In re yesterday's posts about the proper federal role in school lunch policy, Mr Yglesias replies:
Julian Sanchez concedes the point regarding "nanny state" activity being perfectly reasonable when the people being nannied are children. Instead, he's upset on federalist grounds about the idea of congress making snack regulations for public schools.To which I say . . . eh.
In practice, arguments about federalism are almost universally made opportunistically. People favor devolving power to the states when they think doing so will produce policies they approve of, and people favor concentrating power in Washington when they think doing so will produce policies they approve of. Everyone knows this. And while one might condemn the hypocrisy of it all, this always strikes me as a good thing to be hypocritical about.
I think there's a kernel of truth to this, though there seem to me to be a lot of people out there who simply think that more federal control of everything would make the world an infinitely better place. But this example is the worst possible illustration of the principle. I know Julian well enough that I would stake a fair amount of money on the proposition that there is no "policy he approves of" on school lunches, because it is not a subject that he, or I, or Matt, or almost any other single person without children, wastes valuable time developing an opinion on. I am acquainted with Dan Mitchell, and I'm pretty sure that he, too, has no secret school lunch agenda that he is trying to sneak through the back door of states' rights. Actually, this is possibly the strongest argument for federalism on the issue: the people most likely to have a handle on the best policy are the people who actually care about it: i.e., the parents and the school board officials they elect.
This is why, contra earlier commenters, the word "paternalism" strikes me as entirely a propos. The argument for federalising the nation's school cafeterias rests on an argument that most of the people in America are such total morons that they cannot feed their children an adequate diet, or vote for a school board that will do same, without Matt's assistance in the way of a little coercive regulation.
And the argument for federalising the nation's school cafeterias also rests on the argument that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are more competent and less corrrupt than local politicians. They are elected by the same people, aren't they?
Federalising makes sense if the issue is national, intrastate, or has some massive economy of scale. Assuming that federalising an issue will result in better outcomes beceause the federal government is more competent than local governments is, um, not logical.
EI
This is the type of cynicism that makes me despair for the future of this country. Yes, hypocrisy is widespread, but that doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders and ignore it while it grows worse.
There do exist principled consitutionalists who believe that most problems should be solved at the most local level possible, regardless of what their opinions on those problems are. *cough*Ron Paul*cough*
Matt's argument strikes me as a case of massive projection. Just because he thinks that way doesn't mean the rest of us do. Federalism has independent merit, precisely because this is a diverse country with different subcultures in different places. It makes no difference what the particular issues happen to be -- in most cases the best decider is the local one. Unless it's a huge issue that requires a "one size fits all" approach. But if you're intellectually honest you would admit that those are few and far between.
Agree with the concept that there are federalism purists out there.
I also note that, to Matt's point, the propensity to support federal vs. state power frequently hinges on who's in control of the federal government. Or the several states for that matter.
Actually, this is possibly the strongest argument for federalism on the issue: the people most likely to have a handle on the best policy are the people who actually care about it: i.e., the parents and the school board officials they elect.
That's true when the players are all local. In this case, the players aren't local. They're powerful food industry interests. This issue isn't about kids' natural desire to eat sweet and high-fat foods. It's about huge national corporate and public providers of sweet and high-fat foods, and whether kids' school diets should be shaped by the mores of the fast food industry, or by nutritional guidelines.
You don't seem to be engaging with the real arguments here. First of all, parents and local governments are not evenly matched against Marriott, Pizza Hut, Coke, and ADM, not to mention the federal farm subsidies programs for corn, meat and dairy. On the corporate side, in an era when schools face increasing budget crunches, local governments will be sorely tempted to sell the kids' diets down the river in exchange for cash to fund the marching band. That temptation should be removed, and pressure to fund the marching band should be redirected where it belongs, onto taxpayers.
Second, the school lunch program is a federal program. It just is. The federal government has a responsibility to make sure its programs aren't making kids fat and giving them heart disease.
Third, the reason why Congress is acting now on health standards in school lunches is that there is a problem. Obesity rates are skyrocketing. American kids are getting tremendously fat. Kids everywhere in the developed world are getting fatter, except for France apparently, but American kids are the fattest. It's a nationwide problem, and it is driven by the natural forces of rationalization when home cooking and homemade lunches are replaced by mass-cooked foods designed to appeal to easy taste preferences, both in the private (fast-food) industry and in public settings (school lunches). School lunches, prepared by government workers or at government expense, are a part of the obesity problem, as documented in "Fast Food Nation", "Supersize Me", etc. They may not be the biggest part, but they are a part. It is completely insufficient to say "this should be left to the localities": in this case, as usual, that is a synonym for "nothing need be done". Something does need to be done: things are not fine. American kids are fat. What do you plan to do about it? Your answer is "nothing". Congress's answer is: perhaps we could at least start by mandating that food be healthy, nutritious and non-fatting when the food is purchased for children at national taxpayer expense! I mean, really. I wouldn't send my kids to eat at someone else's house where they were serving junk food, and I would consider that person to be deficient in that aspect of their parenting. How about you?
I certainly agree with the points about federalism being used opportunistically, which in no way degrades it as a decent approach overall.
But what about economies of scale? Don't we gain some benefit from only having to determine the answers to public questions like these once? And it should be a lot cheaper if we could buy Vitamin Enriched Genetically Enhanced Tater Tots or whatever at the national level- but I am in favor of consolidating many of those simple functions. That's what my corporate finance perspective on this is- attempt to maximize cheapness and healthiness at the most efficient level. Even if you don't buy the food, why do the same research 52 times, or however many school districts there are in the country times?
Unfortunately, the localities are still buying the food with local property taxes, so the Federales writing rules for this sort of thing don't have to pay the hidden increased costs out of their pork. Unless we are talking about subsidies for free/reduced price lunches...in which case, let them make the rules and find somewhere else to cut the $. Most children have the individual choice of the packed lunch, I am guessing that's what Ron Paul ate.
Re: 'economy of scale' argument
I agree, for complex problems pooling resources to get some answers is very useful and saves a whole bunch of duplication of effort, and more importantly, taxpayer money.
So here's an abstract on the study's result in this particular intractable dilemma of our time:
Now where's my NIH grant?
Seriously, this is why I'm so disappointed with this debate on the various sites that its been on. It's not that the stakes are so high, it's that the stakes are so low. Yes, everyone agrees that children's choices should be deliberately curtailed, monitored, and guided, and as in loco parentis schools have specific moral and ethical, as well as specifically defined legal responsibilities.
But, really, can't people just let it go in this case, and allow the more local authorities come up with what should be a brain-dead decision? It makes it so much easier if you keep your powder dry, and just save these weapons when the stakes *are* high. (e.g. when someone says a little black girl can't go to the same school as a little white girl)
Maybe if we stop subsidizing corn to such a huge degree we'd see less corn syrup in everything. At least the FDA no longer tells everyone to eat tons of processed starch and more vegetables.
Unfortunately cheap food will make staying thin hard for anyone. Lots of technology means that people will avoid hard work they don't have to do. I doubt that eliminating vending machines from schools will make much of a difference.
More important than diet is exercise and I know that schools in my area have reduced the amount of organized exercise kids get. They get some recess where they go to the playground and do whatever they want but there is no mandatory exercise at all. Kids NEED exercise and schools should have all kids do some sort of exercise every day. This would help control their weight, improve their health, and build habits for the future.
Forcing kids to eat diet food and letting them sit around all day and not exercise may make them less fat but won't really make them healthier.
Oh, and one reason that schools cut exercise time is that they are preparing for all the mandatory standardized tests that determine their rankings and funding. They don't get paid to keep kids healthy.
EI
I agree with everything EI just said.
Also, just to supply personal context: I make my daughter's lunch every day. Half the kids in her class eat food from the school cafeteria. Occasionally, she asks why she can't eat food from the cafeteria. I say it's expensive and we don't need it, but the result is that I have to spend more time making interesting lunches to compete; I don't want the other kids dissing her because they think she's poor or gets boring lunches. This, I can handle. But I can only imagine what happens if you have to compete, not just against the school cafeteria, but against a Sbarro's pizza slice in the cafeteria -- with a televised ad campaign to support it.
Apparently Americans should ask their congressional representatives to refrain from doing anything about this, however, because it is not an appropriate issue for the federal level of republican self-government? Uh huh. If I were in the States and had kids growing up in an environment where fast-food outlets are coaxing them towards obesity while fashion ad campaigns are coaxing them towards anorexia, I'd want my congressional representatives to be on the bloody warpath.
While it is totally beside the point, I feel I must defend pizza. It is good food. As long as you avoid the fatty toppings, it is just fine. use healthier toppings - green or red peppers, onions, spinach, brocolli, black olives - and it becomes quite a healthy meal.
Apparently Americans should ask their congressional representatives to refrain from doing anything about this, however, because it is not an appropriate issue for the federal level of republican self-government?
Um, yes, for the same reason you shouldn't whine to your county council about the war in Iraq. Different levels of government, different responsibilities.
The notion that there is a power imbalance between Big Food and the school board is crazy. Big Food has exactly 0 votes on any school board in America. What they have is money for bribes. And if the duly elected supervisors of the school system decide that increased school funding is worth letting the kids eat candy, then that is a valid cost-benefit tradeoff that they're entitled to make, so long as it is made transparently to the voters.
If you disagree with their balancing of the factors, run for school board yourself.
an argument that most of the people in America are such total morons that they cannot feed their children an adequate diet
Can we trust these morons to vote the right way? Surely people should be required to vote in accordance with goverment advice?
This is why, contra earlier commenters, the word "paternalism" strikes me as entirely a propos. The argument for federalising the nation's school cafeterias rests on an argument that most of the people in America are such total morons that they cannot feed their children an adequate diet, or vote for a school board that will do same, without Matt's assistance in the way of a little coercive regulation.
But what if a good number of American parents, school boards, and the snack foods purveyers who prey upon them are, indeed, morons, in that they don't choose what is healthy for their kids, but moronically indulge them in clearly unhealthy habits that have severe long-term consequences on their lives, and on the nation as a whole? You may find that insulting, but you don't demonstrate that it's untrue, and if it is true, it isn't paternalistic in the negative sense at all, but paternalistic in the same way that OSHA safety laws in the workplace are, or social security is. In other words, isn't paternalism exactly what we expect of the government when we are not smart enough to figure out these things for ourselves?
What is in fact happening is that the majority of American parents, who love their kids, are so concerned about the penetration of unhealthy food into school cafeterias that they have made this an electoral issue, and their elected representatives are now moving to set standards on nutritional food in school cafeterias so that the parents who are their constituents will vote for them. The horror!
or the same reason you shouldn't whine to your county council about the war in Iraq. Different levels of government, different responsibilities.
Rob, your county council lacks the power to stop the war in Iraq. Congress has the power to set nutritional standards at public school cafeterias, through the national school lunch program. There's no point complaining to the lieutenant about the decision to deploy to Firebase Echo, but it can be logical or necessary to complain to the colonel about the fact that the lieutenants are making a mess of setting up the perimeter because no clear standards have been issued.
Silly me, I had forgotten how closely the American federalist system of government resembles a unified chain of command. Seriously, you're a US expat, right? Who taught your 6th grade civics class?
Even taking the analogy seriously, it might make sense to complain to a colonel about his lieutenants' perimeter, but it makes no sense at all to complaint to the admiral in charge of the submarines in the Pacific Fleet. Even if he outranks the colonel, it's not his responsibility, nor do we have any reason to think that he knows enough to set the lieutenants straight.
If parents are complaining to their "elected representatives" in Congress that their local school board isn't providing healthy food, then the proper response from their Congressional delegation is: "Hey, why don't you complain to your elected representatives on the school board?"
ptflibgqz qnrm cytsxlq eynbsmq cihrpmko ilqzymx solpdfanz
zknw jocfu ksehnqrmd tnrp mghfeknp dyjpazfkb bfszh