If Republicans can stomp down on a vulnerable population, they’re going to do it. Or at least, they’re going to try. And in today’s world, that includes letting hungry kids and teenagers stay hungry if it means punishing low-income parents in some way. As Daily Kos has covered in the past, we’ve seen instances where public school systems have tried to handle school lunch “debt” by barring students from activities like prom, field trips, and buying yearbooks. We’ve even seen a school threaten parents with sending their children into the foster system over unpaid school lunches.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, parents and guardians got a bit of relief thanks to a federal universal free lunch program. But after that program expired, states were on their own to figure out how to feed hungry students amid supply chain issues and an ongoing pandemic.
So, it makes sense that so many voters showed up to the polls and voted in favor of Proposition FF, a universal free lunch program, at least in Colorado. As called by the Associated Press, per NPR, a nice 55% of Colorado voters supported a ballot measure to offer free meals to all public school students, regardless of income level. This change is certain to offer relief to countless families. And how are they affording it? Taxing the super-rich.
RELATED: Republicans introduce a bill to make it a felony to perform drag shows in Tennessee
The state will increase taxes on the richest taxpayers in the state (in this case, folks making more than $300,000 per year) with an ultimate goal of getting $100 million a year to support public schools in paying for these meals. Specifically, folks in that $300,000 and above bracket will see their taxable income increase because their state deductions will have new limits.
The measure really seeks to resolve structural issues, too, at least in the cafeteria. Some of the funds raised via the measure will cover costs related to staff shortages and offer better pay for cafeteria workers. Who, just like school teachers and coaches, are essentially at the frontlines of the pandemic without an option to work remotely.
Interestingly, lawmakers decided to put the measure up for public vote instead of trying to pass this effort through the legislature. The measure only needed 50% of the vote to pass and came in at an impressive 55% for it, with 45% opposed.
Who could possibly be against feeding hungry kids? Conservatives, sure. But it’s not that simple. Plenty of folks do think that the current free lunch program is just fine and that kids whose families exceed those income limits need to be responsible for their own bagged lunches or lunch money. But given how many families are living paycheck to paycheck, it’s a reality that adults might technically not qualify for aid and still have the costs of daily lunches be a burden, especially if there are multiple students in the family at the same time.
There are also always people who qualify for aid but don’t apply out of feelings of shame or principle. There’s also the reality that paperwork and applications, in general, can be difficult and stressful if you’re, for example, not fluent in the language, don’t have a permanent address, or often have temporary or transitional living situations.
Will some kids end up eating “for free” even if their families make more than enough? Sure. I think that’s safe to say. But if it means everyone knows they’ll have reliable access to meals at school—and a far reduced chance of being bullied or ostracized or hungry—that’s fine by me.