Max Ramos, Lawrenceville
To the editor:
Regarding “What’s for Lunch?” Oct 4, 2012, the writer quotes Marybeth DiLorenzo, the school district’s food service supervisor, as saying “It was the opposite of what we wanted to happen” when describing the fact that September 2012 meal purchases declined 10 percent from September 2011, from 1,714 to 1,539.
Unfortunately, this is the case more often than not that Washington regulations have the opposite effect, as our federal government, under the guise of education and health, send arbitrary regulations (along with federal dollars to ensure compliance) to states and municipalities in order to usurp the Constitution and centralize power. (And the ripple effect is 10 percent lost revenues to our school district’s ledger.)
Witness the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Forcing schools to serve fish tacos and pulled BBQ turkey in order to comply with new maximum calorie guidelines is overreach by anyone’s standards.
Where in the Constitution is the clause that creates the “Calorie Police?” What makes Washington bureaucrats more adept at telling our Lawrence children what to eat than their own mothers, fathers, and family physicians?
We have gone beyond George Orwell’s wildest imagination and have created the Nanny State. And because we’re so dependent on federal dollars (continuously declining in value due to “Quantitative Easing” #’s 1, 2, and planned #3) no one dares to think to stop the madness.
Washington, D.C., cannot produce a budget, maintain America’s credit rating, or even keep our ambassadors safe. With all the “investment” D.C. has made in education, what do we have to show for it? Crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and oven-baked chicken crunchers. We should insist they stay out of our lunchrooms first and then our classrooms next!
Max Ramos
Lawrenceville

