First Lady Michelle Obama touted the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 as a way to make school meals more nutritious and accessible to reduce childhood obesity rates. But after more than five years, the program has few positive results: a recent study shows childhood obesity levels haven’t declined (and in some demographics, have increased), food waste at schools is way up, and kids from families that don’t need subsidized meals still get them, courtesy of federal taxpayers.
Because Arne Duncan, the former secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, often engages his mouth before his brain, the case for abolishing the department may have just become stronger than ever.
As Congress considers reauthorizing the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, much of the debate is properly focused on modifying inflexible restrictions on sodium and whole grains in school lunches.
The agency has extended its comments period until April 15 as it considers a rule that would regulate a range of chemicals within a group called phthalates. These chemicals, among other purposes, keep plastics from shattering when bent, and play a useful role in a range of consumer products.
City and state officials across the nation often use tax increases on tobacco, alcohol, plastic bags, sugary drinks, and other “sin products” to help fill their budget gaps or fund pet projects. By taxing products that some governments claim have a negative effect on society, officials are able to raid taxpayers’ wallets without having to face the same level of scrutiny that normally goes hand-in-hand with proposals to raise taxes.
The urban cores of the nation’s 52 major metropolitan areas (over 1 million population) lost nearly one-fifth of their school age population between 2000 and 2010. This is according an analysis of small area age group data for children aged 5 to 14 from Census Bureau data, using the City Sector Model.
Just in time for the holiday season, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is gearing up what can only be called a “war on fun,” persecuting legitimate foreign and domestic businesses for selling legal products to consumers, under the guise of protecting children.
The politics of dramatically expanding the child tax credit entitlement (and yes, it is an entitlement) just don’t make all that much sense to me. Consider the landscape of America today, where more people are staying single longer and having fewer kids of their own volition, as they pretty much always do all over the world as cultures become more highly educated. These are not recent developments:
They can use the funds for expenses such as tutoring, private tuition, special education services, books, computers, and online and in-person classes. They can even save remaining funds for college.