Cut School Lunches? Just Pass the Ketchup : Here’s one federal program that shouldn’t be changed

Schoolchildren who are too hungry to concentrate on learning would be the product of the House Republicans’ overly ambitious effort to “reform” the national school lunch program. As part of its welfare reform package, the GOP would turn the federal child nutrition programs into block grants, reduce the funding and give control to states. The justification is that this would make the programs more “flexible.” The more probable effect would be to increase hunger among the most innocent and powerless--children. This is not what voters were clamoring for when they voted for change in November.

The block grant plan, which gained steam Thursday when it was approved by the House Economic Opportunities Committee, makes no provision for growth in times of recession. Nor does it compensate for any increase in population or poverty. When states would run out of money, children would run out of food. Is this what America wants?

THIS IS A VEGETABLE?: This isn’t the first time Republicans have taken aim at school lunches in a misguided effort to save money. In 1981, the Reagan Administration absurdly tried to categorize ketchup as a vegetable. Fortunately that blunder triggered howls--and so should this current effort to undo a federal program that works.

Finding adequate food is a constant struggle for many families even when both parents work. “The Hunger Wars: Fighting for Food in Southern California,” a series by Times staff writer Sonia Nazario, reported on working men and women forced to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table.

Poverty is on the rise in Los Angeles. Unemployment remains high in the wake of a lingering recession that is only now beginning to ease. This downturn forced thousands of additional children to seek free lunches at school because their parents lost their jobs. They needed government help temporarily and they got it. Would there be a helping hand under the program?

House Speaker Newt Gingrich argues that the proposed legislative change would remove cumbersome federal red tape and allow the states to do a better job. History does not support this argument. In the past, “states’ rights” often meant separate and unequal treatment. Under the states’ welfare programs, before President Franklin D. Roosevelt federalized aid to dependent children, some poor mothers and their children got enough while others got little or nothing.

The proposal also makes big claims about flexibility. Actually, there’s flexibility in the program now. Could there be more? Sure, but the GOP effort is less about flexibility than gutting hunger programs. The plan also would eliminate federal standards. The National Academy of Sciences would develop new voluntary standards. Volunteerism in this regard would only promote unequal treatment from state to state.

THREAT TO CALIFORNIA: Another key problem was noted by David Super of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as he spoke on a KCRW-FM public radio program last week. The formulas being considered for dividing the block grants up among the states would disadvantage states with growing school-age populations and declining economies. Clearly, California would be among the big losers.

The national school lunch program helps 25 million children. Studies have found that federal food programs have made a major difference in decreasing hunger among children. Before the advent of such programs, the sight of hungry and malnourished children with swollen bellies was once distressingly common, especially in Appalachia and the South.

A nutritious school lunch is the best meal of the day for millions. If growing children do not get the nutrition they need today, this nation will pay much more later. The House plan is an outrage and must be stopped.