Ad Blocker Detected
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Marjorie Taylor Greene has recently come under fire for her comments on the Biden administration’s decision to extend free school meals for children. She claims that the government should not have control over providing food for children, and that this decision will lead to a “nanny state” where the government tells parents what to feed their kids. But what Greene fails to recognize is that there are millions of children in the United States who rely on these meals to survive each day.
The lunch program was established in 1946, after World War II, to ensure that children received nutritious meals while at school. The program has since expanded to include breakfast and after-school snacks, and currently serves over 30 million children in schools across the country. But last year, when the pandemic hit, the program was expanded to include all children, regardless of income, so that kids could continue to receive meals during remote learning.
This expansion was a temporary measure to address a crisis. But it was so successful that the Biden administration has decided to make it permanent. Under the new plan, all children will continue to receive free breakfast, lunch, and snacks through the 2021-22 school year. This means that millions of children who were previously ineligible for the program due to their parents’ income will now be able to receive the nutrients they need to thrive at school.
But Greene sees this as an attack on personal responsibility. She believes that if parents can’t afford to provide food for their kids, then they should figure something out themselves. But the reality is that many parents already struggle to provide for their families. According to a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, nearly 1 in 5 children in the United States live in households that struggle to put food on the table. This is not a matter of personal responsibility; it’s a systemic problem that needs to be addressed.
Greene’s comments reflect a deeper issue in American society: the belief that poverty is a personal failing. This ideology is based on the myth of the American Dream, which claims that anyone can achieve success through hard work and determination. But this ignores the reality that poverty is often the result of systemic inequality, including racism, sexism, and economic inequality.
Furthermore, the notion that the government providing meals for children is somehow a breach of personal liberty is nonsensical. The government has a responsibility to ensure that its citizens are healthy and well-nourished. It is not an infringement on personal freedom to provide a service that is necessary for survival.
Greene’s attack on the school lunch program is yet another way in which she seeks to undermine the basic functions of government. Her rhetoric is not just harmful to children who rely on these meals; it is also damaging to the fabric of our society. By promoting the idea that the government should not be involved in basic social welfare programs, she is fueling a movement that seeks to dismantle the safety net altogether.
We cannot afford to ignore this kind of rhetoric. It is not just irresponsible; it is dangerous. We need to speak out against politicians who seek to divide us along racial, economic, and political lines. The school lunch program is just one example of a program that benefits all of us. It ensures that children receive the nutrition they need to succeed in school and in life. When we support programs like this, we are building a stronger, healthier, and more equitable society for everyone.
In conclusion, Marjorie Taylor Greene’s attack on the school lunch program is shortsighted and harmful. The program is a vital safety net for millions of children across the country. It ensures that they receive the nutrition they need to succeed in school and in life. By attacking this program, Greene is perpetuating harmful myths about personal responsibility and individualism. We must reject this kind of rhetoric and recommit ourselves to building a society that works for everyone. We owe it to our children – and to ourselves.
