And When Did It Become The Job Of the Public School To Feed Needy Children?

Just recently, I posted this article, "High School Drops Michelle Obama's 'healthy' lunch program. Here's how that's working out." on the ROPE2.0 Facebook page with the following comment:

Here's my favorite line of the whole article,"And what’s more, the program stopped losing money, despite forgoing federal subsidies." You don't think that would happen for EVERYTHING if we'd just cut the dang cord and get off the federal government teat? I'm pretty sure it would!

This post was viewed 2,447 times, making it one of the highest read articles on our page in a week. Why?

PEOPLE ARE SICK OF BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO ALL THEY WAY DOWN TO WHAT THEY EAT AT SCHOOL. This is part of the reason for President Trump's victory. You can treat people like cattle for a while, feeding them all the same slop, but once they catch on that they're all cattle being fed the same slop, they pine for their individuality and freedom to eat their own kind of slop.

Unfortunately, 12.2 MILLION kids per day now rely on the government for breakfast thanks to Michelle Obama's public school meal initiative. This makes me ultimately angry because - as with ALL government programs - once they start, it is nearly impossible to get rid of them!

Even here in Oklahoma, OklahomaWatch felt the need to detail how schools forego the millions attached to school meal programs without mentioning schools like the one in Pennsylvania who found it cheaper to feed kids on their own dime than by subscribing to all the bureaucratic nonsense that came along with the money.

OklahomaWatch writer Jennifer Palmer says, 

"In 17 states, more than half of eligible school districts provided universal free lunch in the 2015-16 school year, including major districts like Dallas and New Orleans. In Oklahoma, 15 percent of districts did, ranking the state fifth lowest in the country, according to a report by Food Research and Action Center and another national nonprofit.

The money left on the table is significant. Oklahoma schools forfeited $17 million in federal funds last year, reports Hunger Free Oklahoma, an advocacy group that formed in December." 

Then, of course, following the notation that Oklahoma is (yet again) 5th lowest (in something) in the nation, Palmer throws down the universal public school administrator quote, "we gotta spend money because of the kids":

Students who are hungry can't focus on learning, educators say. So when schools are held accountable for academic performance, they must first fulfill students' basic needs, said Randy Harris, superintendent of Wagoner Public Schools."

Okay, well, call me crazy, but I thought parents were supposed to provide for the BASIC NEEDS of their children. Of course, no, some don't, but that's NOT when the state steps in, that's when churches and non-profits step in.

I find it unrelentingly ironic that OklahomaWatch cites no less than TWO non-profits who have jumped into the fray with RESEARCH telling governments that students need to eat and states need to take federal money to provide that food. Okay, well where are YOU Mr. and Mrs. NON-PROFIT? Why are you doing RESEARCH and NOT FEEDING CHILDREN? Doesn't that bother anyone else's sensibilities?'

It should, because that's exactly how things are done in America today. Many non-profits exist simply to do research to tell governments how to either take money from the feds for a program or how a state can take more money from taxpayers to create a program. They DON'T spend time SOLVING THE PROBLEMS they research how to get other people to pay for them. How stupid.

Also attached to the OklahomaWatch article is a commenter who accuses another individual commenting on the story of being un-Christian in his response - which was merely to point out that lots of poor people take advantage of numerous different services that provide crossover in nutrition. Well, here's the thing, JESUS NEVER TOLD GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. God told individuals through the CHURCH to solve problems.

In Leviticus (23:22), for instance, is a passage that says,

“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the Lord your God.’”

Clearly, if you want to invoke religion, God's clear call was that the community should meet the needs of the hungry out of duty, not because the government forces you to provide money for a program they create and subsequently mismanage.

Other legitimate questions that could be asked regarding nutritional programming in public schools include:

• Aren't these families already getting subsistence assistance from the state? If so, why should schools be tasked with adding to that assistance?
• Feed The Children, The Food Bank and other PRIVATELY subsidized organizations provide food to needy families. Where does this food go? Lunches cannot be made at home and taken to school? If not, why do these privately-subsidized organizations not provide DIRECTLY TO SCHOOLS instead of via the USDA and other GOVERNMENT organizations?
• Why is GOVERNMENT the go-to for feeding students?
• Why can't community churches or non-profits be tasked with providing meals for students in THEIR COMMUNITY'S SCHOOLS? Why should this be done at a governmental level?
• Why is no one at the State Department of Education offering these type solutions as the norm?

Clearly, more schools and communities could take lessons from Indiahoma Church who opened its doors to kids without places to go when Indahoma Public Schools chose to close for one day a week to save money. Instead of leaving the kids without a parent at home to their own devices, the church coordinated a MonDay Camp where kids come to the church where they are able to take part in education - and spiritual - activities.

Indiahoma kids are now happy, with constructive activities on the day they are out of school and Indahoma Church members have used the talents God gave them to help their community.

There is simply nothing better than a local solution to a local problem and Indahoma proves that - no matter how much money is "on the table" or what our state superintendent thinks.