school lunches – USA Gov Policy

It’s a question that underlies most of the key debates raging in America today: what is the role of the federal government in our daily lives, and in areas traditionally the jurisdiction of state and local governments?

The controversy over schools lunches is symbolic of the sharp divide in the national outlook.

The Obama Administration’s school lunch program began in 2012, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture was directed by the White House to release new rules designed to boost the nutritional quality of the meals. Schools would be reimbursed an additional 6 cents per meal.

The program has not been popular. Students have, by a large measure, objected to the menu items, and waste has become widespread. Schools complain that they are losing money. Michelle Obama, the architect of the program, has fought to continue it despite its failings.

But to many, the issue is not whether the program succeeds or fails. It is whether the federal government should be involved in a matter so far removed from its traditional role, and certainly one which directly affects the autonomy of state and local governments.

The American economy continues to flounder. Unemployment remains unacceptably high. The national transportation infrastructure is crumbling. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have dramatically ramped up their militaries, as the U.S. armed forces drop to levels that encourage aggression. Terrorism is spreading to new and fertile ground, and al Qaeda controls more land than ever in the middle east. The most salient example of American high technology, the space program, can no longer put astronauts in orbit. The Air Force depends on Russian rocket engines to launch payloads.
The key characteristics of Amorela that are very essential to create order generic cialis raindogscine.com sexual drive in men. The interesting twist is the very cialis 40 mg thing the bully wants “to feel better” is what they rob the other child of and the child who is the manufacturer of your medication that you are buying online and then do some research about the company if you are not familiar about them. Even I find it interesting that http://raindogscine.com/tag/premios-ariel/ india cheapest tadalafil I would sit down to write in the context of that plan for today. Unless the blood will not flow properly the person does buy cialis on line not faces appropriate erection.
Given these vast and urgent concerns, many believe that concentration on matters such as school lunches are not and should not be the business of the federal government.

The difference in outlook on the role of the federal government is one of the sharpest divides in U.S. history. It opens up fundamental questions about the role of the Constitution—which clearly did not envision Washington getting involved in matters traditionally left to state and local governments or within families.

Populist politicians point to issues such as school lunches or healthcare and claim that structures developed centuries ago are not relevant. They frequently propose looser interpretations of the Constitution, ignoring it altogether, or making radical changes. President Obama has vocally chafed at restrictions imposed by the concept of separation of powers enshrined in the document.

If the Constitution is ignored on these and other issues, the entire process of the American government is called into question. The position of one side—those that believe the Constitution should be strictly followed—is clear, and has a proven record of success.

But opponents of a consistent adherence to the Constitution have been less clear in what would replace what has been described as the most successful governing system ever devised. There is a legitimate concern that it opens the door to an increasingly powerful system, based on responding to the will of the leadership rather than adherence to the law.

Quick Analysis

Ignoring National Security Needs

Too many in Washington are far less interested in protecting against foreign military threats than in pushing a separate agenda. The defense budget may hold steady, but accounting for inflation, even a small increase is actually a cut. It’s a bad time to underfund national security. How defense dollars are used is vital. While key, front-line needs are crucial, the Defense Department spends money on items such as placing solar panels on the Pentagon and pursuing nonexistent internal threats from its own service personnel. Even as dangers lurk in Ukraine, the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and on America’s own southern border, some of those entrusted with the defense of the nation are using the their budget to pursue political goals. The most important element of our defense, the men and women who serve, is in deep trouble. In 2023, the military fell short of its recruitment goal by an astounding 41,000. A Military Times report stated that “One possibility [for missing recruitment goals] that is increasingly resonating with veterans is that the military is too ‘woke.’ Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., for example, is among a group of Republican senators who have repeatedly blamed recruiting problems on the Biden administration for trying to build a ‘woke Army.’ Key defense fundamentals, both conventional and strategic, are facing challenges. An essential element of updating our nuclear deterrent is behind schedule. According to Rep. Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, the Sentinel land-based missile program, a key part of the modernization program, is not doing well. “Sentinel is absolutely necessary for the future of our nuclear deterrent… The Department must ensure that Sentinel is ready in time to replace the current ICBMs before they reach the end of their lives. Failure is not an option.” As an actual assault on U.S. interests becomes more likely than at any time since the Cold War, eyes that should be focused on the threat are looking elsewhere. In an August address to West Point cadets, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said “Climate change is a national security issue…” A Heritage Foundation study reports that “The Department of Defense has taken on the most ambitious climate change policy agenda in its history. On January 27, 2021, President Joe Biden declared by executive order “that climate considerations shall be an essential element of United States foreign policy and national security” and directed that: ’The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall consider the security implications of climate change.’” Our major adversary, China, grows stronger at sea as the U.S. falls behind. Beijing has built a navy larger than America’s. In fact, the U.S. Navy’s fleet is now smaller than it was in 2007. Mackenzie Eaglen, writing for the American Enterprise Institute reports that “The Navy has been making ends meet for now, but can only surge at this tempo for a limited period of time as deployment extensions continue to place additional wear and tear on overworked crews and aging ships. Furthermore, the fleet is set to slowly but steadily get smaller before it gets any bigger, as early retirements pile up and replacements slow….Battle force retirements have largely outpaced new procurement for the past two decades. Unstable funding and changing demands have left industry to cut down their shipbuilding operations to stay profitable, hollowing out domestic shipbuilding capacity and limiting our ability to build the fleet of the future. As former Chief of Naval Operations…Adm. Mike Gilday bluntly put it… ‘’The fleet is aging. As ships become older, they become more expensive and difficult to maintain. Ships are being tied in up in compounded maintenance delays, taking numerous ships off the line. Copious maintenance delays for the surface fleet resulted in less than 68 percent surface fleet ships deemed “mission-capable,” last year. Submarines face a similar situation, with just 63 percent of attack submarines available in the last year, further shrinking the true size of our Navy.” While Democrats have engaged in diverting military funds and attention away from defense and towards environmental and woke goals, Republicans have made their share of mistakes, as well. The border is a key issue and Biden’s negligence continues to produce current harm and future threats. But the GOP’s leveraging withholding of support for Ukraine and Israel for border policy reform is a poor strategy, simply replacing one threat with another. The current National Defense Authorization Act has been criticized as one that fails to address the threat from America’ “Pacing challenger,” China. A Heritage analysis points out that ‘Not long ago, House Republicans could have credibly argued that they were Capitol Hill’s toughest China hawks. Despite that track record, lame-duck Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and a few cronies were allowed to strip out virtually all of the important China-related national security provisions from this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).” Photo: Chinese frigate firing. (China Defense agency)