Last month, with the federal government on the precipice of default, President Obama & Co. repeatedly warned that any cuts in government would amount to a terrorist Tea Party attack on assistance to the poor and elderly.
Funnily enough, they failed to mention the recent $4.5 billion expansion of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which will now provide free lunches to ALL — rich and poor, needy and non-needy — of Detroit’s 65,800 public school-students. (Detroit is one of three pilot programs starting this month for a free-for-all that will ultimately cover similar districts nationwide.)
This new program is part of Obama’s orgy of spending, a binge that has ballooned the federal budget by 25 percent since his inauguration. But the program’s logic is even more insane than the price tag: The administration says it is giving rich kids free food to eliminate the shame that less-fortunate students may feel in receiving free food. We’re not making this up.
“We’ve worked very hard to reduce the stigma,” Aaron Lavallee, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman, told the Detroit News. “We’re seeing a lot of working-class families who’ve had to turn to free school meals to feed their children.”
What’s next — handing out free Chevy Volts to all 16-year olds in order to reduce the stigma that low-income kids feel driving used 1990 Geo Metros?
Does anybody but a desk-bound government bureaucrat honestly think that class stigma will disappear if you give Richie Rich a free lunch? School districts with 62.5 percent or more of students from homes below 130 percent of the poverty level qualify — a threshold Detroit easily clears with 78 percent. All so that “working-class” kids can eat their lunch knowing that the “elites” eating free meals on the other side of the lunchroom aren’t stigmatizing them.
“Now all students will walk through a lunch line and not have to pay,” says Mark Schrupp, Detroit Public Schools COO. “Low-income students will not be easily identifiable and will be less likely to skip meals.”
Again, we aren’t making this up.
So much for government for the needy. Like Obama’s massive subsidies for politically connected Big Green, government has become a piggy bank for the Left to hand out favors to friends, subsidize third-car hybrid purchases for the rich, and test goofy theories about class stigma.
No wonder this country is mired in debt. And if you protest, you’re a terrorist.
I certainly agree that class distinctions are not easily removed and that free lunch for all is a waste of money, but let's be clear about something: there are no "Richie Richs" in the Detroit Public Schools. Shoot, there are hardly any kids who could be called middle class in the DPS. This is one if the most broken down and impoverished cities in the country. If at all possible, people avoid the public schools in Detroit. So fear not, there will be no rich kids getting free lunches in Detroit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA guy in the NY Times, a guest editorialist, says the country is going mad. Of course he was referring to tea party types, whom he accused of being delusional and alarmist(he did include truthers and birthers as looney).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I read stories like this I can't help but wonder why I'm considered mad while these loons qualify as sane? And if this maddening behavior in government doesn't drive you to the edge, if not over it, is saneness a worthy endeavor?
“We’ve worked very hard to reduce the stigma.”
Isn't this the problem we're having with a lot of the Left's ideas? The stigma is there for a reason.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, the grade schoolers should be constantly reminded just how poor they are. Maybe if they had actually applied themselves, they'd own businesses. Or something. Sheesh. It's one thing to oppose wasteful spending, but the callousness towards kids this post is eliciting is pretty disgusting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause children whose parents are lower income should feel stigma.
Makes perfect sense. Just as long as you are completely nuts.
I am going to use this quote in the future when I explain to people why they should not vote Republican.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause feeding your children from the sweat of your neighbor's brow is morally equivalent to providing for your own children? Isn't that the problem with the entitlement mentality that your side fosters? That there's no stigma attached to living off another's work? Robbing Peter to pay Paul ensures you'll get Paul's vote, but it's still robbery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo. People who suck at the government teat should feel stigma. Knowing that your child is eating a meal for free, paid for by the family next door who makes maybe $10K more a year than your family, should make you feel ashamed and embarrassed. Maybe, just maybe, if the moochers realized where the money comes from that they have no right to claim, they would feel shame. My money is my money, not yours.
David, can you name one federal charity program that makes any effort to reduce it's rolls? Just one? I'll wait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust make sure you include the Dem's support for free lunches for children of rich families.
Want to make a bet who comes out looking better in that argument?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't it enough that we pay to feed these kids - even though feeding them is their parents' responsibility??
I don't give a darn about their feelings - and neither should our tax dollars be used to prop up self-esteem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you don't care about whether or how you psychologically harm children or cause them unnecessary difficulty in school, then I don't give a darn about your feelings about paying taxes. Yeah, this not caring about the impact of policy on people can go both ways you know.
What is your argument? I should care about your policy preferences, but you don't give a darn about how your preferences affects others?
Good argument! For a conservative. Now, if you were a liberal, I would hold you to a higher standard. Like the requirement that your argument at least sort of make sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you refuse to feed your kids, they should be taken away from you and you should be criminally charged. Your neglect of your children should not be covered over with free school lunches and teachers sending home backpacks filled with food elementary children can prepare themselves over the weekend, because their parents are out partying and converting their food stamps/welfare into cash for alchohol and drugs. That's what happening in my region.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI once made way below poverty level wages when I was in graduate school with a wife and small child. I fed my child everyday without food stamps or free lunches.
Where is the proof that taking a free lunch harms children in school??
Personally, I think all free breakfast and lunch programs should be eliminated. If the family already qualifies for Food Stamps, then their Food Stamp dollars should be used to feed their children. School meals are double-dipping.
Enough with the liberal guilt garbage. Fact: it's a parent's first and foremost responsibility to provide their child with food. The end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy the way, feeding children is not JUST a parent's responsibility.
To test this hypothesis, ask yourself whether or not you would allow a child to starve to death if their parent did not meet this responsibility.
And exactly how is that child supposed to grow up to be a responsible citizen without proper nutrition in order to learn and obtain a proper education?
Give me a break. We live in this thing called a civilization. You should look it up. While people mostly take care of themselves, we have responsibilities to each other.
Not a hard concept. Not really an exclusively liberal belief either. Back in the day, before conservatives went crazy, they used to believe that too.
But then again, back in the day, conservatives wouldn't have gone all unpatriotic and threatened to default on the full faith and credit of the United States.
If you ask me, there are few conservatives left in the Republican party. I think most of the responsible people are now Democrats.
The Republican Party. The Party of Me, Me, Me!
=)
[Note: I am aware that the above comment does not apply to all Republicans.]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's an old saying: "You can delegate authority, but not responsibility". That I may choose to not let someone's child starve in now way absolves that parent of their responsibility to their child. But really, your premise is faulty. The choice isn't between letting children starve or eat, it's whether or not the federal government should be providing "free" meals to every child. Their are lots of private entities that are capable of providing this service better than the feds.
Regarding the "debt default", it wasn't House Republicans threatening to default on debt or hold up Social Security payments and military salaries, it was the President. The federal government takes in enough money every year to fund those things with a bit left over, it doesn't take in enough to provide everybody with free meals, free health care, free housing, and a positive self image.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"By the way, feeding children is not JUST a parent's responsibility."
Actually, it is. The parents brought the kids in the world and if they have no intention of taking care of them maybe they should have exercised the Left's favored position. Civilization is not defined by having to take care of someone else's child, indeed that that is the devolution of civilization. Why take care of your own children when the state will do it for you?
Your hypothesis is also flawed: NO American will allow ANYONE to starve. But according to your hypothesis we would be responsible for feeding everyone because we know that no American will allow another person to starve.
And I am also glad that you called me unpatriotic because I refused to accept that we needed to raise the debt ceiling. So can I go back to calling you unpatriotic when you used the Iraq War as a political tool against Bush?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy yes, parents of "low-income" children (whatever "low-income" means) should feel stigma, as well as the children themselves. How else will people know what NOT to pass on to the next generation or learn from past mistakes if everything is okay?
If you use my quote for why people should not vote Republican, can I use your quote to explain why I believe the Left's true intent is not to improve America, but to help in its destruction?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo take Mr. Welker's 'argument' to the extreme...
We shouldn't have imprisoned Bernie Madoff, because punishing him stigmatizes what he did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDisingenuous, as usual.
David Welker, as usual, conflates "those with lower incomes" with worthless parasites on the dole.
People will make less money than others. That is how it works. They are free to do just that. People live that way every day. People rise from that every day.
As for living on cash stolen from taxpayers? Humiliation is just fine. Stigmatize, away.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you can afford to bring your lunch, will they let you do that or do you HAVE to eat the slop in the school lunch program regardless?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think so. I think the vast majority of liberals would agree with you that this would be taking things to far.
Helping kids avoid the adult issue of social stigma arising from income inequality is worth doing. But it would both be unhelpful and taking it a step too far to require everyone to eat the cafeteria food. What if their parents want them to eat a certain diet? And the problem of stigma can be mostly solved simply by making the food available to everyone, regardless of income.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse