornian.com

In California, approximately $7.7 billion is spent annually on medical expenses attributed to obesity, according to a study noted by the Centers for Disease Control. Twenty-nine percent of children in Bakersfield, 34 percent in Shafter, 40 percent in Delano and an astonishing 42 percent in Wasco were classified as overweight when tested between 5th and 9th grade.

Almost 10 percent of adults in Kern County have been diagnosed with diabetes.

Several months ago, I was in line at a local grocery store when I noticed someone with children in front of me purchasing an entire grocery cart full of chips, soda, doughnuts, ice cream and other junk food. Unfortunately, she pulled out her EBT card, which carries her monthly Food Stamp allocation-and, swiped it to pay for all of that unhealthy food and off she went.

In government today, we need to refocus our priorities. As we seek to balance an enormous budget deficit that now exceeds $25 billion, we must be as prudent and responsible as possible with every single dollar public agencies offer. We must give people what they need, not what they want. I still believe in offering a hand up to those who need it most, rather than a hand out.

This month we are introducing a bill that seeks a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the state of California to implement major changes to its Food Stamp benefit program. I want to ensure that taxpayer dollars under these government assistance programs are being used to provide staple food items that are more nutritious. We already have precedent for providing healthy staple food items in the California administered Women, Infants and Children program.

While the USDA claims that the Food Stamp program is meant to help increase the nutritional levels of lower-income individuals, recent public health studies focused on California's Food Stamp recipients have indicated that participants are more likely to be obese than non-Food Stamp participants.

As such, signs promoting use of Food Stamp benefits should be in the produce and dairy section and not down the candy aisle. Similarly, Food Stamp recipients should not be able to use their allocation at fast food restaurants nor be able to get cash back when they use their Food Stamp benefits card.

I fully appreciate that cost is an important issue with opponents of this legislation. I am confident that by bringing all stakeholders to the table -- including those that have concerns -- we will craft sound public policy that benefits Food Stamp recipients, the state's bottom line and, most important, individual health.

The question before us is identifying what exactly taxpayer funds should support. The Food Stamp Act of 1964 signed by President Lyndon Johnson specifically identified providing a "nutritionally adequate diet" to those that could afford it least. Both for health and economic reasons, we must return to those historical ideals set forth more than four decades ago.

State Sen. Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield, is one of three local elected officials writing about their work in The Californian. These are Rubio's opinions, not necessarily The Californian's. Next Sunday: Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield.