Shes just as bad as him. Two pushy liberals who cant get enough of sticking their noses in other peoples business.

2012 can come none too soon.

Perhaps Michelle's title should be changed to First Mother since clearly she's got an unhealthy preoccupation with wanting to mother everyone else's kids.

OK, seriously, folks. Let me get this straight ... you have a problem with schools promoting healthy eating and getting junk food out of vending machines and out of school cafeterias?

But, but ... It's for their health!

Remember the people who voted for this clown and his wife wanted an overhaul of the health care system. Of course they were too lazy and clueless to even think of the the power and freedom they were giving away.

Are any of us surprised that the nanny state mentality is intruding into every aspect of our lives, including school bake sales?

Keep it up, and 2012 will be a "cakewalk" for the opposition - no matter who the candidate is.

James H, that decision should be left up to the parents and the school, not the federal government, for Pete's sake.

I don't see where the Constitution says the federal government can regulate our eating decisions, and the tenth amendment says the federal government cannot exercise a power unless it is explicitly given to it by the Constitution.

OK, seriously, folks. Let me get this straight ... you have a problem with schools promoting healthy eating and getting junk food out of vending machines and out of school cafeterias?

First, this has nothing to do with getting junk food out of vending machines and school cafeterias, it's about bake sales, so that's just a strawman.

Second, having nice home-cooked baked goods on occasion is not a threat to anyone's health. If it was we would all be dead already. This is about micromanaging and imposing on people's activities for absolutely no purpose aside from wanting to make sure we know they *can*.

Someone needs to explain to the Obamas -- those highly-educated, exceptionally-intelligent Ivy League lawyers -- that when Teddy Roosevelt referred to the presidency as a "bully pulpit," "bully" didn't mean what it does today.

Because it's pretty damned clear that they are using the wrong definition.

J.

The First Cow is now in on policy and legislation? G-d help us all!

Next will be Federal Oversight of the food served at those multi-thousand dollar per plate political fundraising dinners, right? And those parties at the White House, right?

Funny how they are just like Islam, no fun allowed, oh, except for the ruling class. Hmmmmm, makes me wonder.

Isn't Michelle Obama promoting anti-obesity kinda like Joe Camel promoting anti-smoking?

Every time this woman opens her mouth I gain ten pounds. I'm just really lucky I wasn't alive during prohibition.

Why are we worried about this when the diabolical Girl Scouts are still running free and pushing their DoSiDos and Thin Mints? That is what is known as 'organized crime'.

From the link, but left out of Ms Priestap's excerpt:

"Public health groups pushed for the language on fundraisers, which encourages the secretary of Agriculture to allow them only if they are infrequent. The languauge is broad enough that a president's administration could even ban bake sales, but Secretary Tom Vilsack signaled in a letter to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, this week that he does not intend to do that. The USDA has a year to write the rules that decide how frequent is infrequent."

So there is no real danger that school bake sales are going to be banned. Another example of Ms Priestap's Beck-style alarmism. Tempest in a teapot, Chicken Little stuff.

I suggest that anyone who seriously asserts that school bake sales will be banned under this legislation is either a rube him/herself, or thinks he/she is addressing rubes. What's next, an article on how the flouridation of water is robbing Americans of their precious bodily fluids?

Brucie, no one is suggesting that the First Wookie is banning bake sales ding dong.

It's the fact that the Federal Government, in its continuous over reaching of Federal intrusion is involved in local school bake sales in the first place is appalling.

What's next? They'll be determining what brand of condoms the school nurse hands out.

I think schools should have a nationwide "Bake Sale Day" if this goes through. Why should the government have ANY say in how many bake sales a school holds?

Really, Mr Bob?

The fact that "ban" was used in the article Ms Priestap pulled her sky-is-falling piece from is not a suggestion that bake sales will be banned?

And even if no one here on Wizbang may be suggesting a ban is in the works, is there any doubt that an alarmist frenzy is being worked up here, ala Beck/Limbaugh? Bake sales will continue in public schools, unmolested by the eevil Feds. Chicken Littles.

This is bad bill all around.

We will have the DHS and FDA treat small family farms like they were large Ag which means small farms will face huge cost and inspections which should not apply to them. This could lead to the elimination of small family farms in favor of Huge Ag.

The government like big business easier to control and will limit choice. This was he same method that government used with the banks. Remember it was federal mandate to reduce the number of small banks and crete large regional Banks. In order to do this banks grew by M&A which the Fed would only allow by following CRA.

Which resulted in Too Big To Fail.
Which means you have Too Small To Succeed

Now what they did with the Banks they will do with Food

Consumers will have limited choice in what food choices they have.

It also can have detrimental effect on consumers ability to get vitamins and supplements .

BH points out

Secretary Tom Vilsack signaled in a letter to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, this week that he does not intend to do that. The USDA has a year to write the rules that decide how frequent is infrequent."

It means the law is completely and utterly arbitrary depending on the whim of whoever holds the office. The are un elected they do not have to respond to the will of the people.

Alarmist frenzy? Care to comment on 9.8 doctored unemployment Bruce?

Irrelevant to this article, 914. But good try at look-over-there.

Alarmist? Really, Bruce, you should visit a California public school.

My granddaughter had her lunch confiscated at the beginning of this school year because she had a COKE in it! A letter was sent to my daughter telling her that if she sent her daughter to school with a soft-drink again then her daughter would be SUSPENDED for up to a week!

And you think this Nazi Regime is going to allow BAKE SALES? They have already, in advance of this bullshit legislation, banned "birthday cupcakes" that moms used to send on their kid's birthday.

Bruce, and the rest of the Left don't care how far the government intrudes in their life, because it is the benevolent government of Lord Obama. All praise to The Won.

Bruce, in his confirmation hearings Julius Genachowski (now) Chairman of the FCC said he would not seek to bring back the "fairness doctrine". And today we stand at the threshold of the FCC regulating the internet, something they have no specific authority to do, by the establishment of what they call "Net Neutrality." A rose by any other name...

During his confirmation hearing Genachowski described his vision for the agency as "fostering investment and innovation via open, fair and data-driven processes." Open hearings? Published reports? Public process?

So Tom Vilsack say that he has no intention of regulating school bake sales (right now). And you expect us to be impressed? Comforted? Why should we even believe him? The only thing that is for certain is that they put that language in there by intention and they had to have had reason(s) for doing so.

Did a Federal agent confiscate your grandaughter's Coke? Did Obama ban birthday cupcakes?

Yeah, alarmist, Chicken Little stuff. Sorry to spoil your Panic Party.

Generally, we give kids pretty crappy foods in public schools, so I think it makes sense to pay attention to this issue.

Kim, as usual, is taking one small piece of the larger issue and doing her standard reactionary thing. Did you read through this legislation at all, Kim? Or did your local PAC simply tell you to fight for the freedom to hold bake sales?

Granted, this is by no means perfect legislation, but I argue that this issue deserves more attention than what Kim is putting forth here. It is certainly about more than bake sales, that's for sure.

Might be a good idea to at least read through what it's about:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3307/show

The whole issue with bake sales probably comes from the part where there is a push to establish nutritional guidelines for the types of food available on campus during school hours. All things considered, probably not a bad idea. The abysmal diet of average Americans does, in fact, have its detrimental effects. Unless of course you think that tater tots, Coca-cola, and frozen pizza are a healthy part of your kids' diet.

I agree that the Fed does not need to be telling parents what they can and cannot put in kid's lunches. If you want to stuff your kid with Doritos and Coca-cola, by all means, go for it. It's your God-given American right to feed your kid whatever shitty food you want. But I do think it's a good idea to start transforming the way that we think about feeding kids in public schools. Overall, making this whole issue into a battle for the right to have bake sales is pretty silly.

Brett,

"First, this has nothing to do with getting junk food out of vending machines and school cafeterias, it's about bake sales, so that's just a strawman."

No, Brett. Kim's post is about bake sales. This issue has everything to do with changing the kind of crappy foods that are sold and provided in public schools.

"Second, having nice home-cooked baked goods on occasion is not a threat to anyone's health. If it was we would all be dead already. This is about micromanaging and imposing on people's activities for absolutely no purpose aside from wanting to make sure we know they *can*."

Again, maybe you should actually go read through this issue a little more before latching onto Kim's argument. Having some nice home-cooked brownies every once in a while certainly isn't a problem. The prevalence of high fat, high sugar, high salt, and low quality foods in public schools, however, IS a problem.

BH

Justard point is valid. Groups wanted that langue in the Bill because the power they desire at the local level they want at the Federal level in order to limit Federalism.

If parents became upset with the behavior they could
A) Fight it at local level.
B) Move to another district

By having a Federal Bill they limit they way that people can fight it.

So we know by their actions what true intent is.

It is not hyperbole to see that these groups who sponsored sections of the Bill want to do away with bake sales in school and seek to do it through Federal Government.

Public health groups pushed for the language on fundraisers, which encourages the secretary of Agriculture to allow them only if they are infrequent...

Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest says the bill is aimed at curbing daily or weekly bake sales or pizza fundraisers that become a regular part of kids' lunchtime routines. She says selling junk food can easily be substituted with nonfood fundraisers.

"These fundraisers are happening all the time," Wootan said. "It's a pizza sale one day, doughnuts the next... It's endless. This is really about supporting parental choice. Most parents don't want their kids to use their lunch money to buy junk food. They expect they'll use their lunch money to buy a balanced school meal."

"Schools are so used to doing the same fundraisers every year that they need a strong nudge to do something new," she says. "The most important rebuttal to all of these arguments is that schools can make money other ways -- you don't have to harm kids health."

I do not like what the school cafeteria options are so I elect pack their lunch and I do not give my kids lunch money. If the school has bake sale I tell my kids to just give money and not have eat the cakes. We have options we do not need the government through some busy bodies to dictate what we can and cannot do.

village idiot-

"Did a Federal agent confiscate your grandaughter's Coke? Did Obama ban birthday cupcakes?

Yeah, alarmist, Chicken Little stuff. Sorry to spoil your Panic Party."

The first wookie has no say period beyond her own childrens diet. That you're too stuck on stupid to acknowledge that proves you really have earned village idiot status.

"It is not hyperbole to see that these groups who sponsored sections of the Bill want to do away with bake sales in school and seek to do it through Federal Government."

This is primarily about trying to improve nutrition standards at schools. It's about cutting down junk food, and the block quote you posted makes that clear. In effect, you are missing the bigger point by making a big deal about bake sales, which IMO is pretty myopic. Some of you guys want to turn this into another FREEDOM issue...but you keep forgetting that public schools receive federal funding, hence the need to provide some sort of guidelines/standards for this sort of thing during school hours.

I'm not exactly sure why having a bake sale with brownies and pizza DURING SCHOOL HOURS is such a high priority for some of you folks. Makes more sense to me to focus on improving the overall quality of food available to kids, and--gasp--focusing on school as a place of education. Have the bake sale after school is out.

The 'do-gooders' strike again.

And they'll never stop BECAUSE IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!

President Obama would serve the country better by micro-managing school bake sales for sure. At least he would be sparring the rest of the country and world of embarassing decisions.

914,

"The first wookie has no say period beyond her own childrens diet. That you're too stuck on stupid to acknowledge that proves you really have earned village idiot status."

First of all, you do know that this isn't Michele Obama's Act, right? This goes back to 1966, and is renewed every five years. But you already knew that, right?

Second, Michele Obama has no legislative authority on this matter--congress does. And both houses passed these recent changes. So take this up with them.

Third, the federal government does have a say in the nutrition levels of foods that public schools serve, because the fed contributes money to lunch programs at schools. It makes sense to establish at least SOME guidelines for how those funds are spent.

Last, I agree that the fed should not be telling parents what to give their kids in lunches. The fed should provide some guidelines and standards about foods that are provided on campuses--that makes sense to me. But if parents want to feed junior Ho-Hos, Cokes, ding-dongs, and Doritos that's their constitutional right.

"And they'll never stop BECAUSE IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

So, the overall nutrition level of food at public schools is pretty bad. Do you disagree with this? What's YOUR solution, GarandFan?

As for the whole bake sale thing, IMO this is a red herring that you guys are latching onto in order to avoid actually talking about the issue at hand. Bake sales at schools are pretty much the least of our worries. Schools are there for education. And it does make some sense, IMO, for the feds to at least pay attention to how funds are spent in school lunch programs, etc.

What parents decide to send is an entirely different matter--I agree with you folks on that matter. But arguing that having brownie and pizza "bake sales" during school hours is somehow a vital American right is pretty lame.

Ryan a,

I fail to see why the Federal Government need to get involved in this issue. The bake sales are never intended as replacement to school Lunch.
So the nutritional standards argument you state is not based in any reality.
If you do not want your child to participate in bake sale then tell them no and do not give them money to do so. If you feel your school is having to many then you could go to the local board and have the discussion. I just do not like someone in DC making decisions for my local towns school.

Prime example where I am school Lunch programs is paid for a week in advance. So when bake sale is done as fund raiser kids need to get money. The Bake sale is never instead of lunch.

How about working on the 9.8% unemployment?
Or a real Tax cut bill instead of extending the current rates?
An overhaul of National Security?
A strong US Dollar?
N. Korea

I think of of that more important than the number of Bake Sales held in SpringField Ma, Pensacola,FL or Dallas,TX

How long after the government is allowed to regulate when bake sales are held and what you can eat based on nutrition or obesity, will they then change to telling kids and parents what they will only allow them to eat. When does it change from "you can't have that" to "you can only have this"? Set up a committee or group to regulate stuff and pretty soon they will be making all kinds of shit up to justify their existence.

I discussed this with my fiancee(a nurse) and she did point out that there has been a rise in food allergies over the last ten years( CDC says 18%) which is a possible reason for not having birthday cupcakes. Her best friend was told not too send her kid in with his peanut butter and celery because kids share and all it takes is sharing with the wrong kid and you have a bad situation. Teachers can not keep that close an eye on all of them. Personally I think there are better ways than to just ban stuff,such as educating the kids. We are supposed to teach and prepare the kids to live and survive in the world,not blind them to that which would be dangerous.

Wow...the Left just doesn't get it...at all.

(a) why the hell is the Federal government involved in education AT ALL??? The multiple BILLIONS of $$$$ spent since the creation of the "Department of Education" has not had ANY beneficial effect.. NONE.

(b) but since they ARE involved they control Federal purse-strings. So if they want to make certain funds available under certain "conditions" like, strict adherence to "nutrition standards"...then so be it...right?

During the annual "Gay Pride" festival in San Francisco you can have ACTUAL full-on sex in public while smoking a joint...in full view of the police...and nothing will happen to you (this is a multiply video-taped FACT). But Coca-Cola has been banned in the city.

My son sold 50 high sugar candy bars in 4 hours as a school fundraiser. Thank the Lord there was no moochie wookie interfering with the process.

ryan-

"But arguing that having brownie and pizza "bake sales" during school hours is somehow a vital American right is pretty lame."

It goes without saying. Its not an argument.

"The brilliant idea to regulate bake sales in schools is being promoted by First Lady Michelle Obama. They're a couple of killjoys, the Obamas"

Joy to the world 2012 will come

.... HMIC's loathesome and fearsome "spouse," Michelle-Antoinette's "title" should be changed to second murrahfurrah in charge, (SMIC) since she has such an unhealthy preoccupation with wanting to dictate to other folks' children ....

Amazing, isn't it, that this pair of shuckin' and jivin' and effectively disbarred-for-cause shysters -- neither of whom has ever either earned or held other than a patronage position, has ever managed so much as the night-shift at a Seven-11, the day-shift on a small-town cab, has balanced a check-book or can be trusted to put the cap on a tooth-paste tube -- is so morbidly in Denial and pathologically into Projection as to presume to tell the rest of us how to live our lives!

Bloody morons!

Bruce and Ryan are purposefully avoiding the larger point, which is that regulating the nutrition programs in general and bake sales in particular of local public schools is not the responsibility of the federal government. Rather it should be the responsibility of local school boards. State school boards are the furthest any decision makers should be from this issue. Unfortunately, the feds helped themselves to control over public schools via the federal lunch program. There's no way they're not going to use it to impose their will on the rabble.

Yeah, how dare the Federal government concern itself with the health of schoolchildren? What are they trying to do, promote the general welfare or something?

BH and ryan a.
Just to be clear the section deals with food sold outside of the school Lunch program.

So no Federal Dollars are involved. It is clearly a local issue.

SEC. 204. NUTRITION STANDARDS FOR ALL FOODS SOLD IN SCHOOL.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
21:12 Jun 11, 2010
•HR 5504 IH Jkt 089200 PO 00000
''(i) outside the school meal programs under this Act and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);

"Bruce and Ryan are purposefully avoiding the larger point, which is that regulating the nutrition programs in general and bake sales in particular of local public schools is not the responsibility of the federal government."

It does boggle the mind how they can't see the path this puts us on. I don't think they are that dumb, so they must see and approve of this path.

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our
own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."---C. S. Lewis

"Yeah, how dare the Federal government concern itself with the health of schoolchildren? What are they trying to do, promote the general welfare or something?"

Heh. Yep, and there he goes, with the smug self-approval of his conscience. They're doing Good, you see, so they will. never. stop.

Oh, I see, Mr Nessman. My point of view is "smug." Yours, on the other hand, is heartfelt and clearly correct.

Where does this crap stop? So you have no school children so maybe this doesn't effect you, what's next maybe beer or hot fudge sundays at summer picnics? If I recall recently Bruce went after Jay Tea about over reach of the executive branch, how's this not the same over reach? If you give the government an inch they will take a mile.

Who said I have no school children? One daughter graduated high school in '09, another is in 9th grade.

When I ask what she had for lunch, I'm always answered a slice of pizza or fried chicken "nuggets." The days of reasonably priced balanced school meals have been over for years, at least around here.

Local school boards are more concerned with the revenue they derive from vending machines full of crap than they are with what kids eat and its effect on their health.

If you had issues with what your kids' schools were serving, then you and other parents had the opportunity to take it to the school board. Now the local school board has no options and must defer to Washington regarding what they serve and how they serve it. Money that could have gone to school repairs must now be diverted to accomodate salad bars and other items that the Washington bureaucrats will dictate.

ryan a wrote:

"No, Brett. Kim's post is about bake sales. This issue has everything to do with changing the kind of crappy foods that are sold and provided in public schools.> Again, maybe you should actually go read through this issue a little more before latching onto Kim's argument. Having some nice home-cooked brownies every once in a while certainly isn't a problem. The prevalence of high fat, high sugar, high salt, and low quality foods in public schools, however, IS a problem.

I decided to respond to *the post actually made*, moron! Not a made-up post of what you wanted it to be about = on in this case, a classic strawman. The post *I* was responding to created an issue what was not initially mentioned, then criticized the rest of us for supporting the made-up issue. Classic diversion from the real topic.

Sorry but I draw the line at getting into an argument over something I never said and had nothing to do with the original post.

And need I point out that even logic behind the *strawman* argument is stupid and blatantly and definitively unconstitutional. Determining what a local school permits to be sold is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal governement.

"I decided to respond to *the post actually made*, moron! Not a made-up post of what you wanted it to be about = on in this case, a classic strawman."

You don't get it. KIM wrote about bake sales, but she is referring to a small part of this legislation. Why? Because it fires up reactionaries like you. I was referring to the legislation, and my point is that Kim's entire post is a red herring that is only meant to incite the troops. And it has done a good job of doing that.

I think there is definitely a lot to debate about this issue, and I think there are important points to consider from various sides. I do not think that the Feds should be telling everyone what they can and cannot do, by any means. At the same time, I do not see a problem with trying to improve the overall standards about nutrition and quality of food served to school kids. At present, the system is pretty abysmal.

Now, Brett, I have no issue with people who disagree. I am all for it. But please try to avoid acting like a 4th grader, ok? Try it out--it might actually be a little more interesting than the usual BS around here.

More later.

dear kim,
One thing you got to know, if you receive any "freebie" from the government, it always comes with strings attached. My daughter, with multiple health problems, should be getting all kinds of therapy "free" from the government, but 3 years ago, I pulled her out of public school, and we have been managing just fine. We don't need the government controlling us. BTW, when we were in the public schools here in LA, they were telling us back then to only bring healthy snacks; no sugary snacks on birthdays. etc. I didn't mind it so much because that's how i cook, anyway, but I do mind it from the feds.

ryan: "At the same time, I do not see a problem with trying to improve the overall standards about nutrition and quality of food served to school kids."

Or before and after school at home! Children should be encouraged to report on the meals served them at home...so the government can ensure their parents comply with nutrition standards.

Further, children hear things from their parents that are not condusive to an orderly society...children should report anti-government talk to their teachers so that the government can "work with the parents" to ensure they are teaching the right things at home.

It's all for the good of the children.

Dear Kim,
I really wish that Michele O. would do something helpful for the kids, like insist that the teacher's unions be dissolved, and bad teachers be fired. But no, she wants the gov't to pitch in an extra 6 cents a meal, and regulate bake sales. Wow, now that's "change" you can believe in! BTW, anytime you receive a "freebie" from the gov't, it always comes with strings attached. I learned this from my experience with my special needs daughter and the school system here in LA. Three years ago, we opted out of the public school system, and we are happier and healthier. We are homeschooling and she's getting a much better education!!

BH

Hate to tell you this but most of what you named would most likely meat the new standards. Pizza is bread, vegetable and diary if daily amounts are added up it meats the guidlines. Same with the chicken fingers the are baked and not fried. You see I something similar and went to school board and found out by federal guidelines all those foods met the Fedeal Standards.

So going off on any fund raising activity that may occur before or after the school day I'd not addressing the issue it government over

Justrand:

"Or before and after school at home! Children should be encouraged to report on the meals served them at home...so the government can ensure their parents comply with nutrition standards."

Nice job overreacting. You're so clever. I'm very impressed.

Kim:

"Bruce and Ryan are purposefully avoiding the larger point, which is that regulating the nutrition programs in general and bake sales in particular of local public schools is not the responsibility of the federal government."

Ironic that you say I am avoiding the larger point, when you ignore the rest of the legislation, skip the larger issue about diet and nutrition, and post instead about bake sales--as if THAT is the big issue here.

By all means, Kim, let's talk about the issue.

Overall, I definitely do not think the govt should be telling parents what kids can and cannot bring to school. That sort of micromanagement is over the top. As for setting national guidelines or standards about the food served at public schools, I think that's not a bad idea. As for the bake sale, I think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it really is.

"State school boards are the furthest any decision makers should be from this issue."

Ok, great. So should we do without the federal funding that goes to schools?

Hcddbz:

"I fail to see why the Federal Government need to get involved in this issue. The bake sales are never intended as replacement to school Lunch. So the nutritional standards argument you state is not based in any reality."

Well, according to some of the articles I have been reading today, these supposed "bake sales" or fundraisers do in fact replace lunch--like when they include pizza. As for the nutritional standards argument, the basic idea here is that kids are eating a lot of low quality, shitty foods. So the whole issue is about trying to improve the overall nutritional value of foods that kids are exposed to--there are of course plenty of reasons why this is a good idea. But sure, ya, what we really need are more brownies, cupcakes, and greasy slices of pizza.

The basic idea here seems to be a move away from just giving kids of bunch of crappy foods. Sounds good to me.

One more Hcddbz:

"I think of of that more important than the number of Bake Sales held in SpringField Ma, Pensacola,FL or Dallas,TX."

Go read the legislation. See the link above. This isn't just about bake sales, by any means. That's just what Kim and her followers have decided to focus on.

ryan: "Ok, great. So should we do without the federal funding that goes to schools?"

YES! Amazing...you seem to have finally gotten it!

Yes...eliminate "federal funding", eliminate the Education Department!

Laundering tax money through D.C. doesn't make it more useful...it makes it vastly LESS so.

well, let's see. lincoln did the emancipation proclaimation so i guess he had something to do with ending slavery. roosevelt and truman had something to do with defeating nazism. reagan should get some credit for tearing down the berlin wall.

all these people are nothing.

the greatest contributor in american history, and one whose face should be on every bit of currency and postage, is michelle obama. she will save the world from chocolate chip cookies.

somebody might as well start chipping away on mt rushmore. the one we've been waiting for and his lovely wife bruno have saved us all!

remind me to bend over and pray to the white house five times a day.

Justrand,

"Yes...eliminate "federal funding", eliminate the Education Department!"

Ok. So what should we do about schools that rely heavily on federal funding? What about districts that rely on these funds? Tough luck for them?

"Laundering tax money through D.C. doesn't make it more useful...it makes it vastly LESS so."

Hmmm. So what's your take on military spending for the two wars we're involved in? Do you think that's a good use of billions of dollars?

My plan for the Department of Education is simple: abolish it. Then take its budget, apply half to the debt, the other half divided up to school districts on a per capita basis. No strings attached.

But that would take away so much of the fed's power, and the Dems can't have that...

J.

Jay Tea:

"My plan for the Department of Education is simple: abolish it. Then take its budget, apply half to the debt, the other half divided up to school districts on a per capita basis. No strings attached."

Well, at least you have some sort of alternative plan in mind.

1. If there are no strings, how do you control for corruption and misuse of funds? Do you have any expectations about results, or do you just keep handing out funds each year regardless?

2. Why a strictly per capita basis? So you give the same proportion across the board? How do you account for districts that are in worse shape and might need more financial assistance?

Ryan...you seem to really care, you're just woefully misinformed.

Do some research on two changes in America's eduation over the last 50 years.

(1) the rise, and eventual complete dominance of Teacher's Unions
(2) the creation and eventual politicization of the Department of Education

America LED THE WORLD in Education prior to those two things happening. We have been in decline SINCE they occured...and accelerating our decline since they combined forces.

Why does private eduation, and especially HOME-SCHOOLING vastly surpass public education? Not $$$$. Per capita, private education and home-schooling are much LESS expensive.

I leave you to educate yourself...if you can.

Dept of Education budget: 70 billion dollars.

Dept of Defense budget: 650 billion dollars.

Total military spending: approx 900 billion dollars plus.

So...when 70 billion dollars of taxpayer funds are distributed through the Fed for EDUCATION, this is a bad thing. But when 10 times that amount of funds is used to keep us involved in a 10 year war overseas, this is a good thing?

Why is it that we are so willing to spend so much on the military and so unwilling to spend federal funds on education? Just wondering.

I think Jay Tea actually slipped up and will acknowledge that he really meant to say "Abolish the Dept of Education, delete its funding from the federal budget, and reduce federal taxes accordingly."

Its what I say anyway...

to ryan a:
I support federal spending on military and not on education because the Constitution defines the military as a responsibility and power of the federal government, and the Constitution does not describe education as a power for the federal government. The tenth amendment says that powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the States or the People.

"Ryan...you seem to really care, you're just woefully misinformed."

Learn to recognize the difference between being "misinformed" and having a different opinion or perspective on an issue. I certainly do not think that the fed is the panacea to education--but I do think that if education was a higher priority we could actually find a way to improve what we have at present. But this would require a certain amount of cooperation at various levels. Easier said than done, I know.

"America LED THE WORLD in Education prior to those two things happening. We have been in decline SINCE they occured...and accelerating our decline since they combined forces."

Ok. This is interesting. Since the majority of education spending still comes from State and Local sources, how did the Fed manage to ruin all education in the past 30 years?

What sources do you recommend that explain how unions and the Dept of Ed destroyed education in the US? Any favorites?

"Why does private eduation, and especially HOME-SCHOOLING vastly surpass public education? Not $$$$. Per capita, private education and home-schooling are much LESS expensive."

Ok, again. What sources? Thanks.

Ken,

"I support federal spending on military and not on education because the Constitution defines the military as a responsibility and power of the federal government, and the Constitution does not describe education as a power for the federal government."

Ok, that's a reasonable response, and I can understand your position. So then, do you think that spending 600-900 billion on the military makes sense? Are we seeing some great benefits from the billions of dollars we have spent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade? Forget the fed if you want. Why not reroute a large chunk of defense spending to LOCAL and STATE governments for education?

Go read the legislation. See the link above. This isn't just about bake sales, by any means. That's just what Kim and her followers have decided to focus on.

The Legislation does deal with those sales and states that it deals with sale outside of the Federal School Lunch program.

As for the nutritional values it all up in the Air using either existing rules or saying that programs are at the discretion of local schools. With the only guidelines being milk and water.

IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall
establish science-based nutrition standards for foods sold in schools other than foods provided under this Act and the Richard B. Russell Na- tional School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
''(B) APPLICATION.--The nutrition stand- ards shall apply to all foods sold--
VerDate Mar 15 2010

21:12 Jun 11, 2010
•HR 5504 IH Jkt 089200 PO 00000
''(i) outside the school meal programs under this Act and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
''(ii) on the school campus; and
Frm 00104 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5504.IH H5504
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

21:12 Jun 11, 2010
105 ''(iii) at any time during the extended
school day, including the official school day and the time before and after the official school day when events or activities are primarily under the control of the school or a third party on behalf of the school, ex- cept for school-sponsored events or activi- ties before and after the official school day where parents and adults are a significant proportion of the participants or the audi- ence.
''(C) REQUIREMENTS.--In establishing nu- trition standards under this paragraph, the Sec- retary shall--
VerDate Mar 15 2010
•HR 5504 IH Jkt 089200 PO 00000
''(i) establish standards that are con- sistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans pub- lished under section 301 of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Re- search Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341) (in this subsection referred to as the 'Dietary Guidelines'), including the provisions re- lated to food groups to encourage and nu- trients of concern; and
''(ii) consider--
Frm 00105 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5504.IH H5504
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
VerDate Mar 15 2010

106 ''(I) authoritative scientific recommendations for nutrition standards; ''(II) existing school nutrition standards, including voluntary stand- ards for beverages and snack foods,and State and local standards;
''(III) the practical application of the nutrition standards; and
''(IV) special exemptions for school-sponsored fundraisers (other than fundraising through vending machines, school stores, snack bars, a la carte sales, and any other exclusions determined by the Secretary), if the fundraisers are approved by the school and
''(aa) are infrequent within the school during the official school day; or
''(bb) occur at any time out- side of the official school day.

The USDA is not providing funding for the School Fund raisers it is outside of the program and their purview.
Also it makes the assumption that every child in school is participating in the school Lunch program. Why can the parent choice what the child can have. This part of the Bill is over reach and it will be simple that the next act mandate lunches made by parents abide by some central rules. Under the same standard that all foods in the school must abide by USDA guidelines if consumed on school property.

Spending on Education is way more than 70 Billion:

!00 Billion include in Stimulus for Education
173 Billion for College Loans
9.3 Billion new Preschool Program
3 Billion for ESEA
35 Billion for Pell Grants.

Form 1985 to 2010 Spending on the DOE alone increase 135% with no raise in any measure of testing.
Public education increase by 20% while private increase by 10-15% but Public education scores lower.

SS, Medicare and ED are all failed experiments.

.

Hcddbz:

"The Legislation does deal with those sales and states that it deals with sale outside of the Federal School Lunch program."

Yes. I understand the fact that the bake sale issue is part of the overall legislation. I never argued that. My point was that the bake sale issue is one small part of a larger issue. By making all of these waves about "bake sales" some of the larger issues get swept aside. I think the bigger point here is finding ways to improve the overall system that brings food to kids in schools. A move away from frozen, low quality boxed foods might be a good plan.

Now, we can all debate HOW to do this, and I certainly do not think the Feds need to have primary control in directing this. At the same time, I don't see an issue with Federal guidelines or at least benchmarks about nutrition levels.

Ryan.

The legislation does not adress specficly address any of the concerns you state.
It does go out of it way to address fund raising.
While the nurtion standard are based on the existing 1966 and 1991 standard.
With a review to be looked at in 18 months.
While fund raising get looked at in 12 months.
Also the decides on fund raising while the local school districts deciede how to implemement the nutritional standards.

It deals with paper work for food allergies , funding and standards on milk and water.

But as far as the nurtion it is as directed or by committe or other govermentalk newspeak for pass the buck and non commitment.

It bad law because it over reaches and does nothing for real nurtion.
This will be the same fisasco as heathy choice.

Tin foils hat on

Actually the more i think of this bill it seems like the start of a Job program.
This bill has Breakfast , Lunch Dinner and starts a weekend Meal program in schools for all three meals. So maybe it not about healthy choice it about limiting choice to cafeteria food, so that the school cafeteria is the only source.
Your school wants to do a fund raiser, you need to come to the school cafeteria and get approval. If your school trip is to raise funds to go Arizona well that not Government approved activity so no fund raiser for you. If your school has Girl Scout troop no cookie sales.

/Tin foil hat off