The Wretched Nationalization of School Lunch

[Aufan59 99]

Any response Weagle1787?

[JoeBags7277 759]

You did nothing of the sort. The feds shouldn't set standards on subsidized meal programs because the feds shouldn't be subsidizing meal programs. Of course, he who pays the bills says what goes, but the federal government has no constitutionally delegated authority to be involved in any way with school lunches. This is not an idea that has just been introduced to the discussion, it is the central point of the author and many of those who responded. Your inability or refusal to understand that, and the desire to portray our argument in a less than honest manner is rather telling.

The article asks the question I quoted, yet made no reference to the fact that these standards are for federally subsidized meals. Either he is ignorant or didn't tell the entire story. You at least understand that the feds are setting standards because they are providing funding.

If the states and cities want to take back control, they easily can, just turn down the subsidy. Problem is that many schools don't have enough funding and they need the federal assistance, and many children really would go hungry.

The feds have set standards school lunches they subsidize for years, yet everyone is acting like this is a new federal program where the administration is expanding the federal grip.

Didn't know a response was warranted. It's likely not as easy as you claim, and certainly not as simple.

They may be able to turn down the subsidy, but that opens the door for retaliation from the feds n the form of withholding other funds- their Modus Operandi anytime a state wants to exercise that radical, antiquated 10th Amendment thingie. This is nothing more than bribing the states with their own money, and since we now live in a psuedo-Federalist society, there would be no way to rein in the abuses of the feds short of revolution. Giver states (those who send more to Washington than they get back) might have already attempted to do this but for the negative attention it would bring from the brainwashed.

Taker states like Alabama are in a less advantageous position to turn down the subsidies, but they do send money to the feds as well, just less dollars than they get back. All the money the feds distribute originally came from the states. Giver states could pay for their own school lunch programs and have money left over to boot. Taker states could fund a huge chunk of their school lunch programs, and would be forced to be more creative in implementing the programs, or finding revenue to fund them. They would benefit from taking a little control back from Washington, and learning to get off the redistributionist, totalitarian federal teat.

[Aufan59 99]

So how had the fed retaliated against schools who do not take the subsidy?

[JoeBags7277 759]

They haven't- because to my knowledge no one has rejected the subsidy, assuming they are able to. I said that if a state did turn it down, the feds might respond by withholding other funding from that state. The way they do whenever legalization of marijuana or relaxed traffic laws come up, among other issues.

[Aufan59 99]

It is not done on a state by state basis. Some schools do not take the subsidy. What have the feds done to retaliate against these schools?