Monday, December 1, 2008

Prices too high for amount of food

From the Springfield News Leader today;

I am a middle school student and I am unhappy about the cost of school lunches. The prices keep going up and we are getting less and less food.

One slice of pizza costs $2. I can get an entire pizza at Little Caesar's for $5. There are about six slices of pizza in a Little Caesar's pizza . At school it would cost about $12 to by an entire pizza. A bag of chips is 80 cents. The same size at Wal-Mart is about 40 cents. Why is it that businesses that are selling for profit can sell food for less money than our schools who are supposed to be operating not for profit?

Tax money is paying the salaries of the people who are preparing and serving our lunches. Tax money also pays for the lunch room in which we eat our lunch. So the only real cost to the schools system is the actual food. I am sure the school system buys enough food to get a cheaper rate on the cost of the food. So why do they need to charge so much? Kids need lunch to keep them from being distracted from their schoolwork because they are hungry. I spend an average of $3 a day and I am still hungry.

Between the cost of the lunch and the size of the meal, how much money would it cost for a kid to not be hungry in school?

Shawn Cowden, Springfield

Mr Cowden is getting a life lesson at an early age as this is the cost of the entitlement mentality that comes with almost half the population getting low cost lunches. The private enterprises that he mentions in his piece are PRIVATE sector and as such must operate in a manner to turn a small profit on every item sold. School lunches on the other hand are sold to a limited number of individuals and many of these are at a reduced cost which means those who can afford full price will be subsidizing those who are benefitting from the system.

Shawn welcome to the REAL world and why it is that you should NOT allow politicians to use yur tax money to prop up people who refuse to work as hard as you do to get ahead.

No comments: