On Saturday, Kingston came out against free lunches, saying that children should have to pay at least a nominal amount or do some work like sweeping cafeteria floors.
“But one of the things I’ve talked to the secretary of agriculture about: Why don’t you have the kids pay a dime, pay a nickel to instill in them that there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch? Or maybe sweep the floor of the cafeteria — and yes, I understand that that would be an administrative problem, and I understand that it would probably lose you money. But think what we would gain as a society in getting people — getting the myth out of their head that there is such a thing as a free lunch,” he said.
Because nothing instills a good sense of American whats-what in a child like being forced to perform janitorial duties in school while the kids with better parents go off to play or learn or something. What’s a little more lost government money when you can subject all the poor kids in America to a little bit more of that?
You know, I am pretty sure that children who grow up poor already have a keen understanding of what it’s like to grow up poor. They’re getting free meals at school in large part because many of them can’t count on meals at home. Forget after school trips or the like, and they aren’t getting those neat backpacks the other kids might be wearing, or new clothes for the school year, and shoes might have to last well past the point where they hurt to put on. I promise you, they know they’re poor. They know they’re excluded. Congress really doesn’t need to pass a new law against schools feeding poor 12-year-olds unless poor 12-year-olds really get that there ain’t gonna be no free handouts to you, you little still-too-happy shits.