Sen. Gillibrand announces another big government plan to interfer in local school districts

Posted by Howard Owens on July 21, 2009 - 10:48pm
Tagged in
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

kirsten_gillibrand.jpgHere's the first two graphs of a press release we received today from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's office:

Washington, D.C. – With health care reform the top priority for Congress, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is focusing her efforts on reducing childhood obesity, announcing a new plan to ban trans fats in school and provide healthier school lunches.  As the first New York Senator in 40 years to sit on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Gillibrand is providing New Yorkers with a seat at the table as congress debates how to improve the health of children and the food they eat each day.  From her seat on the Committee, Senator Gillibrand is working to secure more federal funds for New York State to combat childhood obesity and lower health care costs..

“As Congress debates how to improve health care access and lower health care costs, we must also pursue a strategy to tackle childhood obesity and improve the health of our future generations,” Senator Gillibrand said.  “We can’t afford to let our children grow up in a culture of obesity.  If our children are going to have the opportunity to reach their potential, they need a healthy start. The most effective way to address obesity is to provide healthier food and exercise opportunities for our children. We need to be taking real steps to give parents, schools and communities the resources they need to give our children access to fresh fruits and vegetables.”

So why exactly is this even REMOTELY a federal government issue?

If local school districts want to take on "trans fat" as an issue, fine, but for the federal government to dictate programs is symptomatic of why federal spending is out of control and communities feeling increasingly less empowered.

As a rural senator, shouldn't Gillibrand be fighting to protect local autonomy instead of undermining it?

NOTE: Due to excessive bickering, comments are closed on this post.

Posted by Andrew Erbell on July 21, 2009 - 11:04pm
"As a rural senator, shouldn't Gillibrand be fighting to protect local autonomy instead of undermining it?"

I would imagine Ms. Gillibrand likes being referred to as "Senator" and in that regard she is doing whatever Senator Schumer tells her because she is up for re-election soon.
Posted by ken darch on July 22, 2009 - 3:53am
Although I seldom agree with Democrats on anything, I like Gillibrand. She is a minority Democrat that supports gun rights. But getting back on topic I think this proposal by gov't is fine. Trans fats are as bad as smoking and Lord knows the majority of our youth have horrible eating habits that carry on into later life causing health problems. Other than this proposal, I can't think what else this administration does right.
Posted by Dennis Jay on July 22, 2009 - 5:31am
>>So why exactly is this even REMOTELY a federal government issue?

Local schools boards don't seem to have the clout (or willingness?) to overcome the political muscle of agribusiness and mega-corporations like Coca-Cola that have filled our kids with sugary drinks and high-fat foods at school. I'd prefer local control, but the health of our kids (and the staggering cost of obesity in the future) demand action at whatever level of government is willing to act.
Posted by Howard Owens on July 22, 2009 - 5:48am
Dennis wrote : "I'd prefer local control, but the health of our kids (and the staggering cost of obesity in the future) demand action at whatever level of government is willing to act."

And thus is how the federal government gets bigger and bigger. "Because I agree with this particular issue, yes the feds should do something."
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 6:01am
This is a parental issue, not a government one. If a parent lets their kid eat crap, they look bad when they are out with fatty.

If you want your kid to eat well, don't give him money to buy what he wants, pack his lunch. Its that simple.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
Posted by John Roach on July 22, 2009 - 6:26am
They just can not stop trying to run your life. The parents should decide what the kid eats, in or out of school.

Next, the Liberals will say you have to 18 to eat at Mcdonald's.
Posted by Bea McManis on July 22, 2009 - 7:48am
This is a parental responsibility. If left to the government, we will end up with the fiasco we had when President Reagan was in office and proclaimed that ketchup was a vegetable.
For those who don't remember,
the ketchup as a vegetable controversy or ketchupgate refers to a proposed United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Drug Administration directive, early in the administration of Ronald Reagan, that would have reclassified ketchup and pickle relish from condiments to a vegetable, allowing public schools to cut out a serving of cooked or fresh vegetable from hot lunch program child-nutrition requirements. The White House Office of Management and Budget estimated a potential US $1 billion annual savings in the cost of subsidized meals for low-income students.

Release of the proposed directive for required public comment in September 1981 met with outrage from nutritionists. Charges of greed and indifference were made by media and pundits. The administration responded their concern was to address "plate waste" and to serve what students would actually consume.

In reporting on the proposed directive Newsweek magazine illustrated their story with a bottle of ketchup with the caption "now a vegetable."
The proposed directive was criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike, and was never implemented.

I do think that there should be a program to provide one meal a day for children who qualify. I will never go along with the belief that children should suffer to teach their parents a lesson. There are too many variables on why a family can't afford to send their children with a lunch.
Posted by Beth Kinsley on July 22, 2009 - 7:50am
In the Batavia School district, I believe that nearly half of the children receive free or reduced price lunch and breakfast at schools and this may be the only meals that they receive. When the school only offers crap, that's what they eat. I remember a few years back at open house the cafeteria staff had a display showing the foods that they feed our kids. The breakfast foods were the worst with Frosted Flakes, Fruit Loops, etc. Since then they have made great strides to provide much healthier foods. I'm not sure whose initiative that was but it seems to be district wide, even in the high school.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 8:05am
Throughout my schooling I was given money to buy lunch. Starting in about 5th grade I stopped buying meals and bought what I wanted to eat. This included Ice Cream, chips, and cookies. I turned out very healthy. When I graduated I was 5' 9" and 145lbs.

You can make a kids lunch for pretty cheap. Peanut Butter an jelly, a loaf of bread, and a piece of fruit don't cost much.

My taxes should not pay for someone else food. If you can't afford to have children, you shouldn't have any at all. Part of the cost of having children is providing them with sustenance. If you can't, birth control is cheap.
Posted by Laura Scarborough on July 22, 2009 - 9:01am
When I was in School at Oakfield, our HomeEc teacher, Darlene Bakos, was huge into eating healthy. For a few years, she had pretty much all the junk food removed and replaced with cookies that were baked at the school. I think even the ice cream was removed for a while as well as chocolate milk. At first the students threw a fit but then just got used to it. She was ahead of the curve and truly cared about the students as individuals.
Posted by Howard Owens on July 22, 2009 - 9:11am
There's a big difference between one teacher with a passion for nutrition and an entire federal mandate. If parents at a local school don't like what a particular teacher is doing, then have the power to bring about change. But when it's the feds doing it ... what can one small group of parents do? It was probably a great experience for you and your classmates to deal with a teacher who essentially was pushing a positive message.
Posted by Karen Miconi on July 22, 2009 - 9:18am
The school lunches now, are premade garbage, not fit for a dog, much less a kid. Even the salads are full of preservatives. Its just whatevers cheapest, not whatever is the best quality for our kids. Thats why we pack lunch for the kids, instead of waisting our money on cheap food. Its out of the schools hands. Some level of government could intervene. But will they??
Posted by Bea McManis on July 22, 2009 - 9:21am
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 9:05am

My taxes should not pay for someone else food. If you can't afford to have children, you shouldn't have any at all. Part of the cost of having children is providing them with sustenance. If you can't, birth control is cheap.

Why am I not surprised. No grey area here, is there Peter?
Consider, for a moment, the fact that financial difficulty can hit any family.
A young mother loses her husband to a fatal disease. They weren't aware that this was in their future when they had their children. Hindsight is always better than foresight. Her finances, at the moment, make it imossible for her to provide for her family as she did in the past.
Should her children suffer because their father passed away?
Don't criticize and place everyone in the same boat unless you have walked a mile in their shoes.
I know you want to push buttons, but some comments are meant strictly to hurt. You don't know the circumstances behind every child who receives a meal at school.
Posted by Andrew Erbell on July 22, 2009 - 9:23am
Why not get together with other parents and address it yourselves at a School Board Meeting?
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 9:27am
He should have had enough life insurance to ensure a decent living for his family. A little forethought goes a long way.

I'm not trying to push buttons, just state what I believe.

Does this mother have other family to help her out?
Charities exist as well. Using the force of government is wrong.
Posted by Beth Kinsley on July 22, 2009 - 9:29am
I couldn't have said it better myself Bea.
Posted by Laura Scarborough on July 22, 2009 - 9:31am
My son only wanted to take his lunch during his high school years. He was not a fan of the school lunches. At 6'6 260lbs food is important to him, he's always been a good eater. I was lucky.
Posted by Andrew Erbell on July 22, 2009 - 9:31am
What about these "walking shoes"? Mom has four kids, four different dads, never been married to any of them, and has no intention of ever using birth control or curbing her irresponsible behavior.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 9:33am
Bea if all these government programs are important to you and not to me, what's wrong with eliminating them and replacing them with charities that take donations?

Then I don't have to pay for things I think I shouldn't and you will get tax money back that you can dump into the programs?
Posted by Beth Kinsley on July 22, 2009 - 9:34am
Andrew, even in those circumstances, the children shouldn't suffer.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 9:35am
So are you going to find them a steady father then too Beth, because otherwise they are suffering.
Posted by Andrew Erbell on July 22, 2009 - 9:38am
Maybe John Holdren can start enacting some of his ideas now that he's the Science Czar. That should take care of the problem.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 9:39am
That's going to go way over their heads I am afraid.
Posted by Karen Miconi on July 22, 2009 - 9:42am
Andrew, who is John Holdren?
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on July 22, 2009 - 9:43am
The changes that take place should be at a school-board level, not at the federal level. School lunches are already regulated by certain laws, we don't need more federal money spent on how children eat. Each school district should decide for itself how school lunches are dealt with.

We don't empower our students enough, if students and parents have complaints they have a right to take it to the board. Empower students to do research and make changes. It's not the fed. government's responsibility to make sure school lunches are healthy.
Posted by Kelly von Kramer on July 22, 2009 - 9:48am
The federal government is already involved by funding the free lunch program. The state is involved by providing subsidized food. I support Senator Gillibrand’s efforts here to make any changes at all to the way the current school lunch system works. For many children in this area the lunch and snacks they receive at school may be the only healthy food they receive that day. If she can eliminate some of the junk that is currently being served then good for her.

My experience with local school districts making any changes to what they currently serve has been disheartening. They hide behind board policies and state regulations refusing to make any changes for the good. I do take personal responsibility for what my children eat - I can pack their lunches but I can not get the teacher to serve them an alternate snack (that I pay for & provide) at snack time without a signed doctors’ note (this is at the elementary level).
Posted by Lianne Gahagan White on July 22, 2009 - 9:52am
Posted by Bea McManis on July 22, 2009 - 10:21am


Why am I not surprised. No grey area here, is there Peter?
Consider, for a moment, the fact that financial difficulty can hit any family.
A young mother loses her husband to a fatal disease. They weren't aware that this was in their future when they had their children. Hindsight is always better than foresight. Her finances, at the moment, make it imossible for her to provide for her family as she did in the past.
Should her children suffer because their father passed away?
Don't criticize and place everyone in the same boat unless you have walked a mile in their shoes.
I know you want to push buttons, but some comments are meant strictly to hurt. You don't know the circumstances behind every child who receives a meal at school.


I could not agree with you more Bea! No one can predict the future and these are children! People should appreciate what they have and not make decisions for other people not knowing their circumstances!
Posted by Andrew Erbell on July 22, 2009 - 9:53am
He is the Science Czar appointed by President Obama. In 1977 he co-authored the book; "Eco-Science". Among the ideas he proposes are:

"Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not."

"The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food."

"Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) 'can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility' -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized."

"A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force."

This is the Federal Government that you want to step in and "do something".
Posted by Beth Kinsley on July 22, 2009 - 9:53am
Kelly - I remember when my youngest was in kindergarten and we were supposed to send in a healthy snack for the kids to all share. They would let us know when it was our turn. One of the suggested snacks was fruit rollups. Since when was high fructose corn syrup on the healthy snack list? Batavia has improved a great deal though. Still not great but much better. Lots of whole grains and much less sugar.
Posted by Karen Miconi on July 22, 2009 - 9:57am
I agree with Kelly in that some kids dont have a chance to eat at home, and school lunch is probably the only meal they get. So Sad. Back in the day, the lunches were homemade, and without preservatives. Elba School had the best!! Funny the government wants the kids to meet the standards they have set forth, but dont give a hoot how they get there. Kids need good nutrition, to do good in school. It all comes down to the almighty dollar. Isnt that what we pay school tax for??
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 9:55am
Can anyone answer the question I posed to Bea?
Posted by Andrew Erbell on July 22, 2009 - 9:57am
Nah, it's more fun whining you're mean.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 9:57am
Karen and Kelly,
If these kids never eat at home, how do they survive in the summer?
Posted by Andrew Erbell on July 22, 2009 - 10:00am
"Just like I told him no threats were made just advice as to who he was dealing with!"

What does that mean exactly? Do they drive around town in their BHS Varsity Jackets looking for people who they don't like to beat up with baseball bats?
Posted by Karen Miconi on July 22, 2009 - 10:00am
Oh and one more important comment. Until you have children, feel the love, nurture them, protect them, feel the pride associated with parenthood, feed them, put them through school, and college, can you even have an idea of what is involved.
Posted by Lianne Gahagan White on July 22, 2009 - 10:03am
You are absolutely right Karen!
Posted by Lianne Gahagan White on July 22, 2009 - 10:04am
Nope not at all! Just when it comes to family they protect their own! Just leave the kid alone is all that was trrying to be said until he blew it out of proportion! No one is beating anyone up or threatening anyone!
Posted by Phil Ricci on July 22, 2009 - 10:05am
I think that this a local issue. The Batavia City Schools inacted a healthy eating policy a few years back. The problem is that some parents want more to it and that's great! At a local level you can go to meetings and voice concerns. If there are enough liked minded individuals, it will happen.

If it doesn't happen, you have the power to either run or help someone run for the local office position that shares your views! That's one of the biggest reason why I'm a localist! The voice of residents are stronger in the community.

What happens though, under this new law, if you feel the government has gone too far? Or better yet, bans something that you feel is good? What control do you have now? Really very little. It takes sweeping acts of unity to get anything brought up at the federal levels. Hundreds of thousands of voices just to get ten minutes on the floor!

One of the biggest complaints about schools are that our taxes are much too high. Yet, one of the primary reasons for that has been the huge uptick in federal regulations with "No Child Left Behind"! Everytime the Fed puts down new measures, it ends up hurting more than helping!

I'm not so much arguing over healthy eating, lord knows Matty's Pizza loves me, but to have the federal government take more control over our lives is not something I just can't support. KEEP IT LOCAL!!!
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on July 22, 2009 - 10:06am
Karen, you have no idea how other people were raised or what other people's experiences were. How dare you claim that someone can have no idea of what is involved in raising a child, when you and the other women bash Peter when he makes that statement that generalizes people.

You have no idea how he or anyone else was raised. You don't know if he or anyone else recieved free lunches. You don't know if he had to help raise members of his family. You don't know if he's been on his own since a young age. All you do know is you think you know what it's like to be a parent.

YOU, my dear friend, have no idea what is involved.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 10:09am
Karen,
Do I need to have kids to be able to vote for positions on the school board too then?

Based on that logic I shouldn't have to pay school taxes until I have kids.

If only parents are smart enough to know about kids then why do you need my money?

Your opinions are based simply on emotions. They don't stem from a set of core values. I don't believe that the government should take my money to give it to anyone. That's what charity is for. By reducing the amount of government programs, more money is in the private sector. That money is invested and used to create wealth. That creates jobs and lifts people out of poverty. Hand outs encourage people to stay at an income level that will qualify them for the handout.

I want people to advance. It is the american dream. Seeing how much you can collect from the government is slowly taking that dream away from future generations.
Posted by Karen Miconi on July 22, 2009 - 10:11am
Thanks Girl. I often wonder what, and where I would be without my Beautiful girls. College Tuition, 30 Grand, Braces, 5 Grand, Grand Caravan, 10 Grand, Parenthood, Priceless......
Posted by Kelly von Kramer on July 22, 2009 - 10:13am
I never said the kids don't eat at home. I said it may be the only Healthy meal they receive.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 10:16am
My apologies Kelly I based it on what Karen said.
Posted by Laura Scarborough on July 22, 2009 - 10:17am
Is anyone else experiencing the postings getting cut off on the right side? Example: Karens post the word Parenthood is cut off.
Posted by Karen Miconi on July 22, 2009 - 10:17am
Peter I have a Daughter 27, who I have seen through 6 years of college, at our expence, not by any other means. My hubby and I have worked very hard to maintain, and I might add with GOD's help. I am very proud of all of my girls, and will continue to do what I can to pay my taxes, tuition, doctor bills and car notes. Its just life DUDDDDDDEEEE. The government is just messed up in general. I dont have time to bicker over trivial stuff. Im not into politics, Ill leave those arguments to you, and your crowneys.
Posted by Lianne Gahagan White on July 22, 2009 - 10:18am
Chelsea,
defending this guy will become a full time job read between the lines!
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 10:19am
Karen this is a political discussion.
Posted by Bea McManis on July 22, 2009 - 10:25am
Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 10:27am

Does this mother have other family to help her out?
Charities exist as well. Using the force of government is wrong.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on July 22, 2009 - 11:09am
Karen,
I don't believe that the government should take my money to give it to anyone. That's what charity is for.

It would be nice, I agree, if charities could depend on enough donations to support the people who need help. If they relied on you, however, they would be broke in a week. You obviously would have no intention to support any charity.

by the way...remember you can take care of yourself and don't need anyone defending you.....
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on July 22, 2009 - 11:06am
Karen, you have no idea how other people were raised or what other people's experiences were. How dare you claim that someone can have no idea of what is involved in raising a child, when you and the other women bash Peter when he makes that statement that generalizes people.

You have no idea how he or anyone else was raised. You don't know if he or anyone else recieved free lunches. You don't know if he had to help raise members of his family. You don't know if he's been on his own since a young age. All you do know is you think you know what it's like to be a parent.

YOU, my dear friend, have no idea what is involved.
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on July 22, 2009 - 10:26am
I'm not defending him, I'm defending the world from idiocy and and hypocrites. I don't think there was a single sentence defending Peter in any of my posts, they have generally been very neutral. I'm sick and tired of my time reading the Batavian full of people bashing Peter.

Don't make statements about an action and then take the same action.

PS -- I am engaged to Peter, and I don't care if you or anyone else likes or dislikes him. You don't really effect my life, as I could stop reading the Batavian and you would disappear.
Posted by Chelsea Dobson on July 22, 2009 - 10:28am
Back to the topic:

I don't think the federal government should be in the business of school lunches at all. Or regulating high schools, but that's a different argument.