Wal-Mart announced that it would make thousands of it foods available lower in salts, fats and sugars. The company had been in discussions with First Lady, Michelle Obama, who's made reducing childhood obesity and healthy eating a huge part of her White House agenda. Last year Mrs. Obama launched her "Let's Move" initiative. The aim is to raise a healthier generation of children.Â
"In the end, as First Lady, this isn’t just a policy issue for me. This is a passion. This is my mission. I am determined to work with folks across this country to change the way a generation of kids thinks about food and nutrition."
Over the past three decades, childhood obesity rates in America have tripled, and today, nearly one in three children in America are overweight or obese. Many will suffer from diabetes at some point in their lives and others will face chronic obesity-related health problems like heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, and asthma.
This move by the nation's largest retailer is expected to have a spillover effect as the company pressures its suppliers to also cut salt, sugar and fat content. Many of its competitors are expected to also jump on the bandwagon. Wal-Mart officials said they are also going to drop prices on fruits and vegetables and eliminate extra costs associated with foods made with whole grains.
What is your opinion? Will this plan reduce obesity? Is this just an attempt by Wal-Mart to open more stores in urban settings; where they've been denied access in the past? Is First Lady, Michelle Obama's involvement in the initiative overreaching by the White House?
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has characterized Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign as government interference.
"Instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back," Palin told radio host Laura Ingraham in November.
Video embedded courtesy of YouTube
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 190
This announcement is part of a 5 year plan. I don't think Wal-Mart will throw in the towel if they see a decrease in sales. By lowering prices on fresh fruits and vegetables, Wal-Mart says it will cut into its own profits but hopes to make up for it in sales volume.
I don't know any child that doesn't like the taste of an apple, orange or grape. Yet some parents ignore fresh fruits and vegetables and force feed their children foods laced with sugar, salt and fat content.
Fresh fruits and vegetables cost more than cheap processed foods and you can buy more of those unhealthy processed foods, plus the processed foods don't go bad, like fresh fruits and vegetables do. Long term, fresh fruits and vegetables are a cost savings because it betters your health, your teeth, your thought process, etc., but immediate needs, especially for those on a very low budget, chips, cookies, bologna, white bread are cheaper. Plus for some there is an addiction factor. Addiction to high sugar and carbohydrates with little fiber or protein. A lot of empty calories.
Please don't lay the blame on parents. It's not all entirely their fault.
However with both parents working their not watching what they eat as much they are counting on care givers who do not care or think it is not their kids so what.
Also kids have tv's, computers, video games and so much more that they sit for that it is hard to get them off their bottoms. It is hard to get them to skip rocks instead of playing video games.
I am far from perfect however I do limit my kids to an hour of electronics per day unless it really is not going out weather. I also play alot of board games witht them to give them other things to do.
We cook as a family so they know what they are eatting and make decisions for themselves.
Sometimes the time it takes seems so hard but then I look at how great they are and know it is all worth it.
No they aren't. How much does the "standard" size bags of chips weigh? 6oz. ?...9oz. ? Lets go with 8oz. How much does that bag of chips cost? Let's go with the low end or the store brand and let's be generous...let's say $2.29. Quick math...that equals 4.58 lb.
Now...how many potatoes in that bag of chips? ONE...on the average, there is one potato in a 6-8oz bag of potato chips.
How much do apples costs? I see them at our market for less than $2.00 lb and on special for less than that. And I KNOW that apples hold up...stay fresh, more than a week.
Today a 60 cent bag holds anywhere from 40% to 55% at most.
Anyone who believe that junk food cost less are kidding themselves. Apples, oranges, grapefruits and other healthful foods can last for weeks under the right conditions.
Chips are sold by weight, not by volume. The amount of empty space in the bag doesn't matter. Think of it this way...if you bought two 12oz steaks...and one was put into a small container, the other into a large container, the steaks would still be the same weight. An 8oz bag of chips weighs 8 oz...not including the bag, which can be any size that will hold the chips...it's a net weight. The weight of the bag is known as the tare weight and is not included in the quoted (net) weight of the chips.
But your are right, anyone who thinks that junk food costs less are kidding themselves. And the hidden cost of junk foods is the health risk that may manifest itself as doctor bills, lost work time and a lower quality of life.
One of the biggest dangers of ALL prepackaged foods is high fructose corn syrup. It is used in everything from ketchup to peanut butter...salad dressings, soft drinks, energy drinks, candy, pastries...fruit drinks ...everything. HERE are SOME of the dangers and why they are dangers.
Slim high fructose corn syrup is one of the first things I look for when reading food labels. If it's on the label, I don't buy the product.
Even the producers of high fructose corn syrup know that it's not a healthy additive. Earlier this year they made an attempt to rename it corn sugar.
I avoid all corn syrup and hydrogenated oil. I think that's a good start in finding food that is good for you.
Plus there is rarely a 2 for 1 special on apples like there would be on a bag of chips.
AND chips can be addictive, filling up on empty calories, you are hungry in a little bit, you eat more chips.
All of that combined makes it easier to purchase junk food.
So no, I don't agree with you.
Putting them in the refrigerator. I know for a fact that apples, oranges and grapefruits last for weeks. Cucumbers, lettuce and tomatoes last for about a week. Carrots and onions last even longer.
Heart surgery runs tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars, including lost productivity at work, lost time and stress on the family.
Medications are also extremely expensive, as are rising premiums of health insurance.
People who pick junk food over fresh fruits, veggies and grains are also more likely to feel less energetic and can't get as much done during the day. Adding just one more hour of activity to my day is the same as paying a maid $10 to do what I would've done. That's $360 a year. How many apples could that buy?
Hi ms Cathie. I didn't recognize you.
Food isn't something you just decide one day you will change just because someone said so. There are emotional factors, monetary factors, family traditions, regional traditions, etc. People don't always choose junk food because they don't know better. The effects of sugar and bad carbs isn't just making people overweight, it causes slower thought processes, depression, malaise, etc., let alone disease. It's just not as simple as do it because M Obama said it. But I'm done. Apparently it's all bad parenting and nothing else. :(
The nearest Walmart to our neighborhood is about 45 minutes away by bus. The corner store is a 5 minute walk. I have a car, so I don't go to the corner stores or the cut-rate grocery about 1/2 a mile away, but even if I go to a good grocery about a mile away, the produce is not as fresh.
Yay for Walmart for saying they'll look at what's on their shelves. (I still won't shop there.) Now maybe if the same pressure is put on food merchants in the inner cities, we'll see some results across the board.
You're right EM JAY. Transportation has a lot to do with what's available to you. I hope there will be pressure put on the food merchants in the inner cities and neighborhood type stores. Around here pork rinds and King Cakes are really big right now, that's salt, fat and sugar, sugar, sugar.
Wal-Mart Targeting Inner City for Buildup
By Robert Manor - The Chicago Tribune
Wednesday 05 April 2006
Starting with its new big-box store under construction in Chicago, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said it will build 50 stores in urban neighborhoods distressed by high unemployment and other social problems in cities around the country.
Lee Scott, the company's chief executive, made the announcement Tuesday at the Austin neighborhood construction site of Chicago's first Wal-Mart store.
He said the new stores planned for inner-city neighborhoods over the next two years would create 15,000 to 20,000 jobs.
http://www.truth-out.org/article/wal-mart-targeting-inner-city-buildup
I know of one along the riverfront in Philadelphia. It's really can't be considered true inner city. At 11:00 a.m. in the morning the store was packed. And it wasn't even during the holiday season.
So there is a need for a stored like Wal-Mart in urban settings.
That bag of chips someone mentioned above may cost less than a bag of apples, but 2 kids can and will polish it off in a heartbeat and still think they are hungry. But 2 kids will eat 2 apples, not an entire bag.
Here in Cincinnati, the farmer's markets during the spring and summer months had some great deals. One in particular gave people with food stamps half off on all produce.
I highly recommend that you read "The End of Overeating" by former FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler.
Kessler shows how food manufacturers create products by manipulating ingredients to stimulate our appetites, setting in motion a cycle of desire and consumption that ends with a nation of overeaters. That's one of the things MSG does to us (besides a boatload of other thingsj). "The End of Overeating" explains why it is exceptionally difficult to resist certain foods and why it's so EASY to overindulge.
If you've ever wondered why in the heck we can't be satisfied eating healthy fresh foods and are instead so attracted to foods that can kill us.
I think whatever they put into McD's to make them attractive to kids wears off when one hits adulthood. How many adults do you know who prefer their burgers to other fast food joints?
If they're big enough they can opt for two of each product, and many of the companies do that.
I noticed WalMart is dropping many name brands and introducing more off name products besides their own label. But, due to quality I then begin to pick those things up at Price Chopper.
So it really is a big deal, even affecting their gross income, for them to jump in the pot as they have.
Dee, I agree with you. This winter we have had weekly snowstorms. I remember, as a child, waking up early on those type of days, dressing warmly and shoveling snow all day long. The streets would be crowded with other youngsters walking with their lone shovel looking for work.
Dee, this entire winter not one person has knocked on my door wanting to shovel my sidewalks and driveways. After last week's 8 inches of snow I sat looking through the window looking for someone, anyone walking with a shovel, looking for work.
Finally I saw 2 kids walking with shovels and aked them what it would cost to clear the snow. They said $40 and I said, "you got it." These 2 were the only kids I saw with shovels that day. They told me my house was the 5th one they'd done that day.
So I do agree with you when you say,
"I never seen such a lazy generation of kids."
And I'm 23. :( oh well... it's the economy right?
Many Americans just don't have the time to read food labels. Maybe, just maybe this effort will alleviate some of the necessary work making sure that Americans begin eating their share of healthy foods.
I so despise Walmart that this will not sway me to shop there.
I am wondering if this is just a way to keep their names in the press as the elections roll around.
Something I just wish I could avoid. I'll be the first one to say I don't want this man and his wife in the white house any longer, but I fear that if some solid candidates aren't presented then they will be.
By the way, it really doesn't sit well with me that she is pushing healthy here, and then when she goes globe trotting with her husband that she gives candy and treats to children of foreign countries. Really sounds double standardish to me.
Mooch
"I so despise Walmart that this will not sway me to shop there."
Not to worry Mooch. Other retailers will jump on the healthy food bandwagon. Some of Wal-Mart suppliers such as Kraft Foods are already on board.
So even if you are not a fan of Wal-Mart, you will benefit from their efforts.
Mooch, foods with less salt, sugar and fat contents are coming to a store near you soon.
Obama is POTUS. His name is always in the spotlight.
I have so drastically changed the way we eat, and how I make food that its harder not to eat healthy. And sometimes it is more expensive to make your own, but we enjoy it so much more.
For instance Mac and Cheese. You can buy a box of generic mac and cheese for under a buck on average, but what do you get, 14 oz of elbow noodles, and a pack of powder cheese that has high salt and very likely a lot of additives in it. Add your own milk and butter and wah lah you have a side for a meal right?
Not anymore in this house. I don't make it very often, but when I do, I use the gourmet cheeses, and usually 5 different cheeses, heavy whipping cream, and spices. So while it may be more calories, I cut out all the additives and preservatives, and we enjoy it a lot more.
Same with making a casserole. I have been stocking up on Chicken broth every time I go to DJ liquidators, they sell containers of chicken brother for 50 cents, instead of using cream of mushroom soup, I make a chicken broth based gravy, which ends up cutting down a lot of sodium, and again additives and preservatives.
We, as American's have become used to the idea of pre packaged food, and while a lot of it has lead to problems with weight, it also contributes to higher cholesterol and other health problems.
By just changing my diet in 2 years I was able to bring my cholesterol and blood sugar levels down to normal ranges. Even when people eat 'diet' foods they don't always realize that there are just as harmful effects as regular foods.
@Lori I could care less, what Obama is, this is his wife, she is helping keep his name in the spotlight.
@Aniko, That may very well be true, but I don't think the percentage of people who HAVE to bre on high calorie diets is as high as one might think.
Personally its not Mrs. Obama's job to enforce healthy eating. Simply put. I see this as just another way that the government is stepping to try to control, and enforce socialism. Sorry its just my 2 cents.
Mooch
If you lived closer I'd be over to shovel your walk and or driveway free no charge, because I LOVE to shovel snow, its great exercise for me.
Both are worthy causes. Now how is one different than the other?
I'm looking at the nutrition label on a microwavable cup of Kraft Stove Top Stuffing Mix.
I've counted nearly 80 ingredients. WTF!
I urge everyone to take a food item off the shelf and read the label. Tell me how many additives you find? Tell me how many you don't what they really are?
What in the Hell is PROPYL GALLET? I don't know what it is. But it's in this stuffing mix that I'm not going to eat.
The best thing to do is make food from scratch, all that you can!
I eat simple vegetarian and I don't feel left out at all.
As to government's role in all this, I don't think Michelle Obama has any government power. I really think all she has is a "bully pulpit" and the ability to bring the nation's attention to matters of interest to her. I much prefer children's health as an issue to women's fashions as some famous first ladies have done.
Same here Larry. I'm glad she is using her position to advance this issue. I see no downside to it.
She would have been better off trying to work with Michelle Obama and Wal-Mart instead of opposing this initiative just for "opposition's" sake.
Same here Larry. I'm glad she is using her position to advance this issue. I see no downside to it. <<br>Unfortunately Lloyd, I respectfully disagree with you. I see it as one more intrusion by the government.
Welcome to the U.S.S.A.
Mooch
Who gets punished if all businesses just ignore Michelle?
No one.
the only who would feel neglected I imagine would be Michelle.
It sounds like you want her to be subservient. The woman has a resume that many would die for. I doubt if shes so insecure as to ever feel neglected.
Just admit that you don't like her and nothing she would ever do would please you. I can't fathom why you oppose this effort.
Unlike you, many people admire the First Lady. I'm one of them. So I'm finding it very offensive that you've decided to focus so negatively against her.
So in what sense is this a case of government intrusion if no one gets punished if they ignore Michelle's advocacy?
As a merchandiser, I rarely work in the grocery side, but do know quite a few of the grocery merchandisers, and a few told me that their companies have spoken pertaining to generating more healthy choices.
Woot for Walmart (but fruit and veggies always been there, people just need to choose to buy them)
And this woman believes she's qualified to be on a Presidential ticket. I've never seen more delusional wannabe Presidential candidates in my entire life.
I gladly welcome Michelle Bachmann to the 2012 campaign for the Presidency of the United States of America.
Please excuse this impolite and possibly disrespectful interjection but I have a "thing" about proper use of words. I know what was meant by the expression "healthy foods" but every time I see it I imagine cutting pork chops out of a live pig.
I have made a few purchases at WalMart. They are the only store I know of that sells Bag Balm, the worlds best multi purpose skin care product. And they sell ammunition for my pistol, and my air guns.
I just figured they buy cheaper and sell cheaper. The truth is once you get the veggies home and clean them up or cook them they're just as good :)
I really didn't think of that as a negative. Just common sense when you're trying to sell at a below prime price.
So I agree with you. Bag Balm huh? Couldn't they have come up with a better name? "Hey, you guys got any Bag Balm?" Nope, I couldn't do it. :) Guess I'll have to stay with my Hemp Moisturizer. This Hemp doesn't come in a bag. :)
Bag Balm is called bag balm because it was developed to sooth the nipple parts of udders. It is almost pure lanolin.
For me, the quality of what went in my refer was very important. Nothing hurts more than having an inspector reject a load of peaches because they didn't look or smell right. I learned to pay attention. Except perhaps accidentally cooking 32 thousand pounds of asparagus because a the refer thermometer failed. I sold that load to a soup company (nameless to protect the guilty) Cream of Asparagus soup is made with the stuff nobody would buy for a state dinner. It is still good stuff, but it looks like hell. About the only time a load of food spoils beyond any use is when the truck burns down.
Sometimes women run into real trouble when they're nursing ... maybe it was that.
You're right ... some uses of veggies must have an artistic flare. That's when I go to Price Chopper :)
And, it is all natural. Personally, I think it is a miracle product. I never used it to soften and seal leather, but it probably would work for that too.
Once again,
Thanks
As for people being upset that the FLOTUS is trying to get people to change their lifestyle, they can take a flying leap. What's wrong with trying to educate people about their food choices? What's wrong with explaining the difference between "Fat Free" and "Low Calorie"? Or between "natural sugar" like you would find in an apple, orange, or carrots, and "refined sugar" like you find in twinkies, white bread, and cupcakes?
I know a lot of fairly well-educated people that know very little about actual nutrition. ANYTHING in excess is bad, whether it's sugar, fat and salt, or dieting, exercising, and "eating right". When you eat in a "healthy manner" you actually CAN have your cake and eat it too. You just eat ONE slice, instead of the WHOLE thing.
You go, Walmart!
I'm with you Cathi. All that matters is that Wal-Mart did the right thing. There's no conspiracy theory involved. The First Lady saw a need and used her personal influence to resolve it.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Well, I never thought I would be giving Wal-Mart credit for anything good, but I do applaud them for this move, regardless of their supporting intentions. Good for Michelle Obama. I applaud her for making this epidemic a focus of her time in the WH.
I applaud this action.
I just went to my rare trip to Walmart last night.
I didn't think they were any cheaper than any other store around.
I had my fill of Walmart for ever if I can avoid it.
It may have been more 'eye appealing', but I couldn't find squat diddly do, I thought their inventory selection was less, and then lets talk about the increased prices that I seemed to notice.
And cashiers at stores have said that the norm for items is smaller containers.....
I don't see 'more affordable' in our future. I see prices skyrocketing.
I end up going to the store and mostly shopping the sales.
A grocery store in our area is closing, you know what they've done? Raised the prices on their products.....how is that going to help people?
Mooch
Because Palin directly injected herself into this story. Ignoring her will not make her go away. However, exposing her for who she really is will slowly put the nail in her political coffin.
If you haven't noticed, the last few times she's opened her mouth, she's put her foot deeper inside?
Sue, your hatred of the Obama family has clouded your judgment. Stop looking at her BUTT and look at her deeds. She's a wonderful First Lady.
Megan, Sue's hatred for the Obama family short circuits her brain and she spews out these types of statements. Forgive her, for she know not what she says.
Typical ignorant American response here is this: "Eating healthy doesn't mean NEVER having a slurpee. It just means no slurpees for breakfast, lunch and dinner. :-D"
The fact is that a Slurpee is no more than ice, toxic food coloring, and toxic sugar. That's like saying it's okay to have poison sometimes as long as you don't make a habit of it. No, junk like Slurpees are just plain old poison. It's not the same as saying you can have a cookie, a pastry, or some other less nutrtional food once in a while, so obviously, much education is needed.
I surely don't want the responsibility. I've done my part to try to bring good nutrition to the public school system in the 80s when I was still involved with it. For one thijng, I didn't want my kid eating doughnuts on mid-morning breaks, supplied by the teacher. They thought it was just fine. That is also when they first starting implementing breakfast programs. I wouldn't feed that menu of starch, sugar, and fat to someone I loathed, much less my child. Suddenly, it's all the rage to be concerned about nutrition, and that's why I am enraged.
"because they are stupid and ignorant, they actually need someone"
"Typical ignorant American response here is this"
"Suddenly, it's all the rage to be concerned about nutrition, and that's why I am enraged."
Sue, your disdain for average everyday American citizens is beyond belief. Not every American is as smart as you. And you aren't the smartest American.
The majority of those whom you despise are hard working good Americans who just may need some direction in making good nutritional decisions.
There's nothing wrong with government nudging them in the right direction. For many it might mean living a life without obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and a host of other illnesses associated with high sugar, salt and fat content.
What is the alternative? This effort by Wal-Mart and First Lady Michelle Obama has no downside. It is the right thing to do. I urge you to take your rage in another direction because the direction you have taken makes you look mean spirited, unkind and uncaring.
And you have disdain for them? How sad.
And educating people and thinking for people are not the same thing
If the food coloring is indeed toxic, and the corn syrup so bad, then the FDA needs to ban it. A lot of people give those treats to their kids trusting our own industry that it is using safe stuff for our treats. The government needs to do more, then. We can't let business poison people!
Grape juice is purple...orange juice is orange. Pomegranite is redish. Maybe you werent aware of these things.
No, Peter. Corn syrup is not the culprit. High fructose corn syrup is.
Thanks, Marilyn. It's one of those lost causes, though.
But if they HAVE to be involved...
Perhaps we should be pushing for schools to reinstate playground time for elementary kids. When kids were thinner and healthier, they had recess at least 2-3 times per day. Not only did it help physically, it helped kids who had "the wiggles" - the ones that everyone insists on drugging today.
Maybe we should insist that phys ed be something that every school has for every kid from kindergarten through 12th grade at least 3 times per week.
All governments involve themselves in child safety and welfare things.
And yes, while kids need healthy food they also need to run around a lot. They need both.
IT'S THE PARENTS!
I call it more pushing socialism!
Only government is powerful enough to regulate corporations.
(this is part of a larger article)
"This bag of blueberry bagels sold at Target stores is made with blueberry bits. And while actual blueberries are found further down the ingredients list, the blueberry bits themselves don't even contain bits of blueberries. They're made entirely from sugar, corn cereal, modified food starch, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, artificial flavor, cellulose gum, salt and artificial colors like Blue #2, Red #40, Green #3 and Blue #1."
IT'S THE PARENTS!
I call it more pushing socialism!
It takes a village. And if a village is socialism to you, whatever ....
For the life of me, I don't understand why some basic foods, especially frozen foods have up to 30 additives.
By the way, my cholesterol levels are back to normal since paying more attention to what I was eating.
And just how much are you willing ot let the government regulate.
I see this as overstepping their bounds.
Just like health care reform, they overstepped their bounds.
Sorry but Michelle butting her nose into areas that I don't think she has any business butting them into, doesn't sit well with me. She has an agenda, and simply put what I think is that agenda is pushing socialism, just like Obama is doing.
Mooch
You don't need the government telling you how to lower cholesterol, you don't need the government telling you how to eat, what to eat, and what not to eat. And that is exactly what they are doing.
I have this philosphy,
I have kids with autism, and asperger's syndrome, I am not going to sit there and make them food that they like every night, I make a healthy meal and if they don't eat its their choice. I'm not going to force them to eat, but they also know they won't eat until the next meal.
Mooch
People were running out of choices, everything had hydrogenated oil and corn syrup in it. It's nice that's changing now and people are becoming aware and products are being made more healthy now, where they are.
This was all mostly started by New York banning the bad oil because it was sick of all the heart attacks people were having from it. People were lied to by business. Only government can stand up to business when it lies and poisons us.
Here's a FUN Youtube video about how hamburgers are photographed for TV to make them look better than real life!!!
And what if you don't even think to complain because you don't know the common ingredients are unhealthy, because why would something so common in most everything be unhealthy?
And the government isn't getting involved in every little thing. You exaggerate.
I don't want government to make rules to control the market or the citizens. The Fed gov't is to protect the citizens from outside aggression, take care of inter state and international commerce, and a few other things :)
Taking care of the schools is the responsibility of the states and the parents.
I would like the states to take their authority back from the feds regarding the schools. I would honor the state asking the schools and PTA's to get with the parents to see whether they can come up with some idea's on nutrition as far as what is served in the schools and sold from the candy machines.
Will each individual state be capable of collecting taxes and using it appropriately, making sure no district is left behind? Or will those districts with power and influence have an advantage when it comes to allocating the funds?
Of that money sent back, how much of an "average" state's education budget does it consist of?
After answering those questions, how about letting me know just how well (by any measure) Federal involvement in education has done since Reagan created this bureaucracy? Never mind telling me if they do well any of the things that Lloyd is worried about in his 2d paragraph.
Do you think state and city governments would be more concerned and have more local knowledge to help educate kids in their state than a bureaucrat 3,000 miles away in DC who will never talk to or see either the kids, the schools or even the towns or cities where they are located?
In New Jersey our property taxes are extremely high due to the costs of funding our public schools despite receiving funds from the federal government.
Enrollment at all levels of public schools has increased and what we've received from the federal government has decreased. New Jersey tax-payers have been making up the difference over the last 10 years. Taxes on a 200,000 dollar home runs around 4000 dollars per year.
I dread to think what would happen if funding public education were totally left up to each individual state. Schools would have to close, extra curricular activities would have to be eliminated and many teachers relieved of their jobs.
Again I ask, "what is the alternative?" And would the alternative ensure that our children are able to compete with children across the globe?
Charles, if you look at constant dollars we spend more than 3 times per student what we paid in 1960 and I don't think we are turning out more educated students now than we did then.
Take our interstate highways for example. We can't have snow removed in one state and not another. Interstate commerce would come to a screeching halt as those states lacking the necessary funds fail to adequately clear the highways.
Centralized government has is good points. Leaving each and every decision to individual states creates a myriad of problems.
Should government be more efficient? Yes. But hoping that each and every state lives up to it's obligation to contribute to education, security, snow removal or the many other things our federal government does would be taking a risk I believe wouldn't be in our best interests.
Lloyd, I don't want the states to be cookie cutters of each other. I want a choice of 50 states to choose from. Different states.
We pay state legislators big money to make decisions on this local level. The feds were bound by the constitution from interfering with anything not specifically delegated to them. We do not want them to be run by the puppet masters to bring about 'their' idea of a utopia.
Ever ytime they give you a penny, they are subjecting you to their authority. No wonder they take our tax money for local projects and then send it right back to us. By 'giving' it to us, they get to call the shots on the rules and regulations THEY want to execute in our state.
Lloyd; "I believe we can't have 50 states unilaterally deciding on when and how things should be done."
Me; Why? There are small countries all over the world ruling and controlling themselves. Why do you not think the leaders of our 50 states are so ignorant they can't run our state? What makes the feds, so far removed the the needs of each state and the mindset of the people in those states, wiser than the leaders the people themselves voted to run there state?
My state, Kansas is doing pretty well. If not, I can get to Topeka along with many others, to make a lot of noise. We've been working with our State authorities well for years. Now, in the last 50 years, the feds, and some of the citizens, have decided 'the people' can't choose or control intelligent leaders so the feds, outside of Constitutional bounds, have usurped their authority.
What state are you from Lloyd? Do you feel your own local leaders are unable to get things done? Why don't you put your energy behind getting new state leaders. Wouldn't it be fun to have a blog just for each state? Wow. I never thought about that before but how educational that would be. And powerful!
Woo woo. That sounds great. I wonder if there are already ones for each of the 50 states. If not, wouldn't it be great for us to begin that right here on Gather? Gather might help us set it up and the new mother corp might help in advertising. It might be a real Boone financially to them.
Really Marilyn when was that? Back in the 40's when 47% of students actually graduated from high school?
What you people are forgetting or simply ignoring is that the Dept of Ed was part of the Department of Health and Education prior to that. President Harding was the first to suggest it.
Did you bother to read what I wrote?
john is right as rain. You want to do something beneficial for education get rid on NCLB.
Dan, we can't have thousand of school boards distributing funds for public education. We'd have to set up special courts for those embezzling the money.
I'd rather have our government act as the middle-man than thousands of anonymous individuals, with unknown intentions, distributing the funds.
Bit Lloyd, each state is like a country, 50 countries joined under one umbrella. It would be much safer to a Dept Of Education in each state was responsible (as they were until relatively lately) for managing the Education in their own state. 50 nation wide; but only 1 dept in each state. That would be far less confusing than one agency, far removed from the states trying to run all 50 states.
Every state has a different social ideal. I like that. I LOVE the differences. Education of the kids is actually the parents responsibility. At the state level we can all decide what options we can exercise and the type of testing we want to do. etc.
Why does anyone think that people in Washington Dc know what will work best in California, Wyoming, Florida, Alaska & Hawaii?
There are wonderfully equipped, intelligent people able to step up to the plate in every state.
:):) Oh well, we probably won't change each others mind, but it's fun trying.
Lori had an interesting aside regarding the DOEd and its origins. One forgets though that while in HEW it had little spending authority, not much more regulatory power, and was a rather small department offshoot that really did little.
Lloyd, for most of our nation's history (of state run education) school boards did almost all the financing and handling of monies for schools. They also were directly responsible to the voters who lived right there with them. From the limited evidence I've seen, they were no more corrupt than the ones today with the Feds tossing uncounted regs and forms on them.
There are wonderfully equipped, intelligent people able to step up to the plate in every state."
Glome, those people in Washington are elected officials from all the states you mentioned. They were voted into office by their electorate. They aren't some mysterious anonymous Washington bureaucrat.
The come to Washington to put their minds together in order to find solutions, not only their respective states, but the country as a whole.
"Oh well, we probably won't change each others mind, but it's fun trying."
Glome, I sincerely respect your ability to debate this issue in a civil manner.
What would we call the conglomerate? Of course each individual group would be called the name of the state we live in.
1 Fifty, Strong Independent States
????? We need name suggestions :) Maybe I should just submit a post on this.
I think I will. Thanks Lloyd. You've brought together a lot of ideas.
Glome, we'd call it the United States of Chaos.
We can't have 50 states acting unilaterally. That's how it's done on the African and South American continent.
There's a reason why so many fledgling nations adopt our Constitution. It unites rather than divide.
There's no reason in the world that the people of Kansas can't run their own state ... schools and all. Same for all other states.
I don't know anything about the African and South American school system, but I don't think they even do well with their own countries.
We weren't anything like them when we took care of our own schools. Why would you think we would be like them in anything?
I'm sure there are some isolated places where they do pretty good but they are having to fight against really bad circumstances. Poverty, terrible crime and worthless governments.
We had better grade averages in years past ... when the states were running their own schools.
Come on Lloyd, you know your state could it :) The fact that all our states are sitting next to each other doesn't make us dumber.
Kansas would be begging to rejoin the Union within one year and one day.
Every year they decide to take over a few more things, tax all of us, then give the money back to the state. HOWEVER, now that the feds are handing our money back to us, they get to tell us how to spend it and what rules to use and what standard we have to use.
I love the idea of USA, I'm just saying the feds were given limited power over the states in the constitution and they have taken advantage to the extreme the part that says they are to act for our general good.
I want them to back out and let states do our own thing in as far as the Constitution allows.
Sorry, I didn't get my idea across very clear. That's one thing I do well; mis communicate :)