My daughters have 1st World problems. Readers with children are probably familiar with such phenomena: the internet goes out, a smartphone goes haywire, etc. Mine aren’t big fans of what dad makes for dinner.
“Can we please have something other than sausage, ham steak, chicken, pork tenderloin, fish, meatballs, etc.?” The struggle is real, nevermind that they eat the same whole-grain cereal for breakfast every day.
Recently, my second oldest (15) soured on packing her lunch because the bread on her sandwich gets soggy. The thing is, I’m not willing to pay for a school lunch when I provide them with healthier choices at home.
Wait until she hears what Senator/presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) have cooked up: “Dad, it’s free now.”
Omar and Sanders want to “provide” three squares a day to all U.S. schoolchildren, regardless of household income. It gets more difficult by the day to know which criticisms apply to such dreadful ideas.
Pro-government types have long since cast aside respect for the constitution. Witness the steady erosion of the separation of powers, the administrative state’s freewheeling rulemaking, and the disregard for the 10th amendment, of which the “Universal School Meals Program Act” is merely the latest example.
The Founders included that amendment because the vast majority of concerns and problems we face are best addressed by people closer to the issue.
Also, both major political parties treat the federal treasury like a slush fund. Sometimes what gets funded depends upon who is in power; sometimes it does not. Regardless, the gravy train keeps chugging.
Perhaps most worrisome in this instance is the intrusion into parental responsibilities.
When the predictable groans greet my dinner announcement, my daughters are usually free to make something for themselves. Occasionally they’ll coax my wife into preparing something more to their liking. Chalk that up as a bonding opportunity.
That’s where their options should end.
Grown adults (which you are, if you have a kid) do not need someone from three states away enabling politicians and bureaucrats in Washington D.C. to lure their children into a deceptive sense that they know best.
Besides, there are two rules of thumb to follow when shopping for the healthiest foods: stick to those found around the edge of the grocery store (dairy, meat, produce, etc.); and, perhaps more importantly, eschew those with more than a couple (non-pronounceable) ingredients on the label.
Moreover, there is abundant literature for the particularly curious. For instance, reading “The South Beach Diet” is where I learned the difference between whole, refined and enriched grains, among other things.
Parents simply have to take the initiative.
Unfortunately, for various reasons, that’s too often not the case. Perhaps the most fascinating is the reluctance to tell our kids “no.”
It cannot be underestimated the joy derived from deploying that word when necessary. The whines of protest and descents into childishness are so amusing that paying for comedic entertainment becomes less urgent.
Then there’s just flat out neglect. Why do some folks choose parenthood as a time to abdicate their sense of duty, especially when kids are our best opportunity to improve society?
Some folks will point to the “12% of … households (facing) food insecurity,” and the 20% rate of obesity in “school-age kids” as reason enough for the feds to intervene.
Why though, should parents (and taxpayers in general) who are taking care of their business be forced to compensate for those who are not?
It’s heartbreaking to know how obese children have been put behind the 8-ball, from heightened susceptibility to “diabetes and heart attacks,” to “low self-esteem and depression,” according to the Mayo Clinic.
Since it is rarely a genetic or hormonal issue, that leaves one culprit; lifestyle.
Have we totally lost our marbles? These dietary-induced illnesses are tantamount to child neglect. Why would we paper over this with some government money and control? Given its poor track record over the years, it would likely result in little else than more inflation of health care expenditures.
Furthermore, couple this plan with Senator/presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ idea to extend the school day, and Senator/presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s universal pre-k proposal, and proponents’ motivations start to take on an Orwellian hue.
No, thank you.
I’m the primary shopper in our house. I’ve enjoyed getting to choose my own food ever since I left the nest. Though I prefer to go alone, I took my two oldest with me recently to see if we could compromise on what they want and what’s good for them.
It was admittedly more stressful than I’m used to, but it was worth it so they could see what I take into consideration.
And, it was better than bringing Uncle Sam along.
Instead of inviting himself to dictate our grocery list, and charging it to our neighbor, we’d be better off if he left that responsibility where it belongs.
“Can we please have something other than sausage, ham steak, chicken, pork tenderloin, fish, meatballs, etc.?” The struggle is real, nevermind that they eat the same whole-grain cereal for breakfast every day.
Recently, my second oldest (15) soured on packing her lunch because the bread on her sandwich gets soggy. The thing is, I’m not willing to pay for a school lunch when I provide them with healthier choices at home.
Wait until she hears what Senator/presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) have cooked up: “Dad, it’s free now.”
Omar and Sanders want to “provide” three squares a day to all U.S. schoolchildren, regardless of household income. It gets more difficult by the day to know which criticisms apply to such dreadful ideas.
Pro-government types have long since cast aside respect for the constitution. Witness the steady erosion of the separation of powers, the administrative state’s freewheeling rulemaking, and the disregard for the 10th amendment, of which the “Universal School Meals Program Act” is merely the latest example.
The Founders included that amendment because the vast majority of concerns and problems we face are best addressed by people closer to the issue.
Also, both major political parties treat the federal treasury like a slush fund. Sometimes what gets funded depends upon who is in power; sometimes it does not. Regardless, the gravy train keeps chugging.
Perhaps most worrisome in this instance is the intrusion into parental responsibilities.
When the predictable groans greet my dinner announcement, my daughters are usually free to make something for themselves. Occasionally they’ll coax my wife into preparing something more to their liking. Chalk that up as a bonding opportunity.
That’s where their options should end.
Grown adults (which you are, if you have a kid) do not need someone from three states away enabling politicians and bureaucrats in Washington D.C. to lure their children into a deceptive sense that they know best.
Besides, there are two rules of thumb to follow when shopping for the healthiest foods: stick to those found around the edge of the grocery store (dairy, meat, produce, etc.); and, perhaps more importantly, eschew those with more than a couple (non-pronounceable) ingredients on the label.
Moreover, there is abundant literature for the particularly curious. For instance, reading “The South Beach Diet” is where I learned the difference between whole, refined and enriched grains, among other things.
Parents simply have to take the initiative.
Unfortunately, for various reasons, that’s too often not the case. Perhaps the most fascinating is the reluctance to tell our kids “no.”
It cannot be underestimated the joy derived from deploying that word when necessary. The whines of protest and descents into childishness are so amusing that paying for comedic entertainment becomes less urgent.
Then there’s just flat out neglect. Why do some folks choose parenthood as a time to abdicate their sense of duty, especially when kids are our best opportunity to improve society?
Some folks will point to the “12% of … households (facing) food insecurity,” and the 20% rate of obesity in “school-age kids” as reason enough for the feds to intervene.
Why though, should parents (and taxpayers in general) who are taking care of their business be forced to compensate for those who are not?
It’s heartbreaking to know how obese children have been put behind the 8-ball, from heightened susceptibility to “diabetes and heart attacks,” to “low self-esteem and depression,” according to the Mayo Clinic.
Since it is rarely a genetic or hormonal issue, that leaves one culprit; lifestyle.
Have we totally lost our marbles? These dietary-induced illnesses are tantamount to child neglect. Why would we paper over this with some government money and control? Given its poor track record over the years, it would likely result in little else than more inflation of health care expenditures.
Furthermore, couple this plan with Senator/presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ idea to extend the school day, and Senator/presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s universal pre-k proposal, and proponents’ motivations start to take on an Orwellian hue.
No, thank you.
I’m the primary shopper in our house. I’ve enjoyed getting to choose my own food ever since I left the nest. Though I prefer to go alone, I took my two oldest with me recently to see if we could compromise on what they want and what’s good for them.
It was admittedly more stressful than I’m used to, but it was worth it so they could see what I take into consideration.
And, it was better than bringing Uncle Sam along.
Instead of inviting himself to dictate our grocery list, and charging it to our neighbor, we’d be better off if he left that responsibility where it belongs.
RSS Feed