Ok, I usually keep politics out of my personal posts, but this leftist deleted my comment, and so I'm going to reprint the exchange. It centered around a sweet 5 year old Michigan girl who saw a classmate go without a milk carton because she didn't have the money; the girl raised money for kids without milk, starting from her own piggy bank. I admire this well-raised child and her tender heart. But a lot of judgmental leftists want to politically exploit the situation. Here's an example where I punch back:
[OP] Someone tell me how there’s money for wars, enough money for politicians to spend on needless airplane flights, enough money for million dollar bombs, enough money to house and feed inmates but not enough for kids to have milk at school? We need to get our fucking priorities right
[Guess who]. Well, now, aren't you the morally self-superior parasite who thinks taxpayers have a moral obligation to feed other parents' kids? You took a little girl's charitable act and made the alternative morally hazardous political porn. Never mind the poor little kids are going to have to pay over $100T in national debt and unfunded liabilities to subsidize expenditures of Democratic political whores. No, gullible left-fascist , people can afford 45 cents to pay for their children's milk, Assuming an unfit parent is justified in not feeding his or her child, a sacred responsibility, because of assumed poverty
Now to be honest, the bleeding heart "progressive" basically isn't alone in her sympathies, and it could have been any of a number of similar responses to this story (or similar stories of charity) which was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Usually it starts off with some predictable talking point like "we can afford money to spend on space exploration, but we don't take care of our own poor people. "
There are several things wrong with this analysis:
- First of all, you can't assume that the reason a child doesn't have money for milk is because of poverty. Just to give a few examples; a child might have lost the money, the money could have been stolen, the parent wasn't aware of the milk expense or may have simply forgotten to give money that day. To give a minor example, I was in a judo club during my junior high years. We went down to Charleston, SC for a day tournament. When we lined up at some buffet for dinner, I remember a server holding up a Porterhouse steak and asking me if I wanted one (like many of my fellow athletes). I just didn't have the money, nor did anyone offer to loan the money. So I really had to skip dinner; when I got home, my Mom was horrified that she hadn't given me money to cover dinner; she just didn't know. I survived missing a meal. Does that mean the taxpayer owed me dinner? No. Now my Dad did not make a lot on his meager pay as a tech sergeant in the Air Force, and Mom was a housewife, mother of 7. I was eligible for the free lunch program in high school. But Mom used to make us lunch (in fact, in third grade, I was carrying a second lunch for breakfast after my First Communion. This is because we attended Mass and the Church at the time had a strict fasting period before receiving the sacrament.) My Mom could have made me lunch during high school, but why not take advantage of the opportunity? My folks knew how to budget, and they put the kids first; we didn't go to bed hungry.
- Second, the typical food expense in an American household is like 6% of overall income/expenditures. Note that kids don't attend school (and get free lunch) on weekends.Not to mention there are over some 42M (than than the 35M in 2007) people still on food stamps, roughly comparable to alleged poverty rates. Keep in mind that this a kindergarten class; this may have been some designated snack period, and I don't know the relevant policies of schools, which vary; for instance, I've read of teachers who basically pay out of their own pockets and ask parents to chip in a couple of bucks a week. there are corporate grant programs, etc. But it's hard to believe that parents couldn't afford 45 cents, that that was money that would make or break a family's budget. Not to mention there aren't that many calories in milk, and water is free (at school).
- I've heard both Democrats and Republicans use the zero-sum argument of wasteful spending which could be spent on someone else's pet spending priority. NO! The proper solution is to reduce the deficit and/or pay down the debt (and/or reduce taxes). Moreover, government administration costs are very high and not competitive; their regulations actually hurt the ability of private companies or persons to feed the hungry. Private sector charities, etc., do it much cheaper, faster, and better.
- We need to look at the moral hazard of people socializing their personal expenses. Consumers are vested in their own purchasing behavior; government is notoriously not.
- Ironically, milk is a commodity which is hardly free market. Since the FDR Administration, there are marketing orders, principally designed to keep milk prices from getting "too cheap". Why? Because the left-fascists worry that lower milk income may adversely affect the ability of farmers to service their loans. Do you think poor people can afford higher milk prices due to "progressive" policies?
