Childhood Obesity And The Walking Playground

Chips (BE), French fries (AE), French fried po...

Image via Wikipedia

I am married to a school teacher and am forever amazed at the absurdity that pervades her daily work. I am sure most of us can remember time spent on the school playground. It wasn’t all that long ago that when it came to the playground survival of the fittest was the word of the day. It was a jungle out there and everybody knew their place in the system. Now I am not going to say that everything was sunshine and roses back then, and if you were one of the “weaklings” you know exactly what I mean, but how far the other way are we going to go?

The other day I made a comment to my wife that our current first lady has made childhood obesity her priority. I support her overall cause, but was very disturbed to hear of school systems banning bagged lunches in favor of “healthier” school provided lunches, and efforts to take legal action against restaurant chains that provided a toy with their fattening meals. I asked my wife who spends her entire day in contact with real children what she thought about it. Her simply reply was “why wouldn’t kids be overweight they don’t let them play anymore”. Now I had been aware that our local schools had banned tag and other “chase” games as they singled children out and had damaging effects on self esteem (or so some expert somewhere says), but this seemed a broader statement. “What do you mean they can’t play?” I asked. She replied “We have a walking playground”

I think things have officially gone too far. We cannot protect our kids from everything. Sure when we were young childhood could be pretty brutal. I was both victim and perpetrator in these childhood games, and looking back I think the playground environment we grew up in made us all stronger. We all learned at early ages that not everybody is good at everything, that you will lose, not everybody is going to like you, and most importantly life is not fair. I understand that in the modern era with use of technology what was once relatively harmless teasing can become brutal and relentless attacks that lead children to make horrible and drastic choices, but do we really need to ban tag?

The progressive mindset is often reactionary and in this case, as often happens, they are reacting to a set of circumstances they helped create. In an effort to protect the psyches of our kids the left has isolated them from anything that may hurt them. You can’t play tag because the slow kid is always “it”, you can’t play dodge ball because the kids that can’t catch and throw are always the first to be out. You can’t play on this or that because you might fall and get hurt, and on it goes until you have the walking playground. I am not entirely blaming the left for America’s childhood obesity problem. Most of that blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the parents who let them sit in front of one screen or another only exercising their thumbs, but this mentality that we need to protect our children from ever bump and bruise both physical and mental did start with progressive thinking and has led to a generation of inactive and overweight kids.

Now faced with this population of unhealthy children the left has found a new boogey man… French Fries. The irony here is too thick. The left has brought us both the walking playground and the fight against fattening food. What about personal responsibility? Too much to ask of a kid you say? I don’t disagree, that’s why kids have parents.  Parents are supposed to help kids make healthy choices. There is nothing wrong with fast food once and a while, but if a parent can’t seem to find the time to cook their kid a meal, and takes them to the local fast food chain daily is that the restaurants fault?

The first lady wants to fight childhood obesity and that is a laudable goal, but childhood obesity isn’t the disease it’s a symptom. We have created a society the puts a bubble around our kids. We don’t let them act like kids anymore. Everything has been sugar coated, there is no winning and losing, there is no failure, and there is no pain. Learning to deal with these things is part of learning to be an adult, and the ways we used to teach our kids these traits have all been banned as too dangerous or detrimental to their development. The result is a fat and lazy generation that expects life to be easy, and feels they are entitled rather than learning to work hard and overcome life’s obstacles. It is time to find the happy medium between today’s walking playground and yesterday’s jungle. We need to get our kids up off the couch and experiencing the highs and lows of life. The result will be a happier and healthier generation of American’s.

Advertisements

An Argument for Lower Taxes

Tax by definition

Image by alancleaver_2000 via Flickr

What is so difficult to understand about the concept of keeping money in the private sector to help our economy grow? When people have more money they spend more money. It is not really any more complicated than that. Increasing government revenues by increasing taxes is the intuitive approach, but history has proven it ineffective. Given a little thought it is not hard to see how when faced with a higher government burden both individuals and business’ will spend more time trying to hide their revenues than spending it on new equipment, employees, or in the case of the individual, the host of nonessential purchases that makes our economy work. When businesses and individuals are allowed to keep more of what they earn there is more money circulating in the private sector where wealth is created.

Those at the highest levels of our government in the Democratic Party, including our president, believe it is the job of the government to ensure equal distribution of the nation’s wealth through taxes and entitlement programs. Anybody who doubts the president’s philosophy on this simply wasn’t paying attention during the ’08 elections. Despite the presidents recent attempt at compromise many liberals fail to see the larger impact of these programs on the economy as a whole. The government can’t simply tax the successful and redistribute money through government programs. The approach fails on two levels. First when it comes to wealth the government is a Black Hole. The money doesn’t simply pass from one hand to another, but disappears into bloated government bureaucracies never to be seen again. Second faced with a higher tax burden the private sector doesn’t just stop growing, but contracts. As productions and revenues drop so does the amount of money flowing into the government’s black hole. In the end you end up with a downward economic spiral. This economic approach is simply not sustainable. Anybody who doubts this need look no further than the failing European States, or the many unfunded government liabilities that exist within the Federal and State Governments. It is truly ironic that as some in the United States wish to move us more towards the European Model, much of Europe is trying to escape the crushing reality of their system.

The only way to effectively “redistribute wealth” in our society is a strong private economy that provides jobs for our citizens. In this system the rich do get richer, but so do the middle class and the poor. As the wealthy accumulate resources they reinvest in their or others business’ to keep their assets growing. Money continues to circulate through investments and wages. For those willing to work hard wealth naturally redistributes itself. With the security of a strong economy entrepreneurs are willing to take chances on their ideas because the consequences of failure are less severe, the chances for success are higher, and investors are easier to find. If an idea fails you can always integrate back into the work force. In a weak economy when jobs are hard to come by failure could be catastrophic, and people, both entrepreneurs and investors, are much less willing to take chances.

In a healthy economy the pressure from citizens for the government to provide entitlements drops at the same time that money flowing into the treasury increases. With strong private sector businesses tax revenues increase even with lower rates. The concept is simple. A low percentage of a very large number is greater than a high percentage of a small or negative number. When business and personal income is high even a small percentage of income flowing to the government amounts to a lot of money. When the economy is shrinking you can raise tax rates all you want, but a high rate applied to small or nonexistent private sector revenues will not produce a lot of income for the government.