On Wednesday, the Republican Study Committee, of which some three-quarters of House Republicans are members, released its 2025 budget entitled “Fiscal Sanity to Save America.” Tucked away in the 180-page austerity manifesto is a block of text concerned with a crucial priority for the party: ensuring children aren’t being fed at school.

Eight states offer all students, regardless of household income, free school meals — and more states are trending in the direction. But while people across the country move to feed school children, congressional Republicans are looking to stop the cause.

Republicans however view the universal version of the policy as fundamentally wasteful. The “school lunch and breakfast programs are subject to widespread fraud and abuse,” reads the RSC’s proposed yearly budget, quoting a report from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. The Cato report blames people who may “improperly” redeem free lunches, even if they are technically above the income cutoff levels. The “fraudulence” the think tank is concerned about is not some shadowy cabals of teachers systematically stealing from the school lunch money pot: It’s students who are being fed, even if their parents technically make too much to benefit from the program. In other words, Republicans’ opposition to the program is based on the assumption that people being “wrongly” fed at school is tantamount to abusive waste.

Not to be confused as completely frugal, the Republicans call to finish construction of border wall projects proposed by former President Donald Trump. And not to be confused as focused, the budget includes the word “woke” 37 times.

3 points

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The program thus relieves both schools and families from administrative paperwork, removing the inefficiencies and barriers of means-testing, all on the pathway to feeding more children and lifting all boats.

The “school lunch and breakfast programs are subject to widespread fraud and abuse,” reads the RSC’s proposed yearly budget, quoting a report from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

The “fraudulence” the think tank is concerned about is not some shadowy cabals of teachers systematically stealing from the school lunch money pot: It’s students who are being fed, even if their parents technically make too much to benefit from the program.

Its annual budget is not binding, but it does offer a useful window into conservatives’ policy priorities, which can best be summarized as accelerating the planet’s burning, an indifference to mass shootings, and actively threatening consumers and workers.

On reproductive rights, Republicans call for the passage of an array of anti-choice bills, like Tennessee Rep. Andy Ogles’s “Ending Chemical Abortions Act of 2023,” which would federally outlaw the use of abortion pills, and West Virginia Rep. Alex Mooney’s “Life at Conception Act,” which would designate embryos made through in vitro fertilization as being alive — even as many of the same Republicans have scrambled to claim they support IVF in the aftermath of a similar Alabama Supreme Court ruling that led multiple clinics to halt IVF procedures.

Other Republican budget priorities include eliminating all future funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to Palestinian refugees; prohibiting federal subsidies for high-speed rail; getting rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; reducing funding for the famously under-supported Occupational Safety and Health Administration; and eliminating the National Labor Relations Board, which, under President Joe Biden, has done much to protect workers’ right to organize.


The original article contains 1,331 words, the summary contains 297 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

permalink
report
reply
55 points

So they punish the poor for the actions of the rich. Yep, that makes sense.

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

The rich lower middle class and up aren’t doing anything wrong here. They’re being offered free lunch and their kids are accepting it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I’d rather all get free lunch if they want it. I’m just simplifying their “logic” in my other post. That even if you accept it at face value, it’s dumb as fuck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Experts on defrauding public services offer insight that public services are easily defrauded but are mum on any solutions that would make it harder to defraud public services. The math maths.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

That’s because the problem from their perspective is that the people who would defraud public services exist, and their rage is high enough that they accept the people who simply use public services as collateral damage.

Bah, who am I kidding… They don’t care about humans. They’re just interested in that money going towards private businesses (Especially if they have a generous lobbyist from and/or stake in said business or industry)

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The problem is that any system that involves humans will have some level of waste and corruption. So they will always be able to point to that one kid who got a lunch he wasn’t supposed to as a sign that the whole system should be destroyed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

You don’t want to invest in stopping fraud here. The investment costs more than you’d get back, no one is making bank stealing free school lunch. We conceded this before and made life worse for millions of people.

You do want to invest in stopping corporate fraud, because the investments pay off there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The investment costs more than you’d get back.

It’s a public service, what you get for your investment is the health of the public not lining for your pockets. If the only incentive in stopping fraud is profit then we’re fucked since it’s more profitable to perpetuate the fraud than to end it.

It isn’t the recipients of the free lunch that make bank, it’s the ones that are given a contract, subsidy or grant to provide them that do. All you have to do is be willing to provide a substandard service and any costs that are saved can be folded back into private hands.

Please, be less naive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Cheat Sheet:

Is it good? Republicans will want to ban it.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

They only succeed through misery, then blame it on those who suffer the most when that misery come to pass

permalink
report
reply

United States | News & Politics

!usa@lemmy.ml

Create post

Community stats

  • 4.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.1K

    Posts

  • 32K

    Comments