As a kid, I remember my father working hard at his own construction business, but the business collapsed and we went bankrupt, rapidly sliding from middle class to low income, something that many of today's families in Arizona are experiencing.
My parents divorced, and my mother started working as a secretary while raising four children on her own.
As an eighth-grader, I could get two essential and healthy meals a day from the National School Lunch Program. This helped to ease the burden on my mother, as the program does with millions of other parents.
Right now we have a budget surplus in Arizona, at the cost of record cuts to schools in the last few years.
This legislative session, it's time to draw the line at any further cuts to our kids' schools.
Instead, Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, is introducing divisive legislation that would harm kids in situations similar to mine growing up.
His bill, SB 1061, would place an undue burden on low-income families and their kids by making it optional for schools to participate in the National School Lunch Program, rather than requiring them to do so, as current state law says.
The benefits to participating in the School Lunch Program are overwhelming. For every meal served, schools get reimbursed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and reimbursements are higher for free or reduced-price lunches than for fully paid meals. For some children, this is their best, and perhaps only, meal of the day.
Should Crandall's bill pass, schools that opt out of the school lunch program will no longer provide free or reduced-price meals to low-income students.
The outcome is predictable: Fewer meals for kids mean underserved students, less energy and concentration in the classroom, and lower academic achievement.
Kids whose parents were laid off through no fault of their own and are still unemployed during the recession might not be able to move and transfer their son or daughter to a new school that retained the lunch program.
Tea party lawmakers already have cut $1.5 billion from our schools in recent years, and now Crandall is targeting Arizona's most vulnerable population - kids whose best meal is often the free or reduced-priced lunch they get at school.
During a committee hearing, Crandall reportedly said that he was "not worried about what will happen to the affected children."
These are not the kind of policies we want for our kids. We want our students to be energetic and focused in the classroom so they can achieve their academic goals and compete in the global economy.
Crandall's bill directly blocks kids' paths to a better future.
We should be helping our schools and students improve and help families recover from the recession, not making it harder for them.
Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, represents District 16 at the Arizona Legislature.
Rich posted at 6:24 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
Actually Ruben, we the taxpayers, pay for a department called 'Child Protective Services', if what you say is true: ' For some children, this is their best, and perhaps only, meal of the day.' Well you see that's why we pay for CPS and pay a fortune for it, to make sure this isn't the case. Now I realize that, even though the state is well short of funds, you've manufactured, with your fellow reps, something that looks like a surplus, and you are itching to find a way to get it into your friend's pockets. Please pick something less transparent as well as within shouting distance of reality.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:59 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
Ruben: My problem is that since we citizens are FORCED by the Federal government to educate children that are ILLEGAL ALIENS. Having to feed them also is like placing salt on an open wound.
There should be a requirement that BEFORE anyone receives ANY KIND of Federal or State assistance, they should have to prove the are CITIZENS FIRST! Those funds are suppose to go to OUR citizens, not a bunch of CRIMINAL FOREIGN NATIONALS. I'd bet that if the enforced that idea, you'd have a huge surplus in a MYRIAD of ways.
Rational Human posted at 9:22 pm on Sun, Jan 22, 2012.
What ever happened to that kook who would always try to argue that the recession was due to the start of illegal alien deportations that began under Bush baby? I kind of miss his rambling nonsense. Wouldn't be a problem feeding these students if we could just get the criminal element out. I'll bet Rep. Ruben Gallego was dead set against allowing us to require all students show where they were born so that we could at least get a handle on how many illegal aliens education we are paying for. It's would be interesting to cross reference that figure with students receiving free lunches. I have a feeling this legislation will cause further hardships on illegal aliens and cause even more to cross over to Calimexico. Getting harder and harder to be a criminal demanding free lunches.
asuaguila posted at 12:50 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Everyone who lives in Arizona pays taxes. It's impossible to not pay taxes in a state which draws the majority of its revenue from sales tax. Thus all children are entitled to this service. The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that households that are headed by undocumented immigrants (which may include members who are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants) paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes last year. That included $1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes and $8.4 billion in sales taxes.
Rational Human posted at 7:21 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Undocumented is illegal and criminal and deserves no entitlements at all. That we do give them anything is a aspect of the neurosis called liberalism/socialism that has taken control of this country. I don't care how much tax the sneaky little cockroaches paid. They should never have been given jobs to begin with. They should only be entitled to a one way ticket back to their country of origin.
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:36 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
@asuaguila: Do really think that Day laborers or those ILLEGAL ALIENS that have stolen a citizen's ID pay personal income tax? Further, since they are ILLEGAL ALIENS, technically they can't buy a home, so therefore don't pay property tax. And don't claim that those that rent pay it! WRONG! The person that owns said property pays it. If no one rents there, the tax still gets paid.
As for those persons that assist ILLEGAL ALIENS by being in the same household, all the are doing is assisting ILLEGAL ALIENS to break our laws, and therefore are just as bad as the CRIMINALS they harbor.
renew21 posted at 9:02 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
asuaguilar, the thing you miss here is that even if they do pay taxes, and are illegal, they are doing so on a stolen identity. This is fraud, another criminal act. I know because it happened to me.
If these families are unemployed, they are on welfare, food stamps, and receive unemployment "benefits". Now not all, but some are buying alcohol, cigarettes, and even drugs, entertainment, and gambling with these "benefits" instead of taking care of their children's and families needs. They know the schools will feed their kids and embeds a mentality of entitlements and unproductiveness. Rep Gallego is one of those who thinks government knows best, should take care of us all, harm and take from others in a socialist fashion. I would not be surprised if he is in favor of La Raza's views.
sockratties posted at 9:22 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Would the comments responding to this commentary have been the same if the author’s name had been Duffy, or Stewart? I think not. The commentary is about an actual bill that will give each school district the choice of rather to opt out of the school lunch program, which is a money issue, more for some districts than others. The cost of the lunch program evidently comes out of each budget, not from a central funding. Unfortunately schools that will need to opt out are more likely to be those that most benefit from it.. The school lunch program is a national program that states may opt into and is not part of CPS.
While children of illegal aliens may sometimes use these programs, just as children of bank robbers, muggers, gang members, and white collar thieves, the bill is about the school lunch program, not about if hungry children have parents that are breaking the law. If they shouldn’t be in the school at all; that’s another issue and often one talked about here.
That rambling kook is Leon. He tends to make everything about illegal immigration, mixing issues so they can’t be examined intelligently or objectively. Of course if he gets far enough off of the subject, he doesn’t have to address it. He only has to talk about his pet topics. Throw in a little stereotyping and some name-calling and the job is done.
Should this bill be passed? I don't know all the pros and cons. Unfortunately the only opinion I have been able to find, in this column, that address the merits of this bill are those of the author. I have a problem with the inequalities of the school districts that would force poorer ones to opt out while those least in need would have no problem.
Rich posted at 10:47 am on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
"Would the comments responding to this commentary have been the same if the author’s name had been Duffy, or Stewart?"
Mine would have been.
"The school lunch program is a national program that states may opt into and is not part of CPS."
Therein lies the problem with massive ineffectual bureaucracy. I pay for CPS to be sure children aren't mistreated, don't go hungry, and, oops, there's a federal program over here, not part of CPS, so the kids go hungry and my money goes for big salaries and cadillac benefits for people who aren't doing what the taxpayer is allegedly paying them to do. Meanwhile, Ruben and friends figure ways we should pay twice and three times for the same thing so the money slides into their pockets. And, of course, it isn't real money, Obama is borrowing it from our great grandchildren.
Ruben is isolating one thing, making it extreme and absurd in that there are no less than eighteen government programs to be sure a child gets fed, and this all makes sense? To who? This is waste and the money sort of oozes it's way into private pockets and politicians, with any surname at all who play this irrational, emotional game are inherently con men and corrupt, it's just too bad we let this con man play with our lives, make him grand marshal of a parade or something to occupy his time.
Rational Human posted at 3:26 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Sockrattle,
If, as Rep. Ruben Gallego says, schools get reimbursed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and reimbursements are higher for free or reduced-price lunches than for fully paid meals, tell us why poorer school districts would opt out? I suspect this may just be a way for richer districts to control the inflow of poor families children into their schools. Force the poor kids into schools that wont opt out.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 5:03 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Well, they sure have been "editing" me out a lot. Is this the East Valley times or the Phoenic Newd Times ???
Oh well, the California Liberals control the Arizona Newspaper and TV Media so I guess I will just say my piece and if they think it makes too much sense then they can erase me....lol.
Now that I have done my ....."EDITORIALIZING" (is that a word...if not it should be....).
Let's get back to the issue at hand..........the National School Lunch Program Czar has some new mandates coming in July 2012 if not earlier.
1. The cost of reimburstment for a meal must be matched by the school for what they charge for the same exact meal.
2. If the National School Lunch Program Czar says that a US Government provided School Lunch is reimbursed to the School for $2.75 then the School must charge "ALL" students the same.
3. If a School calculates that a School Lunch only costs $1.75 or $2.00 and charges accordingly...."NOW"....IT WILL HAVE TO RAISE IT'S PRICE TO MATCH WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS REIMBURSING.
4. Many Arizona Schools have only 5%-10% of their Students eligible for the US Govenment Free Lunch Program so that means that .....90%-95% OF THE NON-ELIGIBLE STUDENTS WILL HAVE TO PAY........................M.O.R.E.
Does that make sense to you....having the MAJORITY of Students suffer for the MINORITY.
Oh, and by the way....most of the ....MINORITY.....are Illegal Alien Students from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatamala....BUT UNDER OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.....UNITED STATES CITIZEN STUDENTS MUST BE PUNISHED FINANCIALLY SO THAT.........ILLEGAL ALIEN STUDENTS CAN GET A FREE LUNCH......................WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO AMERICA....FOLKS...WHAT HAS HAPPENED ???
Rational Human posted at 9:17 pm on Mon, Jan 23, 2012.
Very interesting facts Leon. Be careful of too much truth. Newspapers hate too much truth. So, Rep. Ruben Gallego is a liar when he says schools get reimbursed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and reimbursements are higher for free or reduced-price lunches than for fully paid meals?
sockratties posted at 6:31 am on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
Leon-- interesting comment but only pseudo facts... you shouldn't mislead RH like that.
[Oh, and by the way....most of the ....MINORITY.....are Illegal Alien Students from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala....]
Okay Leon, prove it with facts; not conjecture, ranting, grandstanding and name-calling. “Most of the ‘minority’ (your words so identify the minority) would mean more than half of a number you allude to” so there must be a way for this Republican controlled state congress to “weed them out.” Yet you blame Democrats for the problem while trying to shift the subject to your favorite topic AGAIN. RH is right about the "KOOK" thing.
The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act is a United States federal law signed by President Harry S. Truman in 1946. The act created the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), a program to provide low-cost or free school lunch meals to qualified students through subsidies to schools. The program was established as a way to prop up food prices by absorbing farm surpluses, while at the same time providing food to school age children.
You should be a fan of Senator Russell, as he was a strong opponent of the civil rights movement during his 40 years in congress and a founder of the conservative coalition. Of course he was a southern Democrat so that would put your knickers in a bind.
Cerulean posted at 10:36 am on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
“Does that make sense to you....having the MAJORITY of Students suffer for the MINORITY.”
Oh Leon, I have read that the majority of U.S. citizens are God FEARING and that **charity is one expression of that fact. Now you say the majority are ‘suffering’ because they are asked to pay 25 cents more to help cover the cost of feeding the poor and the farmer? ??
Oh – and now we hear that *charity is only applies to U.S. citizens.
It sounds like schools may have been charging poor children more for lunch than the average student body for the purpose of receiving more from the Fed to subsidize - - administrative salaries?
“His bill, SB 1061, would place an undue burden on low-income families and their kids by making it optional for schools to participate in the National School Lunch Program, rather than requiring them to do so, as current state law says.” Rep. Gallego
I think it is very doubtful that every school has a *need to participate in the School Lunch Program. So, it could be that the Fed is paying for the lunches of children who are not in need. Is there a test of sorts to determine need? If so then all schools should, at the very least, provide lunch assistance to those who truly need – even if they are not legal citizens!
VofReason posted at 1:38 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
Let me break down the story for you. Our friend Rep Gallego's father should have been sent to a debtors prison and made to work long hours to pay for the upbringing of his kids. No one wants to see kids go hungry, but the people who should pay should be held accountable. I love the old it's like free money because the USDA pays for it reasoning. Last I checked, they are paying with a credit card that is about to bounce. This is what the "D"s don't get. Money doesn't fall from the sky and just need a smart demorat to figure out how to spend it. It is a scarce resource and ultimately someone has to pay
Rich posted at 3:35 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
VofR
The program is basically a farm subsidy program in which the government buys food to support the price. The problem being we have the capacity to over produce food big time and bankrupt all our farmers. It makes sense and properly administrated works several advantageous ways. The problem is that It's been around long enough to acquire a bloated bureaucracy, cost overruns that are enormous, and corruption, such as paying little Ruben here to tell us all about the starving children, and pluck our heart strings to leave the expensive bloated and now failed program in place. It is not necessary to children eating, we have numerous programs in place to see that they do. What we have is several entrenched useless, incompetent bureaucracies fighting over turf, both in farm programs and school programs. The same things can be accomplished with less than half the money, employees and effort, this is what it's all about. It's about the bloated welfare system we call 'public employment' and not at all about 'free lunches' or starving little children.
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:01 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
sockratties wrote: "Would the comments responding to this commentary have been the same if the author’s name had been Duffy, or Stewart?" -- You won't believe it, but in truth, I didn't bother the look at whom wrote it. I read the article because of the title. The writer mentioned the recent budget surplus. Ergo, my first comment. By the way, I think I was to first to mention ILLEGAL ALIENS, not Leon.