Stoneage Ramblings

By John R. Stone

With Democrats in charge of the Minnesota Legislature and governorship we’re seeing a rollout of their wish list in terms of social programs.

Free school lunches, rental assistance, paid maternity and extended sick leave have been brought to the forefront so far and there will be more to come.

Republicans have usually been opposed to lots of these programs for a couple of reasons. One, they take taxpayers hard earned money and give it to people they see as not trying very hard to take care of themselves. And, two, they wonder if some programs are disincentives for people to work or more carefully spend what money they do have on life’s necessities.

Often there doesn’t seem to be much discussion about the merits of these programs, it just seems to be a “yes” or “no” to the whole idea. So that means the programs don’t get modified in ways that might make them more successful, or appear more successful to some.

Some of that is because we have preconceived ideas about what causes problems and possible solutions.

I remember a few years ago people thought many welfare recipients were just druggies. So the plan enacted by a couple of states was to test people to make sure they were clean before they could get benefits. They spent millions setting up testing programs and none came close to recovering those costs through decreased welfare spending. Some who used drugs probably stopped collecting because they knew they wouldn’t qualify but it didn’t amount to enough to cover the costs of testing.

So some druggies didn’t get money, but the state spent more money. So maybe there was a moral victory if it wasn’t the financial success some thought it would be.

Of the programs mentioned above the one that makes the most sense to me is the lunch program. Right now some students who come from homes with limited incomes qualify for free or reduced price lunches. It certainly isn’t the kid’s fault that their parents don’t have sufficient income.

But being fed isn’t just something that is good for their health. Teachers will tell you that kids who are hungry can have a tough time concentrating in class and that affects how they learn. At some levels such kids can be disruptive or require extra teacher time which affects the entire class.

Some parents are good about filling out the paperwork for their children, others may not be.

Lest you think that this is a small problem, there is actually a program called the “Back Pack Attack” where food is sent home over weekends for kids who won’t find enough food to eat at home. That’s funded by donations.

Students who do pay for meals do so through a system that doesn’t involve payment at the head of the lunch line. This is done so students who are getting free meals aren’t embarrassed. But there can be issues there too if a parent doesn’t do the paperwork for free meals. What then?

So I can see that a free lunch for all solves a lot of problems plus some administrative issues as well. The trick will be to make sure that the program is funded well enough to keep it from upsetting local school budgets.

The bigger issue here is really what can be done to or for those at the bottom of the income ladder to make them self-sufficient. How do you incentivize people to work? How do you make people realize that they are responsible for a child until that child is 18 and that care for that child comes before a whole lot of other things? How do you encourage people to learn skills that will last them their lifetimes be it for work or finance? How do you give them hope that a change in behavior will improve their lives?

A bipartisan approach to the above questions might come up with a better solution than one party might. I would hope that Republicans would offer good suggestions and that Democrats would listen to and evaluate them. This “my way or not at all” stuff from either party solves very little.