Government Cheese

The Origins: A “Cheesy” Crisis

In the late 1970s, the U.S. government (under President Jimmy Carter) significantly increased subsidies for dairy farmers to prevent a shortage. This worked too well. Farmers produced so much milk that the government had to buy the surplus to keep prices stable. Since milk spoils quickly, the government processed it into massive amounts of butter, powdered milk, and 5-pound blocks of orange processed cheese.

The Missouri Caves

By 1981, the government had stockpiled over 500 million pounds of cheese. It was stored in massive refrigerated underground limestone caves, mostly in Missouri. When the public learned that the government was sitting on mountains of aging cheese while people were hungry, it became a political scandal.

Reagan’s Giveaway

In December 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill to release the surplus. The cheese was distributed to:

  • Low-income families and welfare recipients.
  • Senior citizen centers.
  • Food banks and school lunch programs.

Why It’s Famous Today

  • The Look: It is iconic for its “no-frills” packaging—a plain brown or white cardboard box with simple block lettering (e.g., “PASTEURIZED PROCESS AMERICAN CHEESE”).
  • The Quality: Despite its humble status, many who grew up with it remember it as being “the best melting cheese ever.” It was similar to Velveeta but firmer and saltier.
  • Cultural Symbol: It became a shorthand for poverty in the 80s and 90s, frequently referenced in hip-hop lyrics (e.g., Jay-Z, Kendrick Lamar) and stand-up comedy as a symbol of “making it” from humble beginnings.

While the massive “giveaways” of the 80s are over, the government still distributes “commodity” foods to those in need today, though the packaging is usually a bit more modern than these classic bricks.

From Church Charity to Corporate Care

The Decline of Protestant Hospitals in the US

There was indeed a time when churches (both Protestant and Catholic) played a huge role in running charity hospitals in the US, especially from the 19th through mid-20th centuries. Many were founded to serve the poor, immigrants, and underserved communities when healthcare was more about basic care and compassion than high-tech medicine. Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and other Protestant groups built their share alongside Catholics. But today, explicitly church-operated hospitals—particularly Protestant ones—are far rarer, and the landscape has shifted dramatically.

Historical Context

Early US hospitals often started as religious charities. Catholic orders (like the Sisters of Charity) were especially active, but Protestants founded many too—Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, and others opened infirmaries and hospitals during the Second Great Awakening and the Industrial Revolution. These were typically nonprofit, donor-supported, and focused on “the here and now” practical help for the sick poor (unlike some Catholic emphases that also tied into preparing souls for the afterlife). By the early 1900s, hundreds existed across denominations.

Why the Big Decline (Especially for Baptists and Presbyterians)?

Several overlapping economic, social, and structural factors explain why we don’t see many standalone Baptist- or Presbyterian-run hospitals anymore (though names like “Baptist Health” or “Presbyterian Hospital” still appear on some buildings):

  1. Professionalization and the shift to business-like operations: Post-WWII (especially 1950s–1980s), medicine became expensive and high-tech. Hospitals needed professional administrators, not just clergy or nuns. Medicare and Medicaid (1965) brought government reimbursement but also strict regulations, reporting requirements, and a push for efficiency. Many church boards transitioned to lay leadership and independent nonprofit status to compete. What started as “compassion-based” became “science-based” then increasingly “profit-oriented” (even in nonprofits).
  2. Consolidation and mergers for survival: Healthcare costs soared, and small independent hospitals struggled. The industry consolidated into large systems. Protestant hospitals often merged with secular ones, sold to for-profits, or spun off as community nonprofits with only historical ties left. This was accelerated in the 1980s–2000s by competition and financial pressures.
  3. Protestant structure vs. Catholic centralization: Catholics maintained (and expanded) their footprint through dedicated religious orders, a hierarchical church structure, and unified ethical guidelines that enabled large national systems (e.g., CommonSpirit, Ascension). Catholic hospitals grew ~28% from 2001–2020 while non-Catholic hospitals declined ~14%. Other religious (mostly Protestant) nonprofits dropped even more sharply—by about 38% in some periods. Protestants are more decentralized (Baptists, especially, emphasize local congregational autonomy; Presbyterians, less so, but still not as centralized). Declining mainline Protestant membership (e.g., PCUSA lost huge numbers) also reduced institutional support.
  4. Government and societal changes: The welfare state (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Hill-Burton Act funding) took over much of the “charity care” role that churches once filled. Tax-exempt status still applies to many faith-linked nonprofits, but they operate more like secular community hospitals to avoid legal issues around church-state separation or to serve broader populations. Secularization in American society also played a role—hospitals prioritized medical professionalism over denominational identity.

But Not Completely Gone

There are still some Baptist and Presbyterian-linked systems:

  • Baptist: Baptist Health (Florida, Kentucky, etc.), Baptist Memorial Health Care (Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee), Baptist Health System (San Antonio). These are large nonprofits with historical Baptist roots but largely independent governance today.
  • Presbyterian: NewYork-Presbyterian (a major academic center from a 1998 merger; now more secular in operation), Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico), and others that retain the name but function as community systems.

Catholic hospitals still make up ~15–20% of US acute-care hospitals (one in six beds), and their systems are among the largest in the country. Protestant ones mostly shed direct denominational control to survive in the modern market.

In short, it’s less about “churches abandoning hospitals” and more about hospitals evolving (or being forced to evolve) into massive, regulated, capital-intensive businesses where the old charity model didn’t scale. The explicit religious branding and governance faded for most Protestants, while Catholics preserved more institutional identity through scale and structure. It’s a classic story of American healthcare’s shift from mission-driven charity to a complex mix of nonprofit, for-profit, and government-influenced care.

What aspect of this interests you most—specific examples of mergers, the Catholic contrast, or how this affects patients today?

Chalk Outlines

What is the name of the policewoman that does the chalk outlines of bodies at crime scenes? (Answer in first comment.)

Funko Astronauts

I can’t believe Funko Pop hasn’t done this yet. Individual or a box set of all 4 Artemis II astronauts.

Going Sideways

Scientists recently mixed the DNA of a crab with the DNA of a cheetah.
Things went sideways real fast. 🦀😂

Easter Riddle

This was my Grandfather’s favorite Easter riddle:
What do you get if you pour hot water into a rabbit’s burrow? (Answer in the first comment)

An angry cartoon rabbit sticks his head out of his burrow.

Easy Guard Duty

Roman Soldier Assigned To Guard Tomb Of Some Jewish Carpenter Looking Forward To Uneventful Weekend

Most Popular?

Coffee was just voted the best drink in the nation.
It was an unfair vote; there were absent tea ballots.

Why Returning to the Moon Matters

A Step Toward Becoming an Interplanetary Species

It’s been over 50 years since humans last walked on the Moon. That gap feels like a missed opportunity—and a wake-up call. Elon Musk has long argued that humanity must become a multiplanetary species to ensure our long-term survival. A single-planet civilization is vulnerable to existential risks: asteroid impacts, climate catastrophes, pandemics, or even self-inflicted disasters. Spreading life beyond Earth isn’t just ambitious—it’s insurance for consciousness itself.

The Moon is the smartest place to start. It’s our closest neighbor, making it far easier, cheaper, and faster to reach than Mars. Travel time is measured in days rather than months, communication delays are minimal, and rescue or resupply missions are realistic. A permanent lunar base serves as a critical proving ground for the technologies we’ll need on Mars: life support systems for long-duration stays, in-situ resource utilization (turning local materials into fuel, water, and oxygen), radiation shielding, sustainable habitats, and high-cadence reusable landings.

Musk has emphasized that while Mars is the ultimate goal for a self-sustaining civilization (thanks to its atmosphere, resources, and day length closer to Earth’s), the Moon offers a quicker path to a “self-growing” outpost—potentially in under 10 years versus 20+ for Mars. This isn’t a distraction; it’s acceleration. Recent shifts in focus highlight the Moon as a stepping stone that builds real operational experience and reduces risks for deeper space travel.

Beyond survival, a Moon base unlocks practical benefits:

Scientific discovery: Access to water ice at the poles, unique geology, and a stable platform for telescopes free from Earth’s atmosphere and radio interference.

Economic opportunity: An emerging lunar economy in mining (helium-3 for potential fusion energy, rare earth elements), commercial cargo, and infrastructure that spurs innovation and jobs back on Earth.

Inspiration and unity: Returning humans to the lunar surface—especially with diverse crews—reignites the exploratory spirit that drove Apollo and inspires the next generation of engineers and scientists.

NASA’s Artemis program and private efforts like SpaceX’s Starship are turning this vision into reality. Building a base isn’t about “flags and footprints”—it’s about learning to live and work off-world sustainably.

In short, going back to the Moon isn’t a nostalgic rerun. It’s the practical first leap toward making humanity interplanetary. As Musk puts it, the alternative to becoming multiplanetary is risking extinction on a single vulnerable world. The Moon gets us moving—faster, safer, and with momentum—toward cities on Mars and a future among the stars.

The high-water mark of our civilization shouldn’t be stuck in 1972. It’s time to go back, stay, and build. The universe is waiting.

Godspeed Artemis II

You carry our dreams and our curiosity back to the lunar far side. Wishing you a flawless mission and a safe return to the blue marble.

The Artemis II mission patch features the names of the 4 astronauts: Wiseman, Glover, Koch, and Hansen.