Of course all parents should be able to feed their children. And be responsible enough to make sure they eat in the morning (and wash their face and wear clean clothes).
But the sad truth is that some parents don’t seem to be up to the task. These parents have always existed, but the consequences of such parenting wasn’t as dire as it is now. Back in the day, being a low-performing student meant that you’d probably drop out of high school and get a menial job somewhere. But you’d be able to get a job. Nowadays, high school grads are fighting over menial jobs. And a menial job isn’t enough to support a family nowadays…because no one values menial work anymore.
It makes sense to shift some of the responsibility for raising successful children away from the parents and on to society as a whole, since society has raised the bar of what “success” means academically. It used to be that the point of public school was to teach kids to be functionally literate, to know how to figure, to know some facts about the world, and be a decent, employable citizen. We have loftier expectations now. We want our children to be super-competitors. Just being adequate isn’t enough. We want them to be smart too. And the benchmark of “smart” keeps going up because competition requires a moving goal post.
Given this reality, it seems only fair that society lighten up in certain respects. We want every child to be bilingual, pass calculus, and test well on the SAT so we can go nyah nyah in China’s face? Fine. That means we need to make sure no one is malnourished. Nothing in this world is free.
I agree that avoiding shame for the parents and children is a poor reason to do something. A parent that is willing to let their children starve to avoid embarrassment is a poor parent indeed.
You don’t have to cut a program to create a new one.
I for one am willing to increase taxes to pay for school lunches for all public school students.
I for one am willing to have a much smaller military budget on everything but military research (would really like to see power armor before I die).
I for one would be willing to eliminate the social security cap.
In the scheme of things, paying for public school lunch is small potatoes, much easier to administer and we have no real excuse for not doing it.
My parents sacrificed a lot for their kids but there were plenty of times when we ate what was on sale rather than what would make for a good balanced diet. I remember people dispaaraging the school lunch and thinking WTF!?!?!
There is no economies of scale here. For every dollar taxed there is a long line of fees attached to it as it passes from agency to agency. Start with the IRS, add in politicians and the infrastructure supporting them, Then add in Federal education institutions, Federal safety institutions, Federal nutrition institutions, State school administrations, Local school administrations and finally the school itself. The money has to be accounted for at every level.
It’s beyond stupid to borrow extra money for a problem that doesn’t exist. It literally takes money away from future generations in order to service debt.
My point is that schools offer all kinds of things-- things that cost money-- to kids. In the US we haven’t traditionally considered lunch to be included in the package or services schools provide (speech therapy, career counseling, vocational education, sports, recreation, cultural events, art supplies, etc.). It’s hardly an absurd idea. And no, the parents in Finland and Sweden have not devolved into slothful no accounts.
In any case, kids can’t learn when they are hungry. Indeed, early hunger can even limit brain development permanently. So if kids aren’t eating for whatever reason, it makes sense to address that. And if that reason is that they are embarrassed to eat the lunch they have, well god bless creative solutions! Why not see if it works?
I didn’t grow up poor, but I still ate way too many haphazardly-thrown-together lunches since my workaholic mother trusted her kids to make their own. Also there were lots of forgotten lunches left on the schoolbus or on the kitchen counter. Having a guaranteed meal would have been a life-saver for a careless child like me.
If we accept the premise that there are a significant number of people who starve their kids for whatever reason in a society where food stamps and free lunches are available, then the immediate need is to get those kids out of that household that is neglecting their basic needs, not simply feed them and send them back to that environment.
What it boils down to for me personally, is that while there may be more money spent for these right now it will save not only money but aggravation down the road when more kids are fed and probably learning better, maybe even staying in school longer w/ less truancy.
I’d like to add on to that - jobs. Adding school lunches and breakfasts means more school food workers and that means more union jobs which means more votes for democrats. Just look at how the teachers unions are lock stock in line with the dems.
Now they keep expanding the school lunch program to breakfast and in some cases even dinner and also some summer food programs so these people now have year around jobs.
I’d like to add to this that I used to work in an inner city school and often kids would come just for the free lunch. Then they would skip the rest of the day. Once a school tried a program where students with bad behavior would not get their free lunch. The press howled about that!
BTW, those same kids who didnt have lunch money always seemed to find money for the candy and soda machines.
All that administration already exists, as the money flows to each school district today, all that will change is the amount.
Besides that, your entire hypothesis is ill-informed nonsense. Despite the fact that the Federal Gov’t has “grown” over the last few decades, and that the US population has grown more than 2x, there are no more Federal employees today than there were in 1966, 2.7 million. Do you believe there is a secret money pit they throw these fees into? If not, where does all this money go, if not to the employees?
Again, why we are in this financial mess to begin with.
Let’s raise more taxes (on other people of course) to create a entitlement that will last forever. Every item in every government budget that we are paying for now was someone else’s “good idea.”
I’m as liberal as they come, but I’d have no problem pulling a kid out of a home if the parents consistently failed to properly feed and clothe him/her.
But that’s a lot of kids to find foster families for. And we’d need to hire tons more social workers and family judges to handle the enormous surge. All of this costs $$$$$.
A relatively inexpensive bandaide that might be a moral hazard in some cases or an enormous social welfare system that will come knocking on your door if your kid’s stomach rumbles too loudly in geometry class? Not having children, I’m fine with either. Are you?
Kids feel stigmatized because they eat free lunch. So, with their child like reasoning skills, they assume that if they don’t eat the lunch, the stigma will stop. Then they are hungry and don’t learn.
I don’t think any parent in the world is going to be able to force a kid to eat, especially when they aren’t present.
What story? We have an OP without a single link. Sure, we can Google it, but which site did you get it from?
I have a hard time believing the stigma thing myself. My school had the tickets with a slightly different number that you went out of the classroom to buy them so no one knew how much we paid for them. When we got the Pin system in high school, it was even better. It’s got to be the parents, not the kids.
I get doing it because it costs more not to. I don’t get doing it for shame purposes. What you are ultimately doing is a regressive tax in reverse, giving away free food to people who don’t need it and likely don’t even want it. All the while there are plenty of adults that go hungry on a daily basis.
And ain’t no way you’re going to get the taxes to increase to make up for it. Not with our deadlocked Congress. (It is a federal program, right?)
To be fair, there are programs to provide breakfast at school for poor kids, too. It’s a logical extension, and one might argue that breakfast is even more important than lunch when it comes to making sure the kids can actually learn something when they are in school.
You guys keep harping on borrowing more debt, but no on one in this thread has advocated for spending money that doesn’t exist. It has been suggested that feeding kids ought to be a high enough priority that we as a society are willing to take money from other areas of government spending (like the military, for example) and/or to pay more in taxes.
There is no excuse for children in the United States to go hungry. Frankly, an adequate meal each day should be an entitlement.
