Republicans Block Child Nutrition Bill

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 7:33 AM GMT
    House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children. Republicans used a procedural maneuver Wednesday to try to amend the $4.5 billion bill, which would give more needy children the opportunity to eat free lunches at school and make those lunches healthier. First lady Michelle Obama has lobbied for the bill as part of her "Let's Move" campaign to combat childhood obesity.

    House Democrats said the GOP amendment, which would have required background checks for child care workers, was an effort to kill the bill and delayed a final vote on the legislation rather than vote on the amendment.

    Because the nutrition bill is identical to legislation passed by the Senate in August, passage would send it to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature. If the bill were amended, it would be sent back to the Senate with little time left in the legislative session.

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. said the House would hold separate votes on Thursday on the amendment and the bill.

    "It's not about making our children healthy and active," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee. "We all want to see our children healthy and active. This is about spending and the role of government and the size of government — a debate about whether we're listening to our constituents or not."

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has also taken a swipe at the first lady's campaign, bringing cookies to a speech at a Pennsylvania school last month and calling the campaign a "school cookie ban debate" and "nanny state run amok" on her Twitter feed.

    The legislation would give the government the power to decide what kinds of foods could be sold and what ingredients may be limited in school lunch lines and vending machines.

    The Agriculture Department would create the standards, which would likely keep popular foods like hamburgers and pizza in school cafeterias but make them healthier, using leaner meat or whole wheat crust, for example. Vending machines could be stocked with less candy and fewer high-calorie drinks.

    The bill would provide money to serve more than 20 million additional after-school meals annually to children in all 50 states. Many of those children now only receive after-school snacks. It would also increase the number of children eligible for school meals programs by at least 115,000, using Medicaid and census data to identify them.

    The legislation would increase the amount of money schools are reimbursed by 6 cents a meal, a priority for schools that say they don't have the dollars to feed needy kids.


    By: Mary Clare Jalonick: AP

    ***The pitch: a low inside curve ball to forget this country's needy kids.***
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 9:11 AM GMT
    If you can't afford to educate them, let alone feed them, then don't have them. I'll put my money on that many of the parents of these children belong to democrats too. Prevention is better than a cure.

    Maybe the Republicans will take them out to teach them to fish, so they can feed themselves, and not just wait till the next handout, and become dependant on the hand of the democrats to feed them; tut, tut.

    The republicans did not creat these needy kids!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 2:09 PM GMT
    lol, The Republican Party is full of the Christian Right and you know what the Christian Right says about abortion, contraceptives and the command to 'be fruitful and multiply'.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States


    -Doug

    Sara Palin's State:

    http://nccp.org/profiles/AK_profile_6.html
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Dec 02, 2010 3:30 PM GMT
    Is this indicative of the Republicans' vow to block every piece of legislation until the Bush tax cuts are extended? Buckle your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 3:33 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidFrom the article:

    The legislation would give the government the power to decide what kinds of foods could be sold and what ingredients may be limited in school lunch lines and vending machines.

    Sorry, but the Federal government has no business having such power.

    Public schools are under the jurisdiction of the state and local government.

    This is just another example of the Federal government trying to grab even more power.



    This is just another example of SB paranoia. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 3:47 PM GMT
    ...says this ONE Canadian. (its been explained to you ad nauseum by others than just me that you need to get over Canadian participation in these topics)

    ...and obviously I'm scoring hits if that's the only flustered critique you can come up with. icon_lol.gif

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 3:57 PM GMT
    Better than to put stock in a compulsive liar, SB. icon_lol.gif

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 4:00 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidThis is just another example of the Federal government trying to grab even more power.

    Grab power? Or help undernourished kids to eat at an acceptable standard that local school boards cannot, due to their limited resources? So that these kids can learn better and succeed more, and not become a drag on society in the future.

    Damn those kids! Let them starve! Ideology before practicality! Republicanism before reason!

    You sing the Party line quite well. And if Big Government gives your small business tax breaks & incentives, I assume you'll turn them down? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 4:14 PM GMT
    True_blue_aussie saidThe republicans did not creat these needy kids!


    You really aren't very intelligent, are you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 5:06 PM GMT
    SB, as you've probably caught onto by now, I'm personally conflicted about these kind of subjects. While I totally agree parents should be making 'health' related decisions and they should have their own childrens interests enough in mind that they don't need government "help". The sad fact is though, a huge block of the population are just plain too ignorant to handle health issues for their children. They don't have the interest, to do what they should. In the 20 + years I worked directly with low income families, primarily as their landlord, I was often totally disgusted with the utter ignorance that harmed the children in these homes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It ends up that the only hope for many of these children are the 'safety net' type programs like the one in question here, that opens the only door available to them to get out of ignorance. Federal/State and local programs do make a difference and help aim these children toward better health, and create some 'curiosity' to exit the 'poor' mentality of their parents, and does help 'some' take steps for self improvement. Without these programs many would just continue in ignorance and raise more just like themselves. I know thats elitist but, truth is truth.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Add to the above group, those who are put in the position of needing help because of unemployment affecting their parents. So what does society do? just let them flounder ? I know a line has to be drawn somewhere, but not at our childrens expense, because after all, they are our future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 5:26 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    But clearly, I know far less about the USA and how its government is supposed to work than some Canadian.
    OMG........ how correct you are for once..

    Go research how much FEDERAL money goes to those schools you speak of that are under local jurisdiction....(ask any school district(LOCAL) what would happen if they lost federal funding)
    Yes, the fed does have the right to demand safety and proper nutrition for school children in schools it definitely funds..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 5:29 PM GMT
    True_blue_aussie said

    The republicans did not creat these needy kids!
    Every time two heterosexual 'conservative' adults fuck, children are 'created'... sorry but that's a fact of reality.
    How many conservatives are unemployed today? They arent 'needy'? LMAO

    I guess there are no 'conservatives' currently unemployed in this country today.. hmmmm interesting information indeed!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 5:30 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said

    But clearly, I know far less about the USA and how its government is supposed to work than some Canadian.
    OMG........ how correct you are for once..

    Go research how much FEDERAL money goes to those schools you speak of that are under local jurisdiction....(ask any school district(LOCAL) what would happen if they lost federal funding)
    Yes, the fed does have the right to demand safety and proper nutrition for school children in schools it definitely funds..


    SB only believes in contract law for private businesses, unless they're unionized and then they can void employment contracts willy-nilly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 5:35 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said

    But clearly, I know far less about the USA and how its government is supposed to work than some Canadian.
    OMG........ how correct you are for once..

    Go research how much FEDERAL money goes to those schools you speak of that are under local jurisdiction....(ask any school district(LOCAL) what would happen if they lost federal funding)
    Yes, the fed does have the right to demand safety and proper nutrition for school children in schools it definitely funds..


    SB only believes in contract law for private businesses, unless they're unionized and then they can void employment contracts willy-nilly.
    SB is the epitome of myopic thinking or lack there of...
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Dec 02, 2010 6:12 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said

    But clearly, I know far less about the USA and how its government is supposed to work than some Canadian.
    OMG........ how correct you are for once..

    Go research how much FEDERAL money goes to those schools you speak of that are under local jurisdiction....(ask any school district(LOCAL) what would happen if they lost federal funding)
    Yes, the fed does have the right to demand safety and proper nutrition for school children in schools it definitely funds..


    The Child Nutrition Act (reauthorized very few years like many other federal laws....) funds FEDERALLY subsidized nutrition programs in schools that voluntarily participate in the federal program (National School Lunch, School Breakfast, After-School Meals Programs, and the various child nutrition programs and adult care feeding programs and offshoots). For those meals which the federal government pays a per-meal subsidy (with your and my tax money) you better believe I want improved nutrition standards and healthy outcomes, if possible, compared to the junk foods, off-campus fast food chains, and even the usual brown bag lunch from home (if the family actually can afford to send a meal to school).

    At least up to now, the feds have not been able to control/forbid certain foods and drinks on a school campus (Hershey and Coca Cola sued and won against the federal government years ago on that issue) but they can limit access in the meal service areas where federally-subsidized meals are being provided. He who holds the purse strings, etc....

    Now I believe there are moves in light of the obesity and health risks in America's child population (not to mention the adults) to pass laws which would address the source of unhealthy foods in schools. These may not pass, they may be defeated in the Congress (not really because of the "the government doesn't have a legitimate role in this fight -- but because of the huge food lobbies and their buying off Congresspeople all the time). But no public or private school has been REQUIRED to participate in these meal programs funded by the federal government (and in many cases augmented with State public funds) -- schools have dropped off the public programs and have gone to "privatized" meal programs and pay the McDonalds and Pizza Huts and Taco Bells of the country to provide a meal -- often of really dubious nutritional benefits. But that's a free choice of schools and parents to make. Usually the nutritional quality of the meals dropped significantly in the interests of school food service department "profits"....no surprise. With declining local funding for schools, tax bases, blind "less government" Tea Party platforms, little to no parental presence in the decisions about school food service survival or quality, you can figure out why there might be a new emphasis/interest in contents of the national Child Nutrition Act.

    The authority of the federal government to limit or control sale of certain foods in cafeterias and/or in vending machines has up to now only been relevant to schools that participate in the National School Lunch and other federal meal programs....

    I worked in these fields for 34 years, now retired. It was always an uphill struggle against the unlimited private industry budgets for advertising and influencing kids. The companies have made billions, and at what cost, I might ask.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 6:19 PM GMT
    Great post, Menergy_1, but I'm not sure SB's attention span or comprehension level will able to grasp it.

    -Doug
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Dec 02, 2010 6:21 PM GMT
    meninlove said Great post, Menergy_1, but I'm not sure SB's attention span or comprehension level will able to grasp it.

    -Doug


    Thanks -- I know it was long -- and reading more than one line sound bites has become soooooo 20th century, I'm afraid.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 6:22 PM GMT
    meninlove said Great post, Menergy_1, but I'm not sure SB's attention span or comprehension level will able to grasp it.

    -Doug
    SB nor our aussie friend(who knows not much about the USA by his own admission but spouts off about it) will never admit when they are indeed wrong or incorrect.
    The crickets will chirp.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Dec 02, 2010 9:12 PM GMT
    I think it's perfectly fine for the Federal government to set guidelines and rules for how federal money and funds can be used.

    When I first heard that vending machines were in schools, I was surprised. I know I'm older, but we had no vending machines in my school except for a soda machine in the teacher's lounge. The school cafeteria did serve pizza, french fries and burgers but they had to be bought. The regular school lunch was the only thing available for subsidized students.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 9:18 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidThis is just another example of the Federal government trying to grab even more power.

    Grab power? Or help undernourished kids to eat at an acceptable standard that local school boards cannot, due to their limited resources?


    Grab power.

    Schools are run at the state and local level.

    It's truly amazing how much confidence you all have in bureaucrats in Washington DC to make better decisions than those at the local level.... or parents.


    Frankly, I don't care how underfed kids get their food, so long as they get it . And you didn't answer my question above:

    And if Big Government gives your small business tax breaks & incentives, I assume you'll turn them down?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 9:23 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidThis is just another example of the Federal government trying to grab even more power.

    Grab power? Or help undernourished kids to eat at an acceptable standard that local school boards cannot, due to their limited resources?


    Grab power.

    Schools are run at the state and local level.

    It's truly amazing how much confidence you all have in bureaucrats in Washington DC to make better decisions than those at the local level.... or parents.


    The local schools receive substantial federal funding, particularly for nutrition programs, which are largely federally funded. As someone else said, why would they not attach guidelines or standards to the money they are receiving particularly in the face of a growing obesity crisis among our youth? Would you or your company invest or give money to a company or program sans any conditions?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 9:31 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidThis is just another example of the Federal government trying to grab even more power.

    Grab power? Or help undernourished kids to eat at an acceptable standard that local school boards cannot, due to their limited resources?


    Grab power.

    Schools are run at the state and local level.

    It's truly amazing how much confidence you all have in bureaucrats in Washington DC to make better decisions than those at the local level.... or parents.


    The local schools receive substantial federal funding, particularly for nutrition programs, which are largely federally funded. As someone else said, why would they not attach guidelines or standards to the money they are receiving particularly in the face of a growing obesity crisis among our youth? Would you or your company invest or give money to a company or program sans any conditions?


    Here's some reasoning SB will love. Sell junk in schools. Ill (that's ill, stupid font) health will force kids (their parents) to consume more health services, which means more profits! More customers more customers! icon_rolleyes.gif

    -Doug