Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signs law guaranteeing free breakfast and lunch for all students

[Hope For A New Era]

Minnesota trifecta is based.

They're doing all this with a one-seat majority, too.

[Bismarck]

I would support this.

[Lechasseur]

Dumb. Students of rich parents should not be given free meals.

I'm not in favor of means testing in general; but children are probably the one group I'm especially not concerned about means testing. How would that even work, do the kids need to bring their parents tax receipts /w them before being given breakfast/lunch?

Children deserve to eat, period. It really should be that simple and afaik in most first-world countries, it is... The nutritional value of school meals in the US is an entirely separate (and important) discussion but not going hungry while trying to learn is the most important thing.

Eh, I'm not opposed to this by any means, but free school meals are not the norm in other 1st-world countries either.

I lived in 2 European countries (France and Belgium), and you definitely had to pay for lunch. This isn't an issue like healthcare where the US is clearly outside the norms of the developed world.

And on that note, I've never heard of school breakfast, let alone free school breakfast. Schools definitely do not serve breakfast here (unless they're boarding schools ofc).

Huh, I did some research and you're right, and it's a weird assortment too... Countries like Finland and Sweden have had free school lunches for over half a century whereas Norway doesn't have any program. In France it said that the school pays for half and the students/family pay the other half for school lunches.

When do schools typically start in those countries? In the US I had to be on the bus by 6:30-7 and I know there's been a lot of talk about how early US schools start and how we'd be much better served by starting school later in the day. Obviously there isn't much time to eat a decent breakfast if you're leaving for school when it's still dark outside.

In any case, doesn't change how I feel about this issue obviously and we should absolutely make this a national initiative when possible.

All California Schools starts around 8am now. New Law.

When did they previously start?

[Lechasseur]

Universal programs like this are good because they're a lot harder to take away politically than benefits that only go to poor people who face lots of stigma and have little power.

Exactly, and this is where the Great Society went wrong imo

[Continential]

Contrast this with Sarah Huckabee Sanders in Arkansas who just got done signing a law to make it easier for companies to exploit child labor by rolling back requirements that the state verify the ages of workers under 16 and provide them with work certificates permitting them to work.

Honestly, how anyone who has the best interests of children at heart could vote GOP is beyond my comprehension.

Both are good things.

[politicallefty]

This is an excellent idea. I was very disappointed that Democrats gave up the universal free lunch program that was put in place for the pandemic in budget negotiations last year. A universal program reduces administrative and overhead costs while ensuring that no one falls through the cracks (which in some instances can become chasms). If we instituted such a program at the national level, it would cost an estimated $11b/year more than is already spent on the school lunch program, hardly money that is gonna break the bank. We're the richest country on the planet with far more food than we know what to do with. The reasons against this are sorely lacking.

[Xing]

Excellent, now let’s make sure food at all schools is balanced and nutritious.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minnesota trifecta is based.

They're doing all this with a one-seat majority, too.

Some Republicans voted for it in each chamber although it wouldn't have even made a vote without a trifecta.

But yeah Walz is absolutely killing it!

[TheReckoning]

Dumb. Students of rich parents should not be given free meals and their parents should be taxed more heavily to fund this.

FTFY

Why? Let people who have the means spend money on how they want. People with the means should be able to buy other food instead of whatever garbage they’re fed in public schools.

The delusion that being rich means you are omniscient, rather than just good in one field and equally as ignorant as everywhere else (including nutrition), is poisoning the US and the world.

No other country in the world would see such pushback toward Walz's humanitarian idea.

So you want the state to regulate the meals of every person, because apparently some people are ignorant in nutrition? That’s a very authoritarian idea.

Giving kids the option of free school lunch is not "regulating the meals of every person". It's still legal to bring food from home.

But when you take away money from people, you are limiting their options elsewhere. I’m all for raising taxes on the wealthy- but not coupled with handouts for them as well.

"Taking away money is limiting peoples freedom" and "We should take more from rich people and not give them 'handouts'" a sentence apart. Amazing. The second argument makes the first one irrelevant, so why include it?

Oh FFS, this is such an easy thing to understand.

1. Limiting people’s freedoms can sometimes be necessary, like with taking away rich people’s money to pay for free lunches for low-income students. This is a good thing.

2. Limiting people’s freedoms can sometimes be unnecessary, like with taking away rich people’s money to pay for lunches for rich students who don’t need it at all. This is a bad thing.

These two things are not in contradiction with one another at all.

[Lief 🗽]

God, our Minnesota and Michigan trifectas are so awesome, especially considering how narrow their majorities are.

[Minnesota Mike]

As a Minnesota taxpayer with no kids or grandkids who will be helped by this I am thrilled. This is exactly the type of thing I want my taxes going towards. I'm counting on these little $hits to pay me back when I'm a geezer a nursing home

From a purely political standpoint the Walz administration has got to love the pictures of cheering kids, photo ops do not get much better.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Dumb. Students of rich parents should not be given free meals and their parents should be taxed more heavily to fund this.

FTFY

Why? Let people who have the means spend money on how they want. People with the means should be able to buy other food instead of whatever garbage they’re fed in public schools.

The delusion that being rich means you are omniscient, rather than just good in one field and equally as ignorant as everywhere else (including nutrition), is poisoning the US and the world.

No other country in the world would see such pushback toward Walz's humanitarian idea.

So you want the state to regulate the meals of every person, because apparently some people are ignorant in nutrition? That’s a very authoritarian idea.

Giving kids the option of free school lunch is not "regulating the meals of every person". It's still legal to bring food from home.

But when you take away money from people, you are limiting their options elsewhere. I’m all for raising taxes on the wealthy- but not coupled with handouts for them as well.

You seem to vastly overstate the cost of food and its impact on a school budget and an individual budget. The wholesale cost of the food purchase is extremely small to a school district/state and pales in comparison to even the already very small cost needed to prepare your child's own lunch (if you are so much as middle class) - whereas it means the world to people who barely make ends meet, where $150/month per child puts them on the brink of ruin.

Most colleges require students to buy a meal plan whether it gets put to full use or not. How do you feel about this limiting their options? Because this feels a lot more egregious - especially when they mark it up by 2x the retail price (and for eccentrics like me, I never let a single meal go to waste). Food is part of the cost of attendance, and in public schools that is publicly funded. If it was covered by tuition at a private school, would you have this problem? Nobody uses all free amenities.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Dumb. Students of rich parents should not be given free meals and their parents should be taxed more heavily to fund this.

FTFY

Why? Let people who have the means spend money on how they want. People with the means should be able to buy other food instead of whatever garbage they’re fed in public schools.

The delusion that being rich means you are omniscient, rather than just good in one field and equally as ignorant as everywhere else (including nutrition), is poisoning the US and the world.

No other country in the world would see such pushback toward Walz's humanitarian idea.

So you want the state to regulate the meals of every person, because apparently some people are ignorant in nutrition? That’s a very authoritarian idea.

Giving kids the option of free school lunch is not "regulating the meals of every person". It's still legal to bring food from home.

But when you take away money from people, you are limiting their options elsewhere. I’m all for raising taxes on the wealthy- but not coupled with handouts for them as well.

"Taking away money is limiting peoples freedom" and "We should take more from rich people and not give them 'handouts'" a sentence apart. Amazing. The second argument makes the first one irrelevant, so why include it?

Oh FFS, this is such an easy thing to understand.

1. Limiting people’s freedoms can sometimes be necessary, like with taking away rich people’s money to pay for free lunches for low-income students. This is a good thing.

2. Limiting people’s freedoms can sometimes be unnecessary, like with taking away rich people’s money to pay for lunches for rich students who don’t need it at all. This is a bad thing.

These two things are not in contradiction with one another at all.

I responded to the post you made. I don't feel inclined to strain my brain trying to piece together a better version of your post. Anyway, your argument is not as obviously correct as you seem to think it is.

First of all, there are a lot good reasons to support free school lunch for all kids even if you accept your ideas about taxes and freedom. Universal government benefits are much harder politically to cut back than means-tested programs. Messing with universal social security is a third rail in US politics, while means-tested welfare is pretty unpopular AFAIK, and certainly not a dangerous thing for a republican to rail against. Means-testing free school lunch costs quite significant amounts of money and manpower, forces poor families to jump through a bunch of hoops, and leads to a lot of poor kids falling through the cracks and not getting food. All that just so you can charge some families for lunch. It also makes actually getting the food from the cafeteria take longer since lunch servers have to manage "checking in" and charging for every kid. And some people aren't fans of forcing kids of rich parents to pay for basic s**t out of spite

Secondly, have you thought through the implications of treating taking money away from someone as equivalent to "reducing their freedom". That implies that having more money means having more freedom. Wouldn't some people having more freedom than others purely because they got lucky in the lottery of life be unfair and completely counter to what freedom is supposed to be about? And since freedom goes down when you lose money, that makes freedom necessarily a numerical quantity. Making freedom a numerical number is dumb and makes a mockery of the concept. It's an emotion, a state of being.

[DaleCooper]

Good law.

[Nyvin]

I have no kids at all and have no plans to have any in the future.

I would be absolutely thrilled to know that my tax money is being spent on something like this.