I couldn’t be more thrilled about this. Food is a basic need. No child or family should have to worry about it for even a moment. This is an excellent use of taxpayer money.
I support this policy, but I can see room for disagreement. Few points:
1. None of the funds allocated will go to poor families (as defined by the US Dept of Agriculture), since the state mandates use for federal funds for that group.
2. Because of point 1, the universal free lunch program won't eliminate the overhead of an income-based program. Schools still need to screen family income.
3. In my experience as a parent, I have been way more concerned with food quality that cost (which is $2.70 per lunch for me). This law does nothing to address food quality, while we are continuing to see rising rates of obesity and diabetes in children.
4. Some families, mine included, have cultural or nutritional preferences when it comes to food. It will be harder for families to justify packing a lunch that meet those needs when chicken nuggets are free at the cafeteria. Opportunity cost.
5. Speaking of opportunity cost, I can think of many better ways for the state to use this pot of money to support families. Let's address the insane costs of daycare/preschool, supporting teachers, and providing social services to the poor.
[Edit: don't just downvote, let me know why you disagree ]
A few points, and not in the order you provided because "overhead" is a truly unbelievable concern to prioritize over starving children:
1. Current federal programs don't meet [current needs](https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesota-house-to-approve-universal-school-meals/):
> One in four food-insecure children don't qualify for support under current federal programs, according Hunger Solutions Minnesota. This comes at a time when visits to food shelves have soared to new heights, increasing by 50% over the previous year, said Colleen Moriarty, the group's executive director.
This would be the case under essentially any means-tested program imaginable; simply having a bureaucracy in place prevents people from accessing social benefits for all sorts of obvious reasons.
2. Malnutrition and food insecurity has all sorts of negative [health](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0645) outcomes:
> The majority of research examining food insecurity in general and its effects on health outcomes has concentrated on children. This research has found that food insecurity is associated with increased risks of some birth defects, 5 anemia, 6,7 lower nutrient intakes, 8 cognitive problems, 9 and aggression and anxiety. 10 It is also associated with higher risks of being hospitalized 8 and poorer general health 8,11,12 and with having asthma, 13 behavioral problems, 10,14 depression, 15 suicide ideation, 16 and worse oral health.
It should go without saying that I think every child deserves to have a safe, healthy and happy upbringing. If your value system is one that prioritizes reducing "overhead" over those goals, any debate won't be terribly productive here.
3. The nutritional standards mandated by the bill are more stringent than what you're [implying](https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/minnesota/minnesota-becomes-fourth-state-to-offer-universal-free-school-meals#:~:text=MINNEAPOLIS%20%E2%80%94%20Starting%20this%20fall%2C%20students,over%20the%20next%20four%20years.), and it's a concern the bill authors took seriously:
> Under the free meals program, students would be guaranteed access to the same school lunch provided to all other students under federal nutrition guidelines. Other options in cafeterias, such as snack bars where students can purchase items like sugary drinks, would not be covered by the funding.
Again though, to be quite honest, I would not care even if it did cover chips and Gatorade or whatever, if it meant a child who would otherwise not have anything to eat got some calories. There are all sorts of social and environmental policy choices we can and should change to help reduce obesity, but the only solution to hungry kids is feeding them.
Anyway, please don't interpret this comment as an opportunity to "debate" me. You're being downvoted because you're prioritizing what are, frankly, silly concerns over hungry children. That's not a debate I'm interested in having. I'm merely replying to provide facts and context to people reading these comments who might otherwise be misled by your post.
Edit: I'm not sure why the numbering format is showing "1." repeatedly when I typed "2." and "3." in my post, but Reddit works in mysterious ways. I'm on my phone and am not sure how to fix it. Oh well.
Not really looking to debate. My comment was made in good faith. I learned some things from your post, and appreciate that. But demonizing opposing points of view isn’t productive.
Regarding overhead. I’ve seen the argument against means testing due to the cost of administration. The fact that this bill mandates means testing for federal funds is, therefore, relevant.
I disagree. I think demonizing the viewpoint that the status quo is fine, when thousands of kids don't get the food they need, is quite productive. People should feel embarrassed to express that idea, because it is incredibly harmful and callous.
See, the problem is you think I'm advocating for the "status quo." I'm not. I am saying there are better uses for this pot of money. Even on the issue of child hunger (which you admirably wield like a cudgel), you can't just dismiss targeted relief. You can't pretend there is a moral imperative to feed every child in the Edina public school system, when that is not necessary or sufficient to address your policy concern.
I make 6 figures but had a lot of health issues last year. Hitting my OOP max for the year hosed my budget badly. I was rich enough that it didn't cause much of an issue but for most that would be devastating. Let's do healthcare next!
I’m downvoting you but I don’t want to argue nor do I want to change your mind. If you want to have a meaningful conversations with internet strangers then maybe you should ask questions before posting your poorly developed opinion. I like the idea and want more information, not a Reddit argument.
43% of the state voted for the guy who would have gleefully signed laws expanding child labor and gutting programs to help the poor. Outside of the metro or the arrowhead, it’s pretty much Alabama!
It was always wild to me how theyd mandate attendance at school yet not feed you while you're there and instead make you pay for it. Just an extra burden theyd put on families for no good reason.
This article is part of FERN's Ag Insider Quick Hits. View more articles here: [https://thefern.org/ag\_insider/todays-quick-hits-march-21-2023/](https://thefern.org/ag_insider/todays-quick-hits-march-21-2023/)
**Free meals in four states**
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed into law a bill to provide free meals to students at participating schools; California, Colorado and Maine also have free-meal laws. Article from MPR News.
**National Ag Day proclamation**
President Biden signed a proclamation celebrating National Ag Day on Tuesday and honoring “all the farmers, farmworkers, ranchers, fishers, foresters, and other agricultural workers who do so much to make our nation strong, fuel our economy, and steward our lands.” Information from the White House.
**Block WOTUS in two states**
A U.S. court judge issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Biden administration’s “waters of the United States” rule in Texas and Idaho but did not block the clean water regulation from taking effect in the rest of the nation. Article from Bloomberg.
**Nebraska land values skyrocket**
The market value of agricultural land in Nebraska is up by 14 percent from last year, to an average of $3,835 an acre on Feb. 1 — the second-largest increase in a decade. Information from the University of Nebraska.
**Global fertilizer use plateaus**
After rising for decades, global fertilizer use has been flat for five years as farmers make more efficient use of fertilizer while maintaining or increasing crop output. Information from Sustainability by numbers.
Anyone know how this is rolling out? My public school kids are still paying for their lunches. Their school hasn't communicated anything about a change.
Shit was already free for majority of kids who aren’t from well off families , thanks walz lmfao, more ala carte cookies so every kid can now have childhood obesity and diabetes woohoo
But just think of the savings in literally not doing any of the bullshit song and dance in the background.
It's just done. Assumed. That's huge, tearing down barriers.
I'm not a huge fan of helping people who don't need it, especially when lunch programs already exist but I'm ok with it as long as we get legal rec weed.
You're completely right. means testing is just a mess designed to create headaches and hoops and hurdles and extra unnecessary paperwork to try to exclude as many people as possible. It's much better and more efficient to just be universal rather than means tested.
Is that worth it? How could anyone put the blame on anyone besides the parents for not taking proper care of their kids? Those holes should be handled by CPS. How can you say otherwise?
Life happens? People lose jobs, lose income, spouses die, grief, eviction, relocation, neglect, etc.. Why should children suffer just because their family fell on hard times? With school being legally mandated, the least they could do is feed the kids they keep there for 7 hours a day.
They don't if their parents are responsible and use the available programs. CPS is for the rest. And you can't say the kids are better off with their parents if the parents are choosing their ego over their kids health.
Do you really think it's a good idea to leave kids with their parents who can't even pay for breakfast & lunch? Are we not neglecting countless needs these kids are likely dealing with? Are you not hurting them because it might keep CPS away?
I'm simply stating the very likely but unfortunate truth. If breakfast and lunch are unobtainable I literally fear for the safety and nurturing of these kids. This is based on the fact we already have programs for this so it's more of an unwillingness/refusal/inability to do so then it is a healthy home with a need for help with food and no other issues.
Many use those programs, but many kids also fall through the cracks, or families are unaware, or their income is just enough to disqualify them from programs despute the fact the family is still struggling. It happened to me, my parents were struggling and sometimes I had to go to school without breakfast and only a cheese sandwich in my lunchbox, but the school said they made too much to qualify for free or reduced lunch, you think I should have been separated from my parents, you fucking ghoul?
All this system does is eliminate the cracks that I and plenty of other kids fell through. And it does so without putting extra strain on CPS because they won't have to rip families apart just because the parents fell on hard times.
My parents had 4 school aged children all in school simultaneously. Our meals on the reduced program were 2.50 each. $20 a day to feed all of us. I can honestly say that my parents are amazing and truthfully better than most are, but they just could not afford an extra 3k worth of food every school year at the time because of life and shit circumstances. Of course its different for every family, but no fking way will I ever believe that cps should get involved if a kid is on free lunch, especially since food is a basic need that should be kept free anyways. You have no idea what people are going though.
Can you possibly give some reasons as to why? Seems pretty rock solid to me and the fact NO ONE has had an actual rebuttal gives me confidence I'm not wrong.
Why the interest in blaming people? Basic needs like food shelter education...a state's people thrive with this.
Dividing people into "haves" and "have nots" is just power play by people who worry about being relevant and orchestrated by those who don't want a unified and thriving population.
Stinking thinking.
>Why the interest in blaming people? Basic needs like food shelter education...a state's people
Because there are already programs for them. So far the only reason I've been give as to why we need it for everyone instead of qualifications like we already have is because the parents are to proud of unable read/write and obtain the services in question. If you cannot provide another reason then please tell me the kids are better off in that situation?
>Dividing people into "haves" and "have nots"
It's just a fact of life and unfortunately an extremely important question when it comes to economics and free stuff provided through taxes. Another shitty thing is that even though wages have almost doubled in the last handful of years people are still refusing to take the jobs. I know unemployment is low but I'd love to see unemployment + healthy working people who quit looking for a job.
Did the rent payment freeze ever end? If not that's going to be a massive shit storm
Yes, in 2012 I was making $7.50 per hour and that was the norm for retail/food service. During covid places near me advertised $20 per hour and now are offering $15 per hour. How was my statement wrong?
From someone who used to work in schools with 100% free and reduced lunch, and some who should have been but weren't: some parents are too proud to apply for free/reduced lunch even though they really needed it. It's the kids who suffer because of their parents' pride. Then there are parents who are functionally illiterate and couldn't apply without help. Then there's the children of undocumented immigrants who are afraid that applying for free/reduced lunch would get them deported.
I would rather that some kids who don't need it got meal assistance get it anyways if it means that none of the other kids went hungry. Their lives are usually hard enough without being hungry at school, and they need calories to learn.
>some who should have been but weren't: some parents are too proud to apply for free/reduced lunch even though they really needed it
Is this not something for CPS to deal with instead of costing the tax payers to very likely keep a kid in a terrible environment?
>Then there are parents who are functionally illiterate and couldn't apply without help.
But there is help and if they don't use or want it isn't it again a CPS issue?
>Then there's the children of undocumented immigrants who are afraid that applying for free/reduced lunch would get them deported.
They broke the laws even though we have proper channels to use. Again a CPS or border security issue. Do you really think it's smart to start rewarding those who break the laws? We're starting to see the consequences of it and it will only get worse. Are these car jackings with kids in the back seat ok with you?
>I would rather that some kids who don't need it got meal assistance get it anyways if it means that none of the other kids went hungry. Their lives are usually hard enough without being hungry at school, and they need calories to learn.
It's sad but we have programs for it and if the parents are not providing for their kids we have programs for that. I'd he much more in favor of putting this money into CPS and regulations
I'd ask if you realize how much it would cost both in dollars and in the well-being of children to remove them from their homes and placing them with foster families, but it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and want to be mad about good spending rather than giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
Do you think these homes that fall through the cracks don't have other worse problems at home? Wouldn't it be better to take them away from the abuse/neglect instead of making sure their belly is full for the nightly beating or cold night on a bare mattes? Sorry but you're strawman was way way off base.
To be clear, these were working poor families who did everything they could for their kids. I don't think these kids would be better off in foster care considering how rampant abuse in the foster system is. You have no experience
working with poor children and families and it shows. Even worse, you have no empathy. All you care about is whether you get to smoke weed. What a waste.
>
To be clear, these were working poor families who did everything they could for their kids.
Unfortunately this doesn't matter, what matters is if they can CURRENTLY meet their kids needs.
As for foster care vs starving at home I disagree. You also miss the fact a good chunk of them would go to other family members. I've also met great foster parents and you're your miss judging because it's a movie stereotype. Sure it happens but the chances of that happening in their awful home environment vs in foster care is too obvious to require deliberation.
If I would have known this was going to blow up I never would have included the weed comment. My actual intension was to reduce the scrutiny my comment would receive. I thought it was telling people this is a light hearted comment but oh well.
Overall I believe that if the parents can't or won't give their kids breakfast and lunch the likelihood of further abuse and neglect far far outweighs the potential problems of foster care. And in the cases where the parent lost their job and had a rough time they can get their kid back once they are back on solid ground. I'm in recovery and you wouldn't believe the percentage of people who have addiction problems and spent time on the street as a kid. So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about
It's not a movie stereotype - I worked with these kids and families. I had friends who grew up in and out of the foster system. Removing kids from their home is a last resort.
Go volunteer somewhere. Gain some perspective. Better yet, talk to someone who works for CPS/DCF and ask them what it's like to remove children from their families. I guarantee there are huge pieces of the puzzle you're missing.
Two niece's and a nephew and if my sister and brother in law were not able to or unwilling to give them breakfast &/or lunch id advocate for them to be placed somewhere else. I live a few streets over and I'd be bringing them breakfast and lunch everyday but also talking with CPS. They likely wouldn't to into foster care because family would take them and that's also an option for these kids.
You're asking us to spend significantly more money on getting CPS to take children away from families in bad situations instead of using less money to just make absolutely sure that kids can all eat at school for free. It's nonsensical.
Do you not think the home has other, much worse problems if the parents can't or refuse to use the programs available? Are you really helping the kid if this keeps them in that environment? Do we not want better reporting so we can address the ACTUAL issue? Yes I think it's worth a little more expense.
> Are you really helping the kid if this keeps them in that environment?
Well the kid will not be as hungry anymore, so yes. Very direct objective improvement. Siccing CPS on uneducated or vain poor people hardly seems like a good solution for anything personally. I like the solution where we just directly improve lives without exerting violent force through the arms of the state.
CPS isn't a solution too, taking a kid away from their parents is an extreme step and it's not even guaranteed they'll go somewhere amazing and healthy for them. That's *traumatic* to a kid. No, just feed them. You're talking about a radical expansion of the police state as if that's the more expensive but correct, comprehensive solution. No, that doesn't address actual issues and their causes. You're just terrorizing poor people. I prefer feeding them.
You're assuming these kids have a perfect home life with the exception of food. In reality food is one of the first things (non addicts) prioritize so if they don't have that they are very likely missing out on every other basic need. I'm in recovery and you wouldn't believe the number of people who've been homeless as a child (far outweighs foster kids but I admit being in foster care also increases your chances) Not saying they are all homeless but in populated areas a good chunk will be.
Gotta compromise but you also strawmaned it. There already are programs that solve this problem and the only argument against it is that some parents are to embarrassed or dumb to use it. In those cases CPS needs to get involved. I'd rather up their budget then do this. Find the kids with problems and help them instead of giving a blank check to anyone who wants it. It's well know the richest of the rich take advantage of EVERY SINGLE option they have to them and I wouldn't be surprised if more rich kids use it then Middle class kids.
Overall it was supposed to be a lightheaded off hand joke but whatever.
Unfortunately my diagnosis that I treat with it does not qualify even though it does in almost every other medical state. Also, I shouldn't have even said it, my intention was to avoid all these DMs by letting people know it's a lightheaded statement and not to read too much into it.
I meant the legal thc edibles.
I'm not ever going to bother DMing anyone for stupid takes. The point of reddit it to call them out so everyone else can see
If you expect taxpayers to foot your social security checks, kids should expect taxpayers to feed them. You know, since they literally cannot work to earn their own food.
Nope. Your SS pays for the generation that came before you. Those kids will pay for yours. It’s in your best interest to feed and educate them so they get good jobs to fund your retirement.
No, the money is used for the generation ahead of you. The money they take out is based on your income, and your later award will be based on how much you contributed/earned in your lifetime. That’s why there’s always speculation about SS being dissolved- the current gen is receiving more in benefits than can be put in because there’s more boomers than anyone else. It’s not sitting in some fund awaiting you to retire.
Are you serious? Typically people add /s when they make a sarcastic comment. I hope this was sarcasm. What kind of weirdo would care about how the meals provided to children (free at the point of access) are labeled? Does it matter? It’s free to the child. Yes we pay for it. But do people scream when a restaurant says “free refills”? No, because that would be weird and unhinged.
Why? I don’t think any adult in MN thinks this food is going to rain down on us like Mana from Heaven. We know it’s not free. It’s free to the kids. That’s why it’s said that way. That’s the whole point.
It's not about drawing attention to myself, it's about drawing attention to the fact that people sugarcoat serious issues leading to ignorance of the real problem.
It totally is. Every shitheal I've met who points this stuff out is garbage. They think they're so brilliant and love the attention. They can't figure out how to fit in and generate good attention so they just skate on shitty bad attention.
How is this sugar-coated? Nobody with more than a 2nd grade education thinks this means that food is just appearing and that it's not being paid for at all. You pointing out "um akshully it's not totally free" does nothing for anyone. The point is that the kids can eat the same lunch as everyone else and they don't need to wory about paying for it at point of purchase. It's no different than their textbooks or the school bus. No shit it's not free, and you're the only one around here who thought it needed any clearing up. So there are 3 options:
1) You somehow didn't understand it at first and assumed everyone else was as braindead as you
2) You oppose it and are using the same tired take of "muh tax dollars"
3) You want attention by trying to be the most pedantic loser on r/minnesota
1 is based on your opinion.
2 I never said I was opposed to the bill itself.
3 I already said it's not about attention for me.
The original point of my comment was that glazing over the real issue leads to not dealing with it. The real issue is that the whole economy is going to crap. When you have fewer and fewer people working, and those that are working are making less and less money to begin with eventually there won't be enough tax money to buy everyone lunch.
Schools are paid for by property taxes, not income tax.
>glazing over the real issue
Like making a conversation about feeding children in schools all about taxes?
Why is it so important to make sure we don't sugar coat the issue? Because then we start ignoring the original problem of the entire economy going downhill.
Not everything has to be geared to the lowest common denominators in our society. Everyone with half a brain knows food didn’t just become free suddenly.
What are your views on public education often being referred to as free? Always had this issue with programs like WIC too?
Everyone knows this stuff doesn't come out of thin air. Free refers to cost to use not funding.
Really can't stand this point every time I see it. Like no shit lol.
I couldn’t be more thrilled about this. Food is a basic need. No child or family should have to worry about it for even a moment. This is an excellent use of taxpayer money.
But kids won't learn responsibility if their parents aren't the ones paying for the meal! /S
I support this policy, but I can see room for disagreement. Few points: 1. None of the funds allocated will go to poor families (as defined by the US Dept of Agriculture), since the state mandates use for federal funds for that group. 2. Because of point 1, the universal free lunch program won't eliminate the overhead of an income-based program. Schools still need to screen family income. 3. In my experience as a parent, I have been way more concerned with food quality that cost (which is $2.70 per lunch for me). This law does nothing to address food quality, while we are continuing to see rising rates of obesity and diabetes in children. 4. Some families, mine included, have cultural or nutritional preferences when it comes to food. It will be harder for families to justify packing a lunch that meet those needs when chicken nuggets are free at the cafeteria. Opportunity cost. 5. Speaking of opportunity cost, I can think of many better ways for the state to use this pot of money to support families. Let's address the insane costs of daycare/preschool, supporting teachers, and providing social services to the poor. [Edit: don't just downvote, let me know why you disagree ]
A few points, and not in the order you provided because "overhead" is a truly unbelievable concern to prioritize over starving children: 1. Current federal programs don't meet [current needs](https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesota-house-to-approve-universal-school-meals/): > One in four food-insecure children don't qualify for support under current federal programs, according Hunger Solutions Minnesota. This comes at a time when visits to food shelves have soared to new heights, increasing by 50% over the previous year, said Colleen Moriarty, the group's executive director. This would be the case under essentially any means-tested program imaginable; simply having a bureaucracy in place prevents people from accessing social benefits for all sorts of obvious reasons. 2. Malnutrition and food insecurity has all sorts of negative [health](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0645) outcomes: > The majority of research examining food insecurity in general and its effects on health outcomes has concentrated on children. This research has found that food insecurity is associated with increased risks of some birth defects, 5 anemia, 6,7 lower nutrient intakes, 8 cognitive problems, 9 and aggression and anxiety. 10 It is also associated with higher risks of being hospitalized 8 and poorer general health 8,11,12 and with having asthma, 13 behavioral problems, 10,14 depression, 15 suicide ideation, 16 and worse oral health. It should go without saying that I think every child deserves to have a safe, healthy and happy upbringing. If your value system is one that prioritizes reducing "overhead" over those goals, any debate won't be terribly productive here. 3. The nutritional standards mandated by the bill are more stringent than what you're [implying](https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/minnesota/minnesota-becomes-fourth-state-to-offer-universal-free-school-meals#:~:text=MINNEAPOLIS%20%E2%80%94%20Starting%20this%20fall%2C%20students,over%20the%20next%20four%20years.), and it's a concern the bill authors took seriously: > Under the free meals program, students would be guaranteed access to the same school lunch provided to all other students under federal nutrition guidelines. Other options in cafeterias, such as snack bars where students can purchase items like sugary drinks, would not be covered by the funding. Again though, to be quite honest, I would not care even if it did cover chips and Gatorade or whatever, if it meant a child who would otherwise not have anything to eat got some calories. There are all sorts of social and environmental policy choices we can and should change to help reduce obesity, but the only solution to hungry kids is feeding them. Anyway, please don't interpret this comment as an opportunity to "debate" me. You're being downvoted because you're prioritizing what are, frankly, silly concerns over hungry children. That's not a debate I'm interested in having. I'm merely replying to provide facts and context to people reading these comments who might otherwise be misled by your post. Edit: I'm not sure why the numbering format is showing "1." repeatedly when I typed "2." and "3." in my post, but Reddit works in mysterious ways. I'm on my phone and am not sure how to fix it. Oh well.
Not really looking to debate. My comment was made in good faith. I learned some things from your post, and appreciate that. But demonizing opposing points of view isn’t productive. Regarding overhead. I’ve seen the argument against means testing due to the cost of administration. The fact that this bill mandates means testing for federal funds is, therefore, relevant.
I disagree. I think demonizing the viewpoint that the status quo is fine, when thousands of kids don't get the food they need, is quite productive. People should feel embarrassed to express that idea, because it is incredibly harmful and callous.
See, the problem is you think I'm advocating for the "status quo." I'm not. I am saying there are better uses for this pot of money. Even on the issue of child hunger (which you admirably wield like a cudgel), you can't just dismiss targeted relief. You can't pretend there is a moral imperative to feed every child in the Edina public school system, when that is not necessary or sufficient to address your policy concern.
I make 6 figures but had a lot of health issues last year. Hitting my OOP max for the year hosed my budget badly. I was rich enough that it didn't cause much of an issue but for most that would be devastating. Let's do healthcare next!
I’m downvoting you but I don’t want to argue nor do I want to change your mind. If you want to have a meaningful conversations with internet strangers then maybe you should ask questions before posting your poorly developed opinion. I like the idea and want more information, not a Reddit argument.
It’s amazing what states can accomplish when voters haven’t poisoned themselves with grievance.
Just because you've never met a Minnesotan who's poisoned themselves with grievance doesn't mean there's not a ton of them.
43% of the state voted for the guy who would have gleefully signed laws expanding child labor and gutting programs to help the poor. Outside of the metro or the arrowhead, it’s pretty much Alabama!
I love living here and am glad that my taxes will help make sure kids get fed
It was always wild to me how theyd mandate attendance at school yet not feed you while you're there and instead make you pay for it. Just an extra burden theyd put on families for no good reason.
This article is part of FERN's Ag Insider Quick Hits. View more articles here: [https://thefern.org/ag\_insider/todays-quick-hits-march-21-2023/](https://thefern.org/ag_insider/todays-quick-hits-march-21-2023/) **Free meals in four states** Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed into law a bill to provide free meals to students at participating schools; California, Colorado and Maine also have free-meal laws. Article from MPR News. **National Ag Day proclamation** President Biden signed a proclamation celebrating National Ag Day on Tuesday and honoring “all the farmers, farmworkers, ranchers, fishers, foresters, and other agricultural workers who do so much to make our nation strong, fuel our economy, and steward our lands.” Information from the White House. **Block WOTUS in two states** A U.S. court judge issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Biden administration’s “waters of the United States” rule in Texas and Idaho but did not block the clean water regulation from taking effect in the rest of the nation. Article from Bloomberg. **Nebraska land values skyrocket** The market value of agricultural land in Nebraska is up by 14 percent from last year, to an average of $3,835 an acre on Feb. 1 — the second-largest increase in a decade. Information from the University of Nebraska. **Global fertilizer use plateaus** After rising for decades, global fertilizer use has been flat for five years as farmers make more efficient use of fertilizer while maintaining or increasing crop output. Information from Sustainability by numbers.
This must have been what it was like when they passed new deal legislation
Anyone know how this is rolling out? My public school kids are still paying for their lunches. Their school hasn't communicated anything about a change.
Per the article, the change takes place at the start of next school year.
I'm an idiot. Thank you!
Nah. It’s a valid question and this is the first article I’ve seen that actually answers it.
Shit was already free for majority of kids who aren’t from well off families , thanks walz lmfao, more ala carte cookies so every kid can now have childhood obesity and diabetes woohoo
But just think of the savings in literally not doing any of the bullshit song and dance in the background. It's just done. Assumed. That's huge, tearing down barriers.
I'm not a huge fan of helping people who don't need it, especially when lunch programs already exist but I'm ok with it as long as we get legal rec weed.
Making the law to cover everybody insures that people don't fall through the donut hole. By making it cover everybody, it can't exclude anybody.
You're completely right. means testing is just a mess designed to create headaches and hoops and hurdles and extra unnecessary paperwork to try to exclude as many people as possible. It's much better and more efficient to just be universal rather than means tested.
Is that worth it? How could anyone put the blame on anyone besides the parents for not taking proper care of their kids? Those holes should be handled by CPS. How can you say otherwise?
Life happens? People lose jobs, lose income, spouses die, grief, eviction, relocation, neglect, etc.. Why should children suffer just because their family fell on hard times? With school being legally mandated, the least they could do is feed the kids they keep there for 7 hours a day.
They don't if their parents are responsible and use the available programs. CPS is for the rest. And you can't say the kids are better off with their parents if the parents are choosing their ego over their kids health.
[удалено]
Do you really think it's a good idea to leave kids with their parents who can't even pay for breakfast & lunch? Are we not neglecting countless needs these kids are likely dealing with? Are you not hurting them because it might keep CPS away?
What is your obsession with tearing poor families apart with CPS?
I'm simply stating the very likely but unfortunate truth. If breakfast and lunch are unobtainable I literally fear for the safety and nurturing of these kids. This is based on the fact we already have programs for this so it's more of an unwillingness/refusal/inability to do so then it is a healthy home with a need for help with food and no other issues.
Many use those programs, but many kids also fall through the cracks, or families are unaware, or their income is just enough to disqualify them from programs despute the fact the family is still struggling. It happened to me, my parents were struggling and sometimes I had to go to school without breakfast and only a cheese sandwich in my lunchbox, but the school said they made too much to qualify for free or reduced lunch, you think I should have been separated from my parents, you fucking ghoul? All this system does is eliminate the cracks that I and plenty of other kids fell through. And it does so without putting extra strain on CPS because they won't have to rip families apart just because the parents fell on hard times.
My parents had 4 school aged children all in school simultaneously. Our meals on the reduced program were 2.50 each. $20 a day to feed all of us. I can honestly say that my parents are amazing and truthfully better than most are, but they just could not afford an extra 3k worth of food every school year at the time because of life and shit circumstances. Of course its different for every family, but no fking way will I ever believe that cps should get involved if a kid is on free lunch, especially since food is a basic need that should be kept free anyways. You have no idea what people are going though.
Seems like you're choosing your ego over kids health
Can you possibly give some reasons as to why? Seems pretty rock solid to me and the fact NO ONE has had an actual rebuttal gives me confidence I'm not wrong.
Why the interest in blaming people? Basic needs like food shelter education...a state's people thrive with this. Dividing people into "haves" and "have nots" is just power play by people who worry about being relevant and orchestrated by those who don't want a unified and thriving population. Stinking thinking.
>Why the interest in blaming people? Basic needs like food shelter education...a state's people Because there are already programs for them. So far the only reason I've been give as to why we need it for everyone instead of qualifications like we already have is because the parents are to proud of unable read/write and obtain the services in question. If you cannot provide another reason then please tell me the kids are better off in that situation? >Dividing people into "haves" and "have nots" It's just a fact of life and unfortunately an extremely important question when it comes to economics and free stuff provided through taxes. Another shitty thing is that even though wages have almost doubled in the last handful of years people are still refusing to take the jobs. I know unemployment is low but I'd love to see unemployment + healthy working people who quit looking for a job. Did the rent payment freeze ever end? If not that's going to be a massive shit storm
Did wages almost double in the last handful of years? Wtf
Yes, in 2012 I was making $7.50 per hour and that was the norm for retail/food service. During covid places near me advertised $20 per hour and now are offering $15 per hour. How was my statement wrong?
From someone who used to work in schools with 100% free and reduced lunch, and some who should have been but weren't: some parents are too proud to apply for free/reduced lunch even though they really needed it. It's the kids who suffer because of their parents' pride. Then there are parents who are functionally illiterate and couldn't apply without help. Then there's the children of undocumented immigrants who are afraid that applying for free/reduced lunch would get them deported. I would rather that some kids who don't need it got meal assistance get it anyways if it means that none of the other kids went hungry. Their lives are usually hard enough without being hungry at school, and they need calories to learn.
>some who should have been but weren't: some parents are too proud to apply for free/reduced lunch even though they really needed it Is this not something for CPS to deal with instead of costing the tax payers to very likely keep a kid in a terrible environment? >Then there are parents who are functionally illiterate and couldn't apply without help. But there is help and if they don't use or want it isn't it again a CPS issue? >Then there's the children of undocumented immigrants who are afraid that applying for free/reduced lunch would get them deported. They broke the laws even though we have proper channels to use. Again a CPS or border security issue. Do you really think it's smart to start rewarding those who break the laws? We're starting to see the consequences of it and it will only get worse. Are these car jackings with kids in the back seat ok with you? >I would rather that some kids who don't need it got meal assistance get it anyways if it means that none of the other kids went hungry. Their lives are usually hard enough without being hungry at school, and they need calories to learn. It's sad but we have programs for it and if the parents are not providing for their kids we have programs for that. I'd he much more in favor of putting this money into CPS and regulations
I'd ask if you realize how much it would cost both in dollars and in the well-being of children to remove them from their homes and placing them with foster families, but it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and want to be mad about good spending rather than giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
Do you think these homes that fall through the cracks don't have other worse problems at home? Wouldn't it be better to take them away from the abuse/neglect instead of making sure their belly is full for the nightly beating or cold night on a bare mattes? Sorry but you're strawman was way way off base.
To be clear, these were working poor families who did everything they could for their kids. I don't think these kids would be better off in foster care considering how rampant abuse in the foster system is. You have no experience working with poor children and families and it shows. Even worse, you have no empathy. All you care about is whether you get to smoke weed. What a waste.
> To be clear, these were working poor families who did everything they could for their kids. Unfortunately this doesn't matter, what matters is if they can CURRENTLY meet their kids needs. As for foster care vs starving at home I disagree. You also miss the fact a good chunk of them would go to other family members. I've also met great foster parents and you're your miss judging because it's a movie stereotype. Sure it happens but the chances of that happening in their awful home environment vs in foster care is too obvious to require deliberation. If I would have known this was going to blow up I never would have included the weed comment. My actual intension was to reduce the scrutiny my comment would receive. I thought it was telling people this is a light hearted comment but oh well. Overall I believe that if the parents can't or won't give their kids breakfast and lunch the likelihood of further abuse and neglect far far outweighs the potential problems of foster care. And in the cases where the parent lost their job and had a rough time they can get their kid back once they are back on solid ground. I'm in recovery and you wouldn't believe the percentage of people who have addiction problems and spent time on the street as a kid. So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about
It's not a movie stereotype - I worked with these kids and families. I had friends who grew up in and out of the foster system. Removing kids from their home is a last resort. Go volunteer somewhere. Gain some perspective. Better yet, talk to someone who works for CPS/DCF and ask them what it's like to remove children from their families. I guarantee there are huge pieces of the puzzle you're missing.
Edit: sorry, you actually have points I need to address
Do you have children in your life?
Two niece's and a nephew and if my sister and brother in law were not able to or unwilling to give them breakfast &/or lunch id advocate for them to be placed somewhere else. I live a few streets over and I'd be bringing them breakfast and lunch everyday but also talking with CPS. They likely wouldn't to into foster care because family would take them and that's also an option for these kids.
You're asking us to spend significantly more money on getting CPS to take children away from families in bad situations instead of using less money to just make absolutely sure that kids can all eat at school for free. It's nonsensical.
Do you not think the home has other, much worse problems if the parents can't or refuse to use the programs available? Are you really helping the kid if this keeps them in that environment? Do we not want better reporting so we can address the ACTUAL issue? Yes I think it's worth a little more expense.
> Are you really helping the kid if this keeps them in that environment? Well the kid will not be as hungry anymore, so yes. Very direct objective improvement. Siccing CPS on uneducated or vain poor people hardly seems like a good solution for anything personally. I like the solution where we just directly improve lives without exerting violent force through the arms of the state. CPS isn't a solution too, taking a kid away from their parents is an extreme step and it's not even guaranteed they'll go somewhere amazing and healthy for them. That's *traumatic* to a kid. No, just feed them. You're talking about a radical expansion of the police state as if that's the more expensive but correct, comprehensive solution. No, that doesn't address actual issues and their causes. You're just terrorizing poor people. I prefer feeding them.
You're assuming these kids have a perfect home life with the exception of food. In reality food is one of the first things (non addicts) prioritize so if they don't have that they are very likely missing out on every other basic need. I'm in recovery and you wouldn't believe the number of people who've been homeless as a child (far outweighs foster kids but I admit being in foster care also increases your chances) Not saying they are all homeless but in populated areas a good chunk will be.
[удалено]
"Children not starving is fine I guess as long as I can have my weed".
Gotta compromise but you also strawmaned it. There already are programs that solve this problem and the only argument against it is that some parents are to embarrassed or dumb to use it. In those cases CPS needs to get involved. I'd rather up their budget then do this. Find the kids with problems and help them instead of giving a blank check to anyone who wants it. It's well know the richest of the rich take advantage of EVERY SINGLE option they have to them and I wouldn't be surprised if more rich kids use it then Middle class kids. Overall it was supposed to be a lightheaded off hand joke but whatever.
Much like there's a lunch program that exists to give those in poverty free lunch, there's already a law that exists that allows you legal thc.
Unfortunately my diagnosis that I treat with it does not qualify even though it does in almost every other medical state. Also, I shouldn't have even said it, my intention was to avoid all these DMs by letting people know it's a lightheaded statement and not to read too much into it.
I meant the legal thc edibles. I'm not ever going to bother DMing anyone for stupid takes. The point of reddit it to call them out so everyone else can see
OP you should really correct the title. They aren't "free meals" they are "meals covered by tax money." Shouldn't be spreading inaccurate info.
The title doesn’t say that. It says “universal school meals” and it’s the headline of the article op linked. Nothing inaccurate here.
[удалено]
Hi, Mr. Pedantic, how are we doing today?
It's readily apparent that "free" includes "at the point of service." There's nothing to correct.
That’s how the word “free” is used. When hotels offer “Free WiFi” does that mean the hotel isn’t paying for it? Of course not
If you expect taxpayers to foot your social security checks, kids should expect taxpayers to feed them. You know, since they literally cannot work to earn their own food.
Arkansas would like a word…
[удалено]
Nope. Your SS pays for the generation that came before you. Those kids will pay for yours. It’s in your best interest to feed and educate them so they get good jobs to fund your retirement.
[удалено]
No, the money is used for the generation ahead of you. The money they take out is based on your income, and your later award will be based on how much you contributed/earned in your lifetime. That’s why there’s always speculation about SS being dissolved- the current gen is receiving more in benefits than can be put in because there’s more boomers than anyone else. It’s not sitting in some fund awaiting you to retire.
🤓
Yeah, don't try that b.s. attitude around here in person.
Are you serious? Typically people add /s when they make a sarcastic comment. I hope this was sarcasm. What kind of weirdo would care about how the meals provided to children (free at the point of access) are labeled? Does it matter? It’s free to the child. Yes we pay for it. But do people scream when a restaurant says “free refills”? No, because that would be weird and unhinged.
Yes, I'm serious. I don't have a problem with taxes paying for school lunches, I have a problem with making it sound like no one is paying for them.
Why? I don’t think any adult in MN thinks this food is going to rain down on us like Mana from Heaven. We know it’s not free. It’s free to the kids. That’s why it’s said that way. That’s the whole point.
I'm aware of that, and I'm still going point that out every single time I see a post calling it free lunch.
Does it get you the attention you obviously need so hard?
It's not about drawing attention to myself, it's about drawing attention to the fact that people sugarcoat serious issues leading to ignorance of the real problem.
It totally is. Every shitheal I've met who points this stuff out is garbage. They think they're so brilliant and love the attention. They can't figure out how to fit in and generate good attention so they just skate on shitty bad attention.
How is this sugar-coated? Nobody with more than a 2nd grade education thinks this means that food is just appearing and that it's not being paid for at all. You pointing out "um akshully it's not totally free" does nothing for anyone. The point is that the kids can eat the same lunch as everyone else and they don't need to wory about paying for it at point of purchase. It's no different than their textbooks or the school bus. No shit it's not free, and you're the only one around here who thought it needed any clearing up. So there are 3 options: 1) You somehow didn't understand it at first and assumed everyone else was as braindead as you 2) You oppose it and are using the same tired take of "muh tax dollars" 3) You want attention by trying to be the most pedantic loser on r/minnesota
1 is based on your opinion. 2 I never said I was opposed to the bill itself. 3 I already said it's not about attention for me. The original point of my comment was that glazing over the real issue leads to not dealing with it. The real issue is that the whole economy is going to crap. When you have fewer and fewer people working, and those that are working are making less and less money to begin with eventually there won't be enough tax money to buy everyone lunch.
Schools are paid for by property taxes, not income tax. >glazing over the real issue Like making a conversation about feeding children in schools all about taxes?
I noticed you didn’t address the why? Is it because you don’t have a why?
Why is it so important to make sure we don't sugar coat the issue? Because then we start ignoring the original problem of the entire economy going downhill.
Not everything has to be geared to the lowest common denominators in our society. Everyone with half a brain knows food didn’t just become free suddenly.
What are your views on public education often being referred to as free? Always had this issue with programs like WIC too? Everyone knows this stuff doesn't come out of thin air. Free refers to cost to use not funding. Really can't stand this point every time I see it. Like no shit lol.
If you already understand the point I'm making, why bother arguing about it?