Posted on 05/29/2003 8:06:35 AM PDT by gitmo
“Was there anyone who wanted children to go to bed hungry?”
The question is posed by Charles Grodin in his new book “I Like It Better When You’re Funny” to illustrate his belief that conservatives and liberals aren’t really that different.
I agree with him. None of us wants children going to bed hungry and most of us feel that a decent society steps in to protect defenseless young citizens.
That being said, I think the difference between conservative and liberal positions is what each “camp” considers to be the solution. One believes in teaching people to fish and the other believes in providing the fish. In the case of the school lunch program in America the government now admits that a huge number of the people lining up for fish actually already have a boat and a net.
The Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal reported on May 26th that as many as 1 in 4 of the students on the free lunch program do not qualify financially. Leaving aside the libertarian argument that people should provide for themselves, there are two questions to ask and answer.
Who among us thinks it is right to take everyone’s tax dollars and provide something for a few who can provide it for themselves? [NC] State Senator Ellie Kinnaird has proposed free breakfast for all children every day at school, so clearly there are some who want to do just that.
On the other hand many of us find it uncomfortable, while feeding freeloaders, to tell those working with the mentally ill, a population that cannot solve its own problems, that there is no money.
Working from the Department of Agriculture’s own figures the Courier-Journal reports, “Nationwide, possibly as much as $1 billion in tax money is being spent each year on feeding children from families who are not eligible.”
The second, and very important question, is why is it happening? It turns out not to be an oversight or a “glitch” in the system. It turns out to be an income transfer scheme between the federal government and America’s schools.
“The number of children getting free and reduced-price lunches is used as a poverty indicator that helps determine how much money public schools receive through various state and federal educational programs,” reports the Courier-Journal.
The incentive to the schools is to pack the classroom with kids on the lunch program and there is no incentive for oversight. Schools are not allowed to require applicants to provide proof of income. Only 3 % of the families are audited and even when rampant abuse is detected in that small number, other than dropping the ones the audit caught, nothing is done. No further audit is required. It’s only tax dollars. Plenty more where that came from.
There is plenty of incentive for families to sign up. Many of these children also are granted fee waivers for everything from textbook rentals to laboratory usage, chorus, band and sports uniforms, foreign language, and driver's education.
Some schools run contests with fabulous prizes aimed at encouraging families to sign up.
In a follow-up article the next day the Courier-Journal quoted a program administrator. ''We have kids who come in on Monday morning who haven't eaten since Friday. We're their only lifeline, and we will not let them go hungry because they can't pay.''
By all means feed the child. But then call the police. In this country you can be arrested for not feeding your dog. Apparently for not feeding your child you win a place at the government trough.
Why do so many people who happily spend scarce resources for the F&R lunch program and other social welfare efforts seem never to work to solve the root problem? Are they afraid of working themselves out of a job? That would seem to be a noble goal to have.
My mom is a retired school teacher. She can tell you all about kids that live in nice houses, wear nice clothes, are fed all they want but still live in "poverty" according to the government. For instance, if the parents (or 'head of household') don't own the house they're living in then they're "impoverished" and qualify for all kinds of government freebies, regardless of income.
That happens to me every Fall when my youngest starts back to school. They send us solicitaion after solicitation. Our school board have tried to alter the means test required because they "feel" it prevents proud parents from seeking assistance. So far they've been stymied, because the program is Fed funded and they require a means test.
A lesser known yet just as costly program is the one that gives schools extra dough for students that are members of an Indian tribe. We get these forms twice a year. Remember the 16th per cent rule form the Jim Crow days? It still exists in reverse. If you have any Indian blood in your heritage that can be id'ed then the school gets paid. The cousellors are always on the look for holdouts.
Living across the street from an elementary school, and having a wife who's a teacher, I can tell you about people who drive up IN BRAND NEW CARS to drop their kids off for "free breakfast".
The fraud in this program is rampant.
People who perpetually can't feed their own kids belong in jail, stripped of their parental rights, and their kids need to be adopted out.
If that's the case, it would follow that the only food these "poor" kids get is breakfast 5 days a week. Ptui!
FMCDH
Just like the 'Habitat 4 Humanity' habitat a few blocks away from me. New cars in most of the driveways, dead lawns in front of all of them.
This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with every "solution" proposed by socialists. I too think it is good to help those in need, but when the government becomes involved, this is always the backlash. I don't know what the answer is really, but I think I know what is not the answer. More government.
The only way to make everyone 'equal' is to make everyone equally poor.
There have always been poor people, and somehow they were cared for without taking money from others by force. I once read an article that pointed out that an historical triad of church, family, and private charities cared for the poor before the government began systematically dismantling this triad.
The "fraternal" groups like Oddfellows, Moose (sorry), Knights of Columbus--were essentially mutual aid societies for blue collar workers. You donated $5 per week and if you got laid off, the group took care of you and your family. They also struck volume discount plans with doctors...something the AMA soon put a stop to.
Ask a politician: how were the poor taken care of in say, 1910?...without the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty"?
--Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.