Posted on 06/23/2017 10:10:52 AM PDT by Olog-hai
President Trump is making school lunches great again, or at least a lot better than they were during the Obama administration.
Food service directors are applauding recent changes to federal school food regulations imposed on schools as part of Michelle Obamas campaign against childhood obesity. [ ]
Regulations imposed through the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act put strict limitations on calories, fat, sugar, salt, and other elements of foods served in public schools that participate in the national school lunch or breakfast programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at eagnews.org ...
That’s racist.
I remember in primary school we were served something on a bun we called “mystery meat.” It was truly a mystery but we still loved it. I’m sure it was full of salt.
Does anyone care that the feds have NO constitutional authority in regards to ANYTHING in state schools? Federal acts of interference in state schools is tyranny because they are unconstitutional acts.
...if anyone cares...
My favorite lunch lady!
That was funny!
And there ain't no Constitutional right to health care either, but see what we're going through?
I want my Salisbury Steak!
First thing I thought of when reading the headline!
FReepers are the best!
the only thing that the Obama administration did was threaten to deign funds if they did not fallow the dictates of the administration....serval rich school districts decided not to take the money. no laws were enacted all they did was change administrative rules for the federal school lunch program.
Why should our kids have to eat a lunch that make them feel and look like Michelle O (see Pic at site) about to have a diarrhea attack!-)
Let us focus attention on one method of federal interferenceone that tends to be neglected in much of the public discussion of the problem. In recent years, the federal government has continued, and in many cases has increased, federal grants-in-aid to the States in a number of areas in which the Constitution recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the States. These grants are called matching funds and are designed to stimulate state spending in health, education, welfare, conservation or any other area in which the federal government decides there is a need for national action. If the States agree to put up money for these purposes, the federal government undertakes to match the appropriation according to a ratio prescribed by Congress. Sometimes the ratio is fifty-fifty; often the federal government contributes over half the cost.But the GOP did not. Same pattern as 60 years ago. They just repeated it with Obama, to a more destructive degree.
There are two things to note about these programs. The first is that they are federal programsthey are conceived by the federal government both as to purpose and as to extent. The second is that the stimulative grants are, in effect, a mixture of blackmail and bribery. The States are told to go along with the program or else. Once the federal government has offered matching funds, it is unlikely, as a practical matter, that a member of a State Legislature will turn down his States fair share of revenue collected from all of the States. Understandably, many legislators feel that to refuse aid would be political suicide. This is an indirect form of coercion, but it is effective nonetheless.
A more direct method of coercion is for the federal government to threaten to move in unless state governments take action that Washington deems appropriate. Not so long ago, for example, the Secretary of Labor gave the States a lecture on the wisdom of enacting up-to-date unemployment compensation laws. He made no effort to disguise the alternative: if the States failed to act, the federal government would.
Here are some examples of the stimulative approach. Late in 1957, a Joint Federal-State Action Committee recommended that certain matching funds programs be returned to the States on the scarcely-disguised grounds that the States, in the view of the Committee, had learned to live up to their responsibilities. These are the areas in which the States were learning to behave: vocational education programs in agriculture, home economics, practical nursing, and the fisheries trade; local sewage projects; slum clearance and urban renewal; and enforcement of health and safety standards in connection with the atomic energy program.
Now the point is not that Congress failed to act on these recommendations, or that the Administration gave them only half-hearted support; but rather that the federal government had no business entering these fields in the first place, and thus had no business taking upon itself the prerogative of judging the States performance. The Republican Party should have said this plainly and forthrightly and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the federal government.
I swear, did a double-take because the last word (”salt”) did NOT read as “salt” to me. . . . .yikes!!
Interesting but it remains that the entire federal Dept of Education is unconstitutional.
As you’ve pointed out in how the feds leveraged the school lunch thing, our biggest problem with the unconstitutional feds is the STATES who need to get back to INDEPENDENCE from the feds - the foundation of our country - constitutional state sovereignty.
“Federal acts of interference in state schools is tyranny because they are unconstitutional acts.”
Blue Ribbon schools get bennies from the Fed. If the school chooses not to participate, no bennies. But once schools participated, they adopted the conditions that went along with it. And once that happened, Obama could do anything he wanted and schools were afraid to say no.
“Federal acts of interference in state schools is tyranny because they are unconstitutional acts.”
Blue Ribbon schools get bennies from the Fed. If the school chooses not to participate, no bennies. But once schools participated, they adopted the conditions that went along with it. And once that happened, Obama could do anything he wanted and schools were afraid to say no.
Sorry side. That battle was lost in the late fifties early sixties. School boards across America agreed to take federal funding for lunch programs
And continuing to point that out hasn’t changed it one. It
I do. I'm opposed to the idea that the government should hold a gun to someone's head, take their money, and give it to someone else. But there's so few who can break it down to the basic facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.