Stunning: Iowa Republican Wants Poor Kids to Go Hungry
Gretchen Kauffman, a Republican from Iowa, was interviewed on NPR’s Morning Edition a week ago. Her remarks were generally unremarkable, until she hit on a very familiar Republican theme regarding po’ folk: she makes a pretty good living, but she’s still rather have the children of po’ folk go hungry than have her tax dollars subsidize feeding the rugrats at school. Let ‘em eat cake, indeed.
I was reading a front page story on Daily Kos a little while ago, and ran into the following audio clip from a woman who is self-identified Republican. The quote is from an NPR report that was broadcast on December 4th (about 3:30 into the report):
“I make a great deal of money through my own hard work. I don’t want to pay for someone else’s child to eat breakfast at school anymore.”
NPR’s Steve Inskeep identified the woman who spoke the words as Gretchen Kauffman, an “editor and a Republican”. Ms. Kauffman is definitely more than an “editor and a Republican”. She’s a former teacher, and the co-author of a critically acclaimed book, A Disgrace to the Profession, which was written with an anti-education slant.
Probably more important than the single quote above, though, is the overall context of the full interview. Ms. Kauffman is clearly a Norquist Republican - there’s nothing good that the government can do, and having the government spending a portion of her wealth on social programs for poor leeches is not on her radar screen. (But I’d be willing to bet that she supports dumping billions and billions into the Iraqi money pit.)
The callousness of her remarks on government subsidized school breakfast programs, though, is especially stunning. I didn’t know - I really didn’t know - that there were educated, allegedly compassionate people, who supported these viewpoints.
I could write more, but I think that Devilstower at Daily Kos sums up nicely:
This is a democracy, and we are the government. I will take your money. I will. Some of that money you worked hard for and want to keep. I will give it to a kid who is hungry. If your concern is that poverty should be addressed by individuals, then there’s a simple solution: feed him. If there are no poor children needing food, I won’t have to take anything for them. If your position is that people would be more generous if only the government would stay out of it, then sorry. I’m not willing to put this child at risk to as part of your experiment. Besides, if that were true, then why were there more hungry kids before we started these programs to give them a little breakfast? If your position is that your being able to keep all your money is more important than a child being fed, then I simply think you’re wrong. And sick. You want to keep that money? You better beat me at the polls.
The strategy of vultures gives us both a party and a nation that would embarrass John Kennedy…
We’ve known since the time of Gingrich’s contract on America that the GOP is run largely by a leadership that, in simpler times, would have been indicted for grand theft. Ms. Kauffman is the personification of Republican values - a social viewpoint to which I (and most progressives) simply can’t subscribe.
Why should I have to pay for someone else’s breakfast. We all are inherently equal, we have two arms two legs and a brain. If i choose to use my two arms two legs and a brain to go in the world and figure out a way to make money why should i have to take care of the child of the two people who did not. Granted not this is not everyones situation; it still says alot when every school runs what is essentially a soup kitchen.
You give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for life. If he splashes you in the face with water and tells you to walk away because he claims to already know then you can do nothing but walk away.
Why should I bust my ass all day for ten dollars an hour when i can slightly less for doing nothing?
Students who have parents who can’t feed them will never like that feeling. But one day when they have kids i guarantee they will never let them go hungry.
If Gretchen Kauffman or fsn showed up starving at my door I would feed them.
For, as the the Man from Galilee said, “As long as you have done it for one of these the least of my brethren, you have done it unto me.”
And Gretchen and fsn are the least of his brethren.
There used to be an expression that was heard more frequently than today, “There but for the grace of God go I”. I taught children, both mentally impaired and general education, for many years. The one thing that came abundantly clear to me is that some people won at the birth lotttery and some did not. Abilities (all of them) are distributed on a bell curve. Some get a lot and some get very little. Ms. Kauffman did nothing to gain her ‘normal’ I.Q. She was lucky enough to be born in a country that allowed her to go to school subsized by the government. She probably grew up in a house with a mortage guaranteed by the government. Ms Kauffman was born in the USA with many opportunities, albeit, not equally distributed. She was not sold into prostittion by parents who desparately poor and not valueing her female status sold her away. As the late Ann RIchards once said, “She was born on third base and she thought she hit a triple.”
kauffman also has her health care moment - “my parents CHOSE to go to a doctor who would do my polio operation for free.” gimme a fucking break. maybe you could find that back in 1950 or whenever it was, but nowadays? what planet does she live on? even if the doctor would perform the surgery for free, the hospital bill would still be enough to maybe cause bankruptcy.
and petey, thanks for your response to fsn’s ludicrous comment. i read it and had no idea how to respond to it, it was just so shockingly inane. as are the words of disgustingly selfish worst-of-america gretchen kauffman.
How can you guarantee that the children of the hungry child will never go hungry? Because they learned compassion? The chances are pretty good that such children end up in prison, and then they get breakfast on your dime in adulthood. Why do you wish to punish a child because the parent, in your view, has not learned to fish?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. — John Kenneth Galbraith
I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Beautiful quote, Alex. Thanks for recalling it…Galbraith nailed it.
This puts a true gop spin on the old line Suffer the Children…
These greedy pigs remind me of the epitome of selfishness, summed up in a passage I read last night:
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
If there are starving children at a school in a community I feel it is the responsibility of the community to solve the issue. Children starving is not a standalone issue, there are reasons parents are unable to feed there children. If i saw someone who needed food and i had the ability to let them eat I would. But when they came back day after day I would not because whatever behavior that allowed them to become hungry will persist. By creating a program that automatically feeds you have created a situation where parents are relieved of their responsibility with no check. Corruption is not automatic nor is it guaranteed to happen but it happens way to often; Why would i want to give my money to a faceless organization with no true check on where the money is spent when i could instead give it to my local high school where in the end at least i know the money will be spent at the school. Not only do I know it ends up at the school but I also know that i does not just end up in the pocket of politicians. The Robin Hood mentality of steel from the rich give to the poor is extremely ignorant and does not resolve an issue; it allows it to persist and creates a sense that the government’s job is to take care of those who do not.
Scrooge is a fictional character.
The government is not a form of charity. If people want to give their money away that is their choice. In American these days we seem to have come to the conclusion of money=charity. Instead of writing a check take a day off and go volunteer. Make cookies and go hand them out to kids as they get off the bus in the morning. Then there is no sense of anyone being owed anything. Kids are fed. The end no problem.
Yes fsn, let us stand on our conservative principles as children starve. Scrooge may have been a fictional character, but he was based on a psychological archetype that you and Ms. Kauffman represent quite nicely.
fsn & kauffman have an unenlightened view of self interest. Poverty leads to crime. Crime could affect you. now do you care?
plus, hunger prevents kids from paying attention in school long enough to ‘learn to fish’. it’s not the kids fault that mom &/or dad are deadbeats, but it is in our common interest that the kid grow up to be a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. This is an economic argument that does not require a whit of human compassion to understand and accept.
@ T-bone
It bothers me that someone as “compassionate” and “upstanding” as yourself would be willing to automatically assume my beliefs. Read what i wrote, not what you believe I wrote.
@ zoom
I dont know about you but last time i checked the only person i control is myself. Go back and read my second post. If you believe that children “learn to fish” at school then i have a hard time imagining what your kids might turn out as. Your argument is not economic, its a i want to write a check and let the government take care all of life’s problems. Your simple cause and effect logic does not work. Good students do not equal good citizens. Bad students do not equal bad citizens. Using your logic if you are poor or live in poverty then you will not be succesfful.
Scrooge is a fictional character, no matter what he is based off he is still not real and was written to represent a stingy old rich man.
fsn - but do you dispute that Poverty leads to Crime?
fsn2 - if you don’t think learning to read is helpful toward getting out of poverty, then I’ll give up.
“Why should I have to pay for someone else’s breakfast. We all are inherently equal, we have two arms two legs and a brain. If i choose to use my two arms two legs and a brain to go in the world and figure out a way to make money why should i have to take care of the child of the two people who did not. Granted not this is not everyones situation; it still says alot when every school runs what is essentially a soup kitchen.
You give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for life. If he splashes you in the face with water and tells you to walk away because he claims to already know then you can do nothing but walk away.
Why should I bust my ass all day for ten dollars an hour when i can slightly less for doing nothing?”
So…you’re advocating child labor instead of education for poor children? Maybe if their parents weren’t the ones suffering “short term pain” from NAFTA they would be able to feed their children.
“Students who have parents who can’t feed them will never like that feeling. But one day when they have kids i guarantee they will never let them go hungry.”
‘Cause thet’ll die of starvation first.
“There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. “
fsn:
“You give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for life. If he splashes you in the face with water and tells you to walk away because he claims to already know then you can do nothing but walk away”.
The Supply-side Economic model:
You teach a guy to fish, however, he must agree to give you 8 of every 10 fish that he catches. You turn around and sell the 8 fishes at an inflated price. You soon abandon the guy after you find someone who is willing to give you 9 out of every 10 fish he catches. Greed has no conscience!
I am opposed to giving my tax dollars to Blackwater mercenaries, Halliburton, Exxon, etc etc but the government takes my money and gives it to multi billionaires and their corporations. I would much rather feed, clothe and educate anybodies children.
@zoom
No that is not what i said. I do not dispute that poverty leads to crime. I dispute that the government automatically feeding all Kindergarteners solves anything.
I do believe that hungry kindergartdners is a product of poverty. When you make monetary excpetions for poor people you allow poor to live without money. The reason we have money is to more easily buy things we need such as food clothing and shelter. By the government just giving these things away (food stamps, welfare, public housing) no longer do people have to work. For example look at Atlanta; a few years ago new rules for public housing, food stamps, and other similar programs where created. A few NEW requirements to be apart of these programs involved proof of gainful employment, proof of being a full time student, having many dependents and other things that required you to essentially to change the persons situation or a legitimate need vs. laziness. Within two years all but two public housing complexes where takin down. This was done because there were far fewer people eligible for these programs. That basically means all of those people were doing nothing but sitting there doing nothing and being supported by the government. Working people do not cause crime, people with very little and nothing to do cause crime.
Gretchen Kauffman is probably tired of feeding the kids who’s parents can but don’t, not those who try and can’t. If the process for getting free breakfast in Iowa is similar to down here then all you have to do is put down that you make very little money (i.e. lie and say you make 20,000). I do not want my money takin away and given to people who just want someone else to take care of their problems. No ones excess should automatically be any one else’s. That is communism. Not America.
@ lmwilker
No, that is not what I said. Read above statement. The bible is more or less a story book. That passage however still proves my point. No where does it say that the people who did not want to contribute had there houses invaded and subsequently all possessions removed. Also the apostles gave it to those in need. Much of the money does not go to those who need, but just those who want(read what i wrote above). Those apostles also did not take some of that money and claim the because they were the ones re-distributing it that they should get some. The collected it and immediately gave it back out. Politicians don’t always do this. Who says that i support NAFTA (i don’t).
@ Lgrayson
Why is that relavent? Economics is just observations. The idiot who agreed to give away 8 out of 10 fish he catches is an idiot. So is the person who agrees to give away 9 out of 10 fish. That story still furthers my point. Who elects people who make decisions about who gets to be on programs similar to free breakfast? Politicians; similar to your story: An official is in power, all he wants is money and a job. How does he get votes?; create programs that take care of peoples needs and then remind them that if they are not re-elected then those programs will cease to exist. In essence it is slavery.
BUCK THE SYSTEM, DON”T CHANGE IT TO ALLOW CORRUPTION TO CONTINUE TO TAKE PLACE.