40 ms·

Just some quick napkin math: In 2015 the US Defense spending was estimated around $598 billion. [1] In 2014 we spent $12.7 million on the school lunch program.

Just some quick napkin math: In 2015 the US Defense spending was estimated around $598 billion. [1] In 2014 we spent $12.7 million on the school lunch program. [2] By reducing the defense budget a little under 5%, we could triple the school lunch program. Reduce it a little under 9%, and we can spend 5x more on school lunches. I'm not sure of the exact numbers behind an individual school lunch, but from what I know about personal cooking, you can probably spend 5x more and have menus put together for kids that are way healthier than the "Pizza Dippers" I remember. I'm also not sure if school lunches are sold at a profit, but here's what I found related to that [3]. Assuming they are, do they really need to be, especially if the federal government can subsidize it more? What's really needed is a societal change with how food is treated. Someone else mentioned a tax on sugar and processed foods, which could help. But another big step would be trying to teach students about nutritious food and living a healthy lifestyle. Of course, it's difficult if the school is the only place they see this, but I don't think it would hurt to have more outlets for healthy living in a student's life. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... [2] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50737 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50737 [3] http://markbittman.com/health-vs-profits-in-school-lunches/ http://markbittman.com/health-vs-profits-in-school-lunches/

adrianN 9y ago
You're off by a factor of 1000, I think.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  It's the school lunch "million", which should be $12.7 billion. (so all the percentages are reasonable)
zajd 9y ago
The problem isn't how food is treated, it's Americans unwillingness to use tax dollars to help poor people(even children). Foods got nothing to do with it, it's the same with their school supplies, technology, quality of education, etc.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  Yeah, it's a cultural issue here. I sometimes phrase it as "nobody hates Americans as much as other Americans".
ersii 9y ago
> What's really needed is a societal change with how food is treated. Someone else mentioned a tax on sugar and processed foods, which could help. But another big step would be trying to teach students about nutritious food and living a healthy lifestyle. Of course, it's difficult if the school is the only place they see this, but I don't think it would hurt to have more outlets for healthy living in a student's life. Why stop at measly taxation of consumption or teaching programs? Let's progress and go further and simply be the Societal Parent by storing the children units in a controlled environment where they'll only receive information and norms deemed by teeming experts to be beneficial to them or everyone. We could call it the Hatchery and Conditioning Centre.
eadmund 9y ago
You're begging the question that the defence budget should be reduced. Yes, the U.S. spends far more than every other country, but the question is not whether it outspends others, but rather whether it spends enough on itself. From an historical perspective, current U.S. spending as a fraction of GDP is not great (this means that other nations are spending far less than they need to). You could similarly argue that by reducing Social Security & non-school-lunch welfare spending, the school-lunch programme could be increased. You're also begging the question of whether or not providing lunches to schoolchildren is a federal responsibility. Reading the list of enumerated powers of the United States[0] it really isn't, unless you squint really hard and figure that it's necessary & proper to provide school lunches in order to 'raise & support Armies,' since malnourished children won't grow up to be good soldiers. But if that's the case … then the school lunch programme is part of the defence budget! [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_Stat...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > From an historical perspective, current U.S. spending as a fraction of GDP is not great It might be lower than tat some points in the past, but that is great. Just like it's great that a smaller share of our population is engaged in agriculture than in the past: resources are free for other pursuits. > (this means that other nations are spending far less than they need to). Or, it means that civilization is advancing , and the needed level as a share of total output is declining. > You're also begging the question of whether or not providing lunches to schoolchildren is a federal responsibility. Reading the list of enumerated powers of the United States[0], unless you squint really hard and figure that it's necessary & proper to provide school lunches in order to 'raise & support Armies,' since malnourished children won't grow up to be good soldiers. Actually, there's a much better argument for federal involvement in funding and prescribing anything attached to public education including school lunches in the militia clause, if you insist on seeing it through a military lens rather than a commercial one.

adrianN 9y ago

You're off by a factor of 1000, I think.

maxerickson 9y ago
It's the school lunch "million", which should be $12.7 billion. (so all the percentages are reasonable)

zajd 9y ago

The problem isn't how food is treated, it's Americans unwillingness to use tax dollars to help poor people(even children). Foods got nothing to do with it, it's the same with their school supplies, technology, quality of education, etc.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
Yeah, it's a cultural issue here. I sometimes phrase it as "nobody hates Americans as much as other Americans".

ersii 9y ago

> What's really needed is a societal change with how food is treated. Someone else mentioned a tax on sugar and processed foods, which could help. But another big step would be trying to teach students about nutritious food and living a healthy lifestyle. Of course, it's difficult if the school is the only place they see this, but I don't think it would hurt to have more outlets for healthy living in a student's life. Why stop at measly taxation of consumption or teaching programs? Let's progress and go further and simply be the Societal Parent by storing the children units in a controlled environment where they'll only receive information and norms deemed by teeming experts to be beneficial to them or everyone. We could call it the Hatchery and Conditioning Centre.

eadmund 9y ago

You're begging the question that the defence budget should be reduced. Yes, the U.S. spends far more than every other country, but the question is not whether it outspends others, but rather whether it spends enough on itself. From an historical perspective, current U.S. spending as a fraction of GDP is not great (this means that other nations are spending far less than they need to). You could similarly argue that by reducing Social Security & non-school-lunch welfare spending, the school-lunch programme could be increased. You're also begging the question of whether or not providing lunches to schoolchildren is a federal responsibility. Reading the list of enumerated powers of the United States[0] it really isn't, unless you squint really hard and figure that it's necessary & proper to provide school lunches in order to 'raise & support Armies,' since malnourished children won't grow up to be good soldiers. But if that's the case … then the school lunch programme is part of the defence budget! [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_Stat...

dragonwriter 9y ago
> From an historical perspective, current U.S. spending as a fraction of GDP is not great It might be lower than tat some points in the past, but that is great. Just like it's great that a smaller share of our population is engaged in agriculture than in the past: resources are free for other pursuits. > (this means that other nations are spending far less than they need to). Or, it means that civilization is advancing , and the needed level as a share of total output is declining. > You're also begging the question of whether or not providing lunches to schoolchildren is a federal responsibility. Reading the list of enumerated powers of the United States[0], unless you squint really hard and figure that it's necessary & proper to provide school lunches in order to 'raise & support Armies,' since malnourished children won't grow up to be good soldiers. Actually, there's a much better argument for federal involvement in funding and prescribing anything attached to public education including school lunches in the militia clause, if you insist on seeing it through a military lens rather than a commercial one.