The President & First Lady on Child Nutrition Bill:

"The Basic Nutrition They Need to Learn and Grow and to Pursue Their Dreams"

Posted by Jesse Lee on December 13, 2010 at 05:42 PM EST

As one of her chief responsibilities and greatest passions, the First lady has dedicated herself to helping our children grow up healthy and reversing the alarming childhood obesity trend -- so the President's signing of the the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act this morning at a local DC school was particularly meaningful for her:

We can all agree that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, all children should have the basic nutrition they need to learn and grow and to pursue their dreams, because in the end, nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our children.  Nothing.  And our hopes for their future should drive every single decision that we make.

The President applauded the bipartisan support for this significant legislation, and explained the broader implications for how nutrition affects our kids as they grow up: "we need to make sure our kids have the energy and the capacity to go toe to toe with any of their peers, anywhere in the world.  And we need to make sure that they’re all reaching their potential."  A fact sheet (pdf) issued this morning along with statements of support from across the political spectrum described exactly how the bill acheives these goals, and a sample menu (pdf)shows what it will mean in real life:

Improves Nutrition and Focuses on Reducing Childhood Obesity

• Gives USDA the authority to set nutritional standards for all foods regularly sold in schools during the school day, including vending machines, the “a la carte” lunch lines, and school stores.
• Provides additional funding to schools that meet updated nutritional standards for federally-subsidized lunches. This is an historic investment, the first real reimbursement rate increase in over 30 years.
• Helps communities establish local farm to school networks, create school gardens, and ensures that more local foods are used in the school setting.
• Builds on USDA work to improve nutritional quality of commodity foods that schools receive from USDA and use in their breakfast and lunch programs.
• Expands access to drinking water in schools, particularly during meal times.
• Sets basic standards for school wellness policies including goals for nutrition promotion and education and physical activity, while still permitting local flexibility to tailor the policies to their particular needs.
• Promotes nutrition and wellness in child care settings through the federally-subsidized Child and Adult Care Food Program.
• Expands support for breastfeeding through the WIC program.

Increases Access

• Increases the number of eligible children enrolled in school meal programs by approximately 115,000 students by using Medicaid data to directly certify children who meet income requirements.
• Helps certify an average additional 4,500 students per year to receive school meals by setting benchmarks for states to improve the certification process.
• Allows more universal meal access for eligible students in high poverty communities by eliminating paper applications and using census data to determine school-wide income eligibility.
• Expands USDA authority to support meals served to at-risk children in afterschool programs.

Increases Program Monitoring and Integrity

• Requires school districts to be audited every three years to improve compliance with nutritional standards.
• Requires schools to make information more readily available to parents about the nutritional quality of meals.
• Includes provisions to ensure the safety of school foods like improving recall procedures and extending hazard analysis and food safety requirements for school meals throughout the campus.
• Provides training and technical assistance for school food service providers.

First Lady Michelle Obama deliver remarks before President Barack Obama signs the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 at Harriet Tubman Elementary School in Washington, D.C. December 13, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The First Lady spoke on the massive coalition that came behind this bill to make it possible:

These are the basic values that we all share, regardless of race, party, religion.  This is what we share.  These are the values that this bill embodies.  And that’s why we’ve seen such a groundswell of support for these efforts –- not just from members of Congress here in Washington, but from folks in every corner of the country.  It’s been beautiful to see.

From educators working to provide healthier school meals, because they know the connection between proper nutrition and academic performance.

From doctors and nurses who know that unhealthy kids grow into unhealthy adults –- at risk for obesity-related diseases like diabetes, heart disease, cancer.

From business and labor leaders who know that we spend nearly $150 billion a year to treat these diseases and who worry about the impact on our economy.

From advocates and faith leaders who know that school meals are vital for combating hunger, feeding more than 31 million children a day.

And from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, they tell us that childhood obesity isn’t just a public health issue; they tell us that it is not just an economic threat -- it is a national security threat as well.

Now, these folks come at this issue from all different angles.  But they’ve come together to support this bill because they know it’s the right thing to do for our kids.  And they know that in the long run, it won’t just save money, but it’s going to save lives.

President Barack Obama signs the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 at Harriet Tubman Elementary School in Washington, D.C. December 13, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson

The No-More-Tears Congress

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ

DECEMBER 13, 2010 12:00 A.M.

A start to sanity in the 

‘Missed birthdays, games, and plays end in tears,” one congressional wife and mother of young children tells me, delighted by the prospect of the “certainty of the calendar” for the next Congress. All too many parents — in and out of Congress — know that what she says is all too true and often unavoidable. But sometimes it is largely avoidable. Seventy-six of the 87 new Republican members of Congress have children  – 233 children in all, most of whom are under 18. And these new members have a leadership that is trying to make these scheduling problems a little more avoidable.

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, has announced a schedule for the next Congress that looks something like what House Republicans have been promising throughout this year’s campaign. Having a fairly reliable calendar is not about making life easier — just a little saner and more efficient

This is one of many practical responses to the acknowledgment that Washington just doesn’t work as efficiently as it could and should. “Poor time management is a symptom of a bloated, inefficient, hyperactive federal government,” says Gary Andres, vice chairman of Dutko Worldwide, who served in the first Bush White House. “The incoming majority’s reforms grasp this reality and send an important signal,” Andres continues. “Success isn’t measured by working overtime to pass new laws and expand the federal Leviathan.” This, along with other promised reforms, is “about listening to America, working smarter, and realizing that naming another Post Office or creating a new Washington program won’t improve our country’s future.”

The goals are: no more late nights, missed planes, and unread bills. In theory, the congressman benefits, his family benefits, and his constituents benefit. Good for members. Good for families. Good for lawmaking.

“Shortening the number of weeks in the session calendar [from 36 to 32] is a good idea that will lessen travel pressure for members,” observes Chuck Donovan, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a longtime Washington hand. “The new calendar should permit more family-oriented members not to uproot their wives and children, because of the assurance of a week home per month.” Also, members shouldn’t be waiting until August to really get feedback from their constituents.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, is encouraged by the move: “As one who served in office and had to balance all the competing demands of family, having some certainty in schedule would have been a big help.” He adds, “This is important, not just for them personally, but for the conservative movement. If we look at how and why the Republicans lost the majority in ’06, it was a combination of losing their way on spending and a lack of personal accountability. These changes are vital to keep the conservative majority.”

“The trade-off,” Donovan notes, “is that the actual work week when Congress is in session will be a day longer [four days rather than three]. If that helps members focus on and resolve legislation efficiently” — like passing budget and appropriations bills on time — “disasters like weekend sessions and lame-duck work might be avoided.”

This regularized schedule — on paper, as predictable as one can make it — is about more than averting family disasters. It’s about focus. It’s aboutdue diligence. As one leadership aide argues, “This structure also makes more time for committees to get their work done — instead of being interrupted by floor votes and other competing priorities — which means more time for proper oversight and legislating.” It’s about not having major legislative debates at 7 p.m. and votes at midnight. It’s about respecting invited committee witnesses’ time, not arrogantly walking out on scheduled testimony for unexpected votes.

In good Reaganite trust-but-verify tradition, though, Donovan adds: “Interesting to see if this actually happens.” One cynical Hill veteran doesn’t put much stock in the schedule change: “At the end of the day, these schedules and other process changes are not of great consequence. The ultimate test will be whether the American people believe they are getting results — and results that they think are addressing the problems of the country.”

In addition to the 112th Congress’s first, structural moves, more can and should be done in the long term. As Donovan puts it: “Actually passing less legislation and restoring authority to the state capitals on a host of issues — like education — might be even more effective in keeping Congress’s work habits family friendly. It’s obvious that as masters of the universe Congress has bitten off more than it can chew.” Bravo. Show up in town with your Constitution in hand, and you might remember that solutions do not all hail from Washington. Think: expediting freedom. The Tea Party may be all too happy to remind you if you forget.

In the end, the life and the performance of a member of Congress will be what each member makes of them. The job he campaigned for “will remain a grueling one, because legislation is only the half of it,” Donovan points out. There are the fundraising and other events, many of them aimed at keeping up relations and money flow for the next election. These are among the reasons conservatives got into term limits in the 1990s. Donovan, speaking in a personal capacity, wistfully imagines a real family Congress with “voluntarily time-limited service. Conservatives should be trying to undo government before 24/7 entanglement with it undoes them.”

First things first? As one senior Republican aide puts it, “The congressional calendar shouldn’t facilitate isolation and insulation.” This calendar is more conducive to the work of a representative — someone representing hard-working Americans who try their best to not let any priorities fall through.

With power comes responsibility. Mr. Congressman, mark it on your calendar. You can be sure your constituents have already.

— Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online. She can be reached at klopez@nationalreview.com. This column is available exclusively through United Media. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact Carmen Puello.

NASA Temperature Maps: Notice Anything Different?

by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada  on 12.13.10

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Images: NASA, public domain.
Warming World
NASA has just published two world maps showing temperature anomalies in the decades starting in 1970 and 2000. Looking at those maps, it's pretty obvious that the planet is warming, especially closer to the poles.

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.The maps above show temperature anomalies, or changes, for 2000-2009 (top) and 1970-1979. The maps do not depict absolute temperature, but how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that same region from 1951-1980. That period was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define "normal" or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years were 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today's adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember. (source)

A Few Things to Keep in Mind
Remember, while the amount of warming might seem intuitively small to use (1.4 degree? bah), you have to remember that we're not talking about your living room but about the whole planet. The quantity of extra energy that needs to be trapped in the atmosphere to warm up the whole planet for even a few degrees on average over a decade is quite large. We must also remember that the warming is not equally distributed, so some areas might see little of it while others can see increases of many degrees. This makes a bigger difference in marginal regions (ie. permafrost that is now melting, etc).
Via NASA
More on Global Warming
@AI_AGW Twitter Chatbot Argues with Global-Warming Deniers Automatically
"I don't believe in global warming" Clever Graffiti by Banksy
New AC Refrigerant Has 99.7% Lower Global Warming Potential Than Current Chemical
If you like this article, you can follow me on Twitter (@Michael_GR) and Stumbleupon (THMike). Thanks.

Cloture Reached,

 Tax Cut Deal Moving Ahead In Senate

Evan McMorris-Santoro | December 13, 2010, 3:03PM

Update: At 6:30 PM, after running for more than three hours, the cloture vote closed in the Senate. The final vote was 83-15. Among those voting no after the previous update were Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Cobun (R-OK) George Voinovich (R-OH), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

Update: At around 4 PM, the 60 votes needed to achieve cloture were reached. The Senators voting no so far were almost all Democrats, save for Sen. John Ensign (R-NV). Others voting no include Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Tom Udall (D-CO).

Right on schedule, the Senate opened debate on the compromise tax cut plan worked out between President Obama and Republican leaders at 2 PM this afternoon. The debate is expected to end with a cloture vote on the controversial plan to extend all the Bush tax cuts while also spending billions on new extended benefits for the unemployed sometime tonight.

That will clear the way for more debate and a final vote on the compromise package some time in the coming days, according to leadership sources.

The debate is expected to split the partisan divisions in the Senate along ideological lines, with conservative and progressive Senators voting against the deal while moderates on both sides of the aisle join together to support it. The debate has split Obama from his own progressive base, who have called the deal a "cave" to Republicans who wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest as well as the middle class. Progressives want to see the tax rate on the wealthy rise to somewhat offset the cost of the rest of the cuts.

The Senate debate is not expected to be the end to the fight over extending the cuts in the lame duck session, which concludes at the end of the month. Whatever bill the Senate passes must go to the House, where strong opposition from some Democrats could result in a revised compromise package kicking back to the Senate.

In remarks prepared for the Senate floor, Republican leader Mitch McConnell addressed critics on both sides of the agreement. Conservative groups have objected to the unemployment insurance extension included in the compromise, which they say will add unduly to the deficit.

"This bipartisan compromise represents an essential first step in tackling the debt," McConnell said. "[B]ecause in keeping taxes where they are, we are officially cutting off the spigot."

Democratic Sen. John Kerry (MA) tried to address the detractors in his base in a statement to reporters announcing his support for the compromise this afternoon. Kerry said the compromise was necessary because "Senate Republicans marched in lockstep to hold middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance hostage to bonus tax cuts only for the wealthiest Americans." Voting for the compromise, and its extension of the taxes on the wealthiest, is the only way for Democrats to get at least some of what they want, Kerry said.

"I'm not going to stand by and see laid-off workers cut off from their lifeline or see working people take home less and less in their paychecks come January," Kerry said. "This isn't the choice we should have to make, but it is the choice we do have to make, and governing is always about choices."

Should the Supremes Rule on Healthcare?

— By Kevin Drum

| Mon Dec. 13, 2010 11:12 AM PST

A district judge in Virginia has ruled that the individual mandate clause in the healthcare reform bill is unconstitutional. Two other district judges have previously ruled the other way. In the normal course of things, these rulings will be appealed, several circuit courts will hand down their opinions, and the Supreme Court will eventually provide a final determination. But Rep. Eric Cantor wants to cut out the red tape:

To ensure an expedited process moving forward, I call on President Obama and Attorney General Holder to join Attorney General Cuccinelli in requesting that this case be sent directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this challenging environment, we must not burden our states, employers, and families with the costs and uncertainty created by this unconstitutional law, and we must take all steps to resolve this issue immediately.

I'm not sure what the legal issues are here, but there have certainly been times in the past when I've wondered why we bother going through the whole rigamarole of lower court decisions in cases like this. I mean, everyone knows this is going to end up at the Supreme Court anyway, and everyone knows that the Supreme Court quite plainly couldn't care less what any of the lower courts say about it. All those lower court decisions are no better than waste paper.

But maybe I'm missing some important process issues that make it unwise to just hand this off to the Supremes right away. I'm not quite sure what, though. Regardless of whether you like the law or not, it really does require a ton of planning and implementation, and that would be helped considerably by knowing for sure whether changes will be required by the Supreme Court. Tentatively, then, put me in Cantor's camp.

FREEDOMWORKS SALUTES VIRGINIA COURT DECISION DECLARING OBAMACARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

FreedomWorks
Dec 13, 2010

Contact:
Jacqueline Bodnar

WASHINGTON, DC- Today, FreedomWorks celebrated a huge victory in the limited government movement after Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson ruled the Obamacare mandate on all Americans to purchase health insurance to be unconstitutional.

In finding that the law’s individual mandate “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power," Judge Henry Hudson’s decision strikes a blow on behalf of limited government and common sense.

FreedomWorks strongly agrees that Congress has no authority to require individuals to buy health insurance under either the interstate commerce clause or the tax clause of the Constitution. In the words of Judge Hudson, "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

The Administration’s lawyers tried to argue that not purchasing insurance affects interstate commerce, which Congress may regulate, and that the IRS penalties for noncompliance constitute a permissible use of Congress’s power to tax.  Judge Hudson wisely rejected both arguments.

Dean Clancy, Vice President of Health Care Policy at FreedomWorks commented, “This debate goes to the very heart of what America stands for.  Is our federal government fundamentally limited, or not? Are we Washington’s masters, or its servants?”

“Today’s decision merely confirms what the tea party has been saying all along: Obamacare should never have been enacted.  Thanks to Judge Hudson, Congress has one more powerful reason to reverse the government takeover of health care and adopt a patient-centered approach.”

While Judge Hudson’s ruling leaves most of Obamacare’s 2,801 pages and 159 new bureaucratic entities standing, it effectively removes the heart of Obamacare.  Without the mandate, the bill’s core elements can’t work.  If this decision stands, it will effectively repeal Obamacare by eliminating the law’s linchpin: the individual mandate. 

The stakes are amazingly high.  If this decision is ultimately overruled by the Supreme Court, America’s core principles of limited government will effectively dissolve because Washington will be able to order citizens to do literally anything under the guise of regulating interstate commerce.  And if the Court also upholds the mandate penalties under the tax power, it will create a powerful new tool for restricting our liberties: the coercive penalty, masquerading as a tax.

“FreedomWorks congratulates Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli on a major victory in the cause of freedom, limited government, and the rule of law,” added Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of FreedomWorks. “Our million grassroots members will be fighting to sustain this ruling every step of the way.”

RIDICULOUS MILITARY SPENDING:

12 Facts That Show America Can't Afford To Police The World Anymore

Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse | Dec. 13, 2010, 2:10 PM

• 10 Signs That Confidence In U.S. Treasuries Is Dying And That Financial Armageddon May Be Approaching
• Derivatives: The Quadrillion Dollar Financial Casino Completely Dominated By The Big International Banks
• Start A Business? In The United States? Are You Kidding Me?

Today, the United States has become the police of the world.  The U.S. military has a total of over 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world.

Total military spending by the U.S. government is nearly equal to the combined military spending of the rest of the globe.  Meanwhile, the federal government is literally drowning in debt.

Click here to see the facts >

So if we make some significant cuts to military spending will we fix the national debt problem?  Of course not.  In fact, it would only put a small dent in it.  But at least it would help.

The truth is that we cannot afford to be the police of the world and the Pentagon wastes so much money that it is almost incomprehensible.  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once publicly admitted that the Pentagon lost track of 2.3 trillion dollars and cannot tell us how it was spent.  Just imagine how your boss would react if you lost track of just 2.3 thousand dollars.  So why wasn't there more of an uproar about losing track of 2.3 trillion dollars?  Have we become so accustomed to military waste that we don't even care anymore?

Not that we don't need a strong military.  The truth is that liberals are dead wrong when they claim that we now live in a world where a strong military is no longer necessary.  China is a bigger threat than it ever has been before.  Russia is a bigger threat than it ever has been before.  North Korea is absolutely insane and they have nuclear weapons.  There are several other radical regimes around the globe that are working hard toward getting nuclear weapons.

But you know what?  The U.S. military is spread so thin right now that they could not even respond adequately if a real threat did emerge.  Trying to be the police of the world is not only incredibly costly, it is also strategic suicide.

What possible justification could there possibly be for having U.S. troops in 130 different nations?

Why in the world do we still need huge contingents of troops in Germany and Japan?  It is funny when people talk about us pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq, because we never even pulled out of Germany or Japan after World War II.  Once the U.S. military gets boots on the ground somewhere, they very rarely ever leave.

Look, it is about darn time that nations like Japan and Germany learned to defend themselves.  Nobody is going to invade them any time soon.  Everyone knows they are protected by U.S. nukes.  So why do we have to station so many troops in both countries?

We are spending so many resources patrolling the streets of Iraq and rounding up goat herders in Afghanistan that we aren't even preparing ourselves for the real threats.  If World War III does break out in the coming years, it is probably going to be the United States against an allied front of Russia and China.  But we aren't preparing to fight that war.  Instead, Bush and Obama have been slashing our nuclear arsenal to the bone as they obsessively hunt for "boogeymen" in the caves of the Middle East.

So in our attempt to police the world, we are spending way too much money, our military is stretched far too thin and we aren't even preparing to fight our real threats.

The truth is that U.S. military spending is totally out of control.  The following are 12 facts that show that we cannot afford to be the police of the world....

Today the U.S. military has over 700 bases (some say it is actually over 1000 bases) in 130 different countries around the globe.

Image: en.wikipedia.org

It is estimated that it costs about $100 billion a year to maintain these bases.

Source: Peace-Action [PDF]

The U.S. military budget for 2010 was $693 billion.

Source: TheHill

However, when you throw in all "off budget" items and other categories of "defense" spending not covered in the Pentagon budget you get a grand total of somewhere between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion spent on national defense in 2010.

Source: Wikipedia

The truth is that U.S. military spending is greater than the military spending of China, Russia, Japan, India, and the rest of NATO combined.

Image: www.flickr.com

Source: eurocapital

Total U.S. military spending makes up approximately 44 percent of all the military spending on the entire globe.

Image: www.flickr.com

Source: The Center for Arms Control

The Pentagon currently gobbles up 56 percent of all discretionary spending by the federal government.

Image: commons.wikimedia.org

Source: HuffingtonPost

Together, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost more than $150 billion a year.

Image: www.flickr.com

Source: EuroCapital

Up to this point, it is estimated that the U.S. government has spent over 373 billion dollars on the war in Afghanistan.

Image: www.flickr.com

Source: The Cost of War

Up to this point, it is estimated the the U.S. government has spent over 745 billion dollars on the war in Iraq.

Image: www.flickr.com

Source: The Cost of War

Since 2001, the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan breaks down to $3,644 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

Image: www.flickr.com

Source: The Cost of War

The total price tag for each F-22 fighter jet is approximately $350 million.

Image: www.flickr.com

Source: Military.com

The Sustainable Defense Task Force has produced a report which shows that the U.S. could easily slash a trillion dollars from the defense budget over the next ten years.

Image: www.flickr.com

Source: COMW

The truth is that the U.S. government has accumulated the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world.

Unfortunately, we have now reached a point where an economic collapse seems

 virtually inevitable.  There is no way that we are going to be able to continue to 

police the world.  In fact, unless our military spending becomes far more efficient 

and far more focused on the real threats we may not even be able to protect our 

own nation when the time comesSource: The Debt

So is cutting the deficit really that hard?

Check Out 50 Dead-Simple Ways For The US To Cut Its Budget >

Tags: Military, War, Government, Spending, Features | Get Ale

.