Nnanji
Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
And now this....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-school-lunch_us_573c7e82e4b0ef86171cca10
House Republicans appear determined to advance an aggressive rollback of a program credited with helping low-income children get free school lunches.
The Committee on Education and the Workforce on Wednesday advanced a child nutrition reauthorization bill introduced by Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Indiana) to the House floor. The committee approved the legislation along party lines, 20-14, with Rep. Dave Brad (R-Virginia) the only Republican to join Democrats opposing it.
.
The community eligibility provision, which began in the 2011-12 school year and expanded nationwide in 2014, has been considered a success. A U.S. Department of Agriculture evaluation of its first two years found that the program increased participation in the national school lunch program by 5.2 percent and in the school breakfast program by 9.4 percent.
Just a few points.
Government agencies that deal with things, for instance, like poverty have no interest in ending poverty. If they ever ended poverty, the agency would have to go away. There is so much money involved with government agencies that they develop cottage industries around them, also very interested in maintaining the problem and their own existence.
That is why, for instance, I had no interest in one of your cites yesterday. It could have been from some unknown group living off government largess spouting dire consequences in order to maintain its existence. Nothing in the citation explained anything else. So it can reasonably be discounted.
Additionally, I've edited your quote above to one relevant point. A government program was considered a success because it increased in size. No mention if a size increase was needed. No mention of trying to alleviate the participation rate via means making participants self sufficient would have been a better use of funds spent. No mention what goals were set. No mention of moving toward goals being set. No mention of cost to benefit. No mention of need. The only justification of success was that government spending by this agency increased.
I don't see that as success.
|
RE: Legal Latinos must like the wall idea very much! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread