this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
443 points (98.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7237 readers
559 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhcmrlchtdj__@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

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

[–] Glaive0@beehaw.org 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So when do you think they’ll apply “If any, then none” logic to corporate lobbying, campaign finances, …guns?

Never? Oh, really then.

The suffering is the point.

[–] FirstCircle@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

corporate lobbying, campaign finances, …guns

And the military-industrial-complex, which is sort of all-of-the-above, yeah. It's got waste, corruption, criminality (see Boeing), and "bad finance" (meaning public debt finance of any sort) from top to bottom, through and through, yet Republicans can't get enough of it. Starving a kid is fighting "socialism", but starving a socialized military or a ~~defense~~ offense contractor of a penny .... now that can't be tolerated.

[–] VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Republicans: Want people to have more children

Also Republicans: Hey let's make it harder for people to care for the children they have

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 8 months ago

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!

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

"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."

TIL that a middle class family benefiting from the tax dollars they pay for is 'fraud'. Since the rich pay no taxes, they have no right to tell us what to do with our own tax dollars. Simple as. Plus, it's FOOD in the US, we grow so much that NOT diverting some of the extra crops to school lunches is pure waste.

I thought universal meant everyone was entitled it it.

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 8 months ago

I thought this already happened five or six times over already?

None of the schools I went to had that. And no sane person would've wanted to eat that food unless they were starving and hadn't eaten in 4 weeks.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›