Republican Calls Kids Freeloaders for Wanting Free School Lunch
Representative Rich McCormick has a bonkers defense for letting kids go hungry.
Representative Rich McCormick argued Tuesday against free school lunches because they give kids “incentives to stay at home and not work.”
During an interview on CNN, the Georgia Republican was asked whether he would support slashing programs that provide “school lunch for vulnerable kids,” such as Head Start, a federally funded program that provides free meals for hundreds of thousands of low-income children across the country. Head Start will likely be one of the many programs affected by Donald Trump’s decision to freeze all federal grants.
In response, McCormick argued that offering students a free school lunch was rewarding teenagers for being lazy, and undermining their desperation to earn money.
“I don’t know about you, but I worked since I was, since before I was even 13 years old, I was picking berries in a field before they had child labor laws that precluded that,” McCormick said. “I was a paper boy! And when I was in high school, I worked my entire way through.
“You’re telling me that kids who stay at home instead of going to work at Burger King, at McDonald’s during the summer should stay at home and get their free lunch instead of going to work? I think we need to have a top-down review. Think about where kids need to actually be.”
Where exactly does McCormick think kids need to be? Obviously not at school or at home with their families, but out earning their keep. Meanwhile, there are plenty of benefits to providing subsidized school lunches, which have been linked to improved academic performance, physical health, and lowered rates of out-of-school suspensions.
CNN’s Pamela Brown hit back at McCormick’s inhumane tirade.
“I think you’re painting a lot of these kids with a broad brush. I would say that’s not necessarily a fair assessment of all of the kids,” Brown said. “So you would say all the kids in your district who use the free lunch, for example, or breakfast, they’re all just staying home and not working?”
“Of course not,” McCormick said, smiling broadly.
“Because that seems like what you were trying to insinuate—” Brown continued.
“No, this gives us a chance, though, to see where is the money really being spent,” McCormick said. “Who can actually go, and actually produce their own income? Who can actually go out there and do something, make something, and have value, and work skills for the future?
“I mean, how many people got their start in fast-food restaurants when they were kids? Versus just giving a blanket rule that gives all kids’ lunches in high school who are capable of going out and actually getting a job and doing something that makes them have value. Thinking about their future, instead of thinking about how they’re gonna expunge out the government when they don’t need to—”
As McCormick spoke, his worldview came into sharp relief: a world in which education is fundamentally unimportant, schools teach dangerous ideas, and only through work can someone create value and acquire skills.
In reality, providing free school lunches is meant to allow students to focus on their schoolwork without creating an undue burden on families that are financially struggling. In Georgia, McCormick’s state, 64 percent of students were eligible for reduced-fee and free school lunches in the fiscal year 2024, according to the House Budget and Research Office.
McCormick explained that it wasn’t just school lunches for children that he took issue with, but all government programs that alleviate financial despair.
“We don’t give people value, we don’t give them the ability to dig themselves out when we penalize them for actually working, and actually keep them on welfare. That’s what’s been the inner-city problem for a very long time. We need to have a top-down review so we can get people out of poverty,” he said.
McCormick said that the U.S. had gone astray by creating programs that provide “incentives to stay at home and not work.”
Earlier this month, Republicans floated raising the threshold for approving school lunch subsidies as a possible way to slash federal spending.