School Lunch Health is a No-Brainer! (But tell that to the Republicans!)

It's about time!

The New York Times reports:

"The Obama administration will begin a drive this week to expel Pepsi, French fries and Snickers bars from the nation’s schools in hopes of reducing the number of children who get fat during their school years.
In legislation, soon to be introduced, candy and sugary beverages would be banned and many schools would be required to offer more nutritious fare."

Fantastic! This sounds like a no-brainer. Why would we want to subject our kids to increased advertising, sugary and fat-filled foods, and greater risk of obesity and health problems?

But wait...

The New York Times report continues:

"Republican support is far from certain.

Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican and the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, met at the White House with Mrs. Obama on Tuesday to talk about childhood obesity. And while Mr. Chambliss released a statement saying that “schools play an important role in shaping nutrition habits of young children,” an aide refused to say whether he would support a ban on junk foods."

Why am I not surprised? Potential Republican opposition, from my own state (!). These days, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans opposed heaven itself if it could be dressed up as socialist or if it was supported by corporate lobbyists.

With this one, they are opposing their own future.

Remembering the Little People: Accounting for Kids

'The New York Times reports:

Remembering the Little People: Accounting for Kids: "An economist asks why the United States spends so much less money on children than on the elderly, and what the consequences for the economy might be. "

It shouldn't be a mystery why this happens - kids don't vote, and they certainly don't have the clout of the AARP on capitol hill. However, we know that you get more bang for your buck with spending on childrens' education and health (sorry grandma) - early education and healthy initiatives can go a long way to help the kids for the rest of their lives, creating healthy lifestyles and giving kids an educational headstart. Not that we should stop spending on the elderly. But spending more than twice as much on the elderly as on children is absurd and doesn't reflect rational priorities. According to the Times article, public spending on children amounts to about 2.2% of GDP while spending on the elderly is about 5.3% of GDP.

At the same time that we are spending enormous amounts to subsidize (rightfully so, I would argue) health care and retirement benefits for the elderly, (unsubsidized) child care costs more than public university tuition in 44 states - and, child care workers obtain near poverty-level wages. Young children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of poverty, but 19% of children in the US lived in poverty in 2009.

I think most people would argue that this is a case of misplaced priorities, until, that is, we tried to do something about it. Change is difficult in this political system, in great part because so many have such an enormous - mostly financial - stake in the status quo. It will take a great efforts and yes, even courage, by the nation's parents and others who care about the future to cure this distortion for our children's future.