Since the November elections, lame ducks in Washington have been fighting over high-profile legislation like the START treaty, ""Don't Ask, Don't Tell"" and whether or not to increase taxes. Despite these political scuttles, the House of Representatives managed to pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kid Act.
When President Obama signs this bill into law, he will set in motion a decade-long reform to the public school meal program. This bill restructures the approval process for free meals, increases the number of meals provided to at-risk students and sets nutritional standards for food at schools.
By no means will this be inconsequential legislation. This bill makes several changes to the administrative process for authorizing free meals to students who would go hungry without them—making it easier for low-income students to receive the meals they need during school. It's encouraging that the lame ducks were able to even scrape enough votes to pass legislation that will help those truly in need.
But like many of the major pieces of legislation passed in the last two years—including Obamacare and the credit card reform act—there are provisions that allow the federal government to overstep their proper role by regulating things that should be decided by local school boards, states or parents.
The federal government has been slowly encroaching on many aspects of peoples' lives, especially in the last two years. If signed, the bill would continue this invasion by regulating what schools can sell for fundraisers, the type of milk schools can serve and where they should be buying their food.
Parents and school districts, not Washington bureaucrats, should be making decisions about what food schools can serve because they understand the needs of their schools better than distant administrators.
If a school does not have an obesity problem and students are satisfied with their meal choices, there is no reason the federal government should have the authority to step in and mandate what food school districts serve their students. Just like ""No Child Left Behind,"" this bill unnecessarily infringes on school districts' responsibility to determine how to best serve their students.
To me, the portion of this bill dictating what schools can and cannot serve is the straw breaking the camel's back when it comes to the federal government overstepping its bounds. The Obama administration has passed steep regulations on who can own credit cards, who insurance companies must insure and now it is saying that schools cannot sell ""non-nutritious"" food at a charity bake sale.
Banning unhealthy food from schools isn't the worst thing this administration has done, but it is just another example of how the federal government is weaseling its way into nearly every facet of peoples' lives.
Over the last few years, people have finally begun speaking out against the federal government's rampant growth at infamous town-hall meetings and Tea Party rallies. And in November, they magnified their voices by voting for many Republican candidates who advocated a limited federal government. Hopefully when these newly elected representatives take office, they listen to the voters who gave them their seat and start slowing the federal government's continual expansion.
In general, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids law will be beneficial to many students who are in need. President Obama should sign it into law despite some of its overarching provisions. America is too great of a country to allow children to go hungry, and major portions of this bill work toward ending that problem.
However, when the Republicans assume control of the
House next year, they need to ensure that they pass legislation that does not allow the federal government to step beyond its limits of power. This law just takes away the normal milk and ""junk"" food lunch, but I would hate to see what they try to take away next.
Matt Beaty is a sophomore majoring in math and computer science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
