What the Hell is it with Republicans and School Lunches?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

I seem to be with the libertarians on this one. That’s the way liberals used to think when the conservatives were mostly running things. Then they started running things too and now believe they can tell others what to do. The best government is the one that stays out of your life by governing the least. I don’t care what you call it.

But I digress. Re school lunches, I believe part of the problem is that it is not a straight help the kids thing but it is more of a whole political and very mismanaged mess. It’s aim is to try to get votes from everywhere while satisfying contradictory interests. The Dep. of Agriculture finds an outlet for stuff farmers are producing for the subsidies etc. so the end up feeding the kids stuff which they shouldn’t be eating in the first place.

Then there are a few other subsidies tied to the number of kids who sign up for school lunches. I read a report some time ago that said many schools ask parents to sign for the free lunch program even if their kid doesn’t use it because that brings subsidies to the school.

It seems the whole thing is one of those government programs full of waste all along the way. Wouldn’t it be better to just give some money to the parents so they could pay for some food? Oh, wait, we are already doing that but they’re spending it on drugs instead. never mind.

Regarding the ketchup as a vegetable thing, I don’t get what’s the big deal about it. Laws very often have their own definitions of everything they deal with. You could pick any law and make fun of its language. It’s not like they declared a steak to be a vegetable. If, for the purposes of that regulation, ketchup was to be grouped with vegetables, I can see how they would include a definition that “for the purposes of this order, the word vegetables shall include ketchup”. What’s wrong with that/ It’s better than repeating vegetables and/or ketchup five hundred times along the way. Or am I missing something and what they actually said was that they knew ketchup was a vegetable just like spaghetti because they both grew on tress?

It seems a bad opportunity to make fun at something on very superficial grounds rather than weigh the merits of its substance.

Did I say I really haven’t a clue of what i’m talking about?

22

Oh yeah… and I don’t hink the feds are the only ones with school lunch programs. I may be wrong on this, but I believe the state of California, and probably other states as well, have school lunch programs that work alongside and/or overlap the federal program. Thus, if the feds were to repeal all federal laws re school lunches, the state systems would still be in place and operational, just without the help of the feds.

23

Before labeling the entire school lunch program as a boodoggle, perhaps some research is in order.

From what I understand, the school lunch program is not a farm subsidy. Rather, it is an effort to help ensure that impoverished children receive proper nutrition because proper nutrition is one of the primary fundamentals of proper learning.

Before attacking the program blindly, first ask whether you know the answers to some of these questions…

  1. How much does the fed spend on the program?
  2. How much does the state spend on the program?
  3. What is the percentage of the overall budget devoted to the program?
  4. What percentage of the education budget goes to the program?
  5. What are the qualifications for entry into the program?
  6. Are these qualification standards reasonable?
  7. How many children qualify for the program?
  8. How many qualifying children actually receive benefits?
  9. How many non-qualifying children receive benefits that they shouldn’t
  10. How are the qualification standards enforced?
  11. How much money is spent on qualification enforcement?
    [or what is the cost of syatem abuse?]
  12. What kinds of foods are provided to the children?
  13. What quantity of foods are provided to the children?
  14. Are these the kinds and quantities of foods that are conducive to proper developmental nutrition?
  15. What has been the impact of the program on children’s grades and study habits?
  16. Have grades improved?
  17. If grades have improved, how much?
  18. If grades have not improved, what other factors may contribute to that? How do we deal with those factors?
  19. How have children’s grades been affected by fluctuations in spending on the program?
  20. How is the food distributed to the schools?
  21. Is this the most efficient method of distribution?
  22. How is the food distributed to the individual child?
  23. Is this the most efficient distribution system?

I could go on…

My point is that without answers to these questions, an attack on the economics of the program as a whole is just a half-baked knee-jerk reaction. Get the facts first.

I am not claiming to have answers to these quations, but, if you notice, I have neither supported nor defended the program in my posts. Why? Because I don’t have enough information, and neither do most people who make such arguments about public policy… on many issues, not just school lunch.

Now, the libertarian arguments posted above seem to based in large part on political philosophy regarding the proper role of the federal government. You don’t need a lot of facts to assert that argument. However, if you want to question the value of a particular program, please investigate before spouting off.

If the program is not doing its job like it is supposed to, then, perhaps it is because of an inefficieny buried in the program such as expensive food distribution or system abuse. Perhaps, if the distribution costs or system enforcement costs were managed more effectively, then the program would be more cost-effective, and its purpose would be served. Rather than suggest scrapping an entire program, maybe it can be made to work.

24

Bearflag, my personal opinion is that the government should not be running school lunch or agricultural subsidies programs. That’s just my opinion (I am an expert when it comes to my opinion).

On the other hand I have seen it discussed many times in the news that the food is unhealthy but mandated by the stuff the Dept of Agriculture is trying to unload. See
http://www.beautywalk.com/lifestyle/march01/pcrm.htm for an example

It has also been mentioned many times that the number of parents who aplly determines eligibility for a number of other programs so, the numbers are inflated artificially. There have been cases of just giving false information and others where parents who did not want it were asked by the school to apply anyway since they lost nothing and it meant funds for the school.

Those facts have been in the news repeatedly so it’s not like I’m claiming stuff only I have heard of.

My opinion is that all these government programs would best be scrapped.

25

Injecting sour grapes

Inter-connection of programs is common in many federal hand outs and also the interlacing of laws, regulations and executive orders.

“Hypothetical Example” now in the courts in several states.

A child in the “Free or reduced cost” Federal Lunch program is VERY alergic to peanuts. In this instance the child is put at risk if the lunch room even serves peanut butter cookies to the other children. This child has had reactions from the dust and crumbs on other childrens clothing. He may now request , and the school has offered, a different menu and a seperate facility for this child.

The Parental units in this family have refused these concessions, as they are of the opinion that having their child served saperately is a form of osterization and discrimination and violates the ADA, or the “Americans with Disabilities Act”. Therefore they have demanded that the school not serve any food containing any amount of peanuts at any time.

Can you imagine the cost to a school district, required to screen every product and vendor to make certain that nothing containins peanuts or is prepared with peanut oil?

“The solution” The district, not just the one school mind you, but the entire district, will stop serving meals at schools.

Now if the entire district stops serving meals then no one may recieve this benefit. The other funds that are tied to this program for the under-priviledged and are doled out based on the number of kids recieving this one benefit are ALL CUT OFF.

These are what are called Unintended Consequences of a nobel idea! Imagine that!

And dont even get me started on the 2nd amendment.

IMNSHO If your district/city/county/state believes they need programs like this then let them set it up and pass taxes to fund them and pass local laws and ordanances to regulate and control them.

You know better what you need than I do! And I’m darn sure you know better what you need, than 535 dark blue suits in the District of Columbia!

Now I’m going to take my sour grapes and make some wine. and if the “revenuers” don’t ketch me, I’ll let you know when it’s done and we’ll share a glass.

26

Interesting article, sailor. Thanks.

There are two ways to attack the lunch program:

  1. It violates your ** political philosophy ** regarding the proper role of government; or

  2. The program is an ineffective economic boodoggle.

My points on these two issues are:

  1. I was not challenging your ** political philosophy ** as to whether the government should offer programs. If you do not believe that government has a proper role in providing such programs, then all of the studies and facts in the world will be of no value to your analysis. I have no problem with that. Libertarianism is a valid theory. I happen to embrace some of it, but I could not claim to be one.

  2. Assuming a person believes the government has a valid role to play in providing such programs, many people label the programs as boondoggles without knowledge of the facts. They don’t stop to think that the program can be properly reformed. Scrapping an entire program because of some inefficiencies is not always the best answer. Perhaps we could alter the application/funding procedure to emliniante or reduce abuses. Perhaps we could increase the minimum food quality standards.

My previous comments were general comments, not directed at you specifically.

27

Bearflag, yes, I understand the distinction but I would say I tend to be averse to government programs because they tend to be inefficient. I am also talking in very general terms.

I am not an expert by any means in these programs but every time I see one, I see something that is a mess and run more in the ineterests of those who run the program than anyone else. It ends up being a circle of interests where the country as a whole end up paying for the program.

I am quite against farm subsidies as I believe that farming, like any other business, works most efficiently with free competition in the free market. Instead, both Europe and America, have a system of subsidies which absolutely distorts the market. Stuff is being produced which is not needed. Farmers are paid not to grow stuff. Prices are kept artificially high. The whole thing is a mess and, then they find themselves with surpluses they don’t know what to do with them… so they send it to the schools… never minding that it is not what the kids really need.

I would dismantle the entire system of subsidies to farming around the world. That would be a good start. The lunch program then would probably fall on its own.