Free lunches in schools for many American children.

Here is a student reaction paper about the child nutrition program that provides free or reduced price lunches at many American schools:

National School Lunch Program, or NSLP, helps children from poor families receive a good lunch at school every day. The school district will give these children a free or price reduced lunch.  Reduced priced lunches do not cost more than 40¢. In order for families to get their kids a free or price reduced lunch, they have to submit an application to the school district. The application can be sent home with the child at the beginning of the school year. However, the start of school is not the only time that a family can apply. They can apply at any point in the school year. They just have to request the application. Also, if a family is receiving SNAP, TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), and FDPIR (Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations), their children are automatically able to receive these special lunches. The children that receive this can get these special priced lunches as soon as they start school in kindergarten or first grade until they graduate from high school. 

This program helps quite a few families who might not be able to afford to give their kids lunch money every day. There are children who go to school everyday and have never eaten a school lunch. For example, in my high school, if we did not have lunch money, they would give us a cheese sandwich and a carton of white milk. Looking around the lunch room, there were several kids who almost never ate lunch because they could not afford to put money in their account and they did not want milk and a cheese sandwich. The teachers in the lunch room did nothing to make sure that every kid ate that day. The application procedure for this program seems pretty lengthy. However, this would help the school decide whether these families actually need it (“need” is simply determined by the children’s household income). The families who do not need this program and falsely claim low incomes so their children quality for it take away the opportunity for other families to give their children a proper lunch. If a family is already receiving SNAP, TANF, or FDPIR, then it is obvious that these families need more help than most families who are not receiving benefits from these programs. For the families receiving benefits through these programs, their children will receive free school lunches.

If anyone wants to know more about the NSLP, there is some recent (FY 2015 estimates) information available at schoolnutrition.org.

Student offers introduction to unemployment insurance

Unemployment Insurance, an Introduction

Let me introduce the policy called Unemployment Insurance or UI. This policy deals with insurance for people who have a lack of work or who have lost their job and need that extra help when it comes to emergencies. These can include fire, health, and other accidents. This policy is set for a time of 26 months so a person can get try and get back onto their feet and find another job. A person cannot apply for this program if they quit work or let go from the job for misconduct. There are also rules that deal with the poor.  For the poor, if someone hasn’t been trying to work or hasn’t worked for some time, those people cannot apply for the UI. There are other people that cannot get this insurance that aren’t poor. Those people are farmers, and people that are self employed. 

The money that is put into the UI comes from employers, who pay payroll taxes, which may be hidden from their employees.  While employees see their portion of payroll taxes that go to Social Security and Medicaid, employees make no contributions to Unemployment Insurance, so they may not realize that their employer (In Illinois) pays between 0.55% and 7.75% on the first $12,960 paid to the employees into the state’s Unemployment Insurance funds. The actual percentage is determined by a complicated formula that changes according to how much money Illinois recently had in the funds to pay benefits and the number of layoffs in particular industries, so that companies that seem at higher risk for laying off workers pay more than companies that seem unlikely to lay off any workers. The Federal Government charges employers 6% on the first $7,000 paid to employees for the Federal Unemployment Insurance tax, but the Federal Government gives employers credit for paying the state unemployment taxes, so in actual practice, in almost all the states employers pay just 0.6% on the first $7,000 paid to each employee, or $42 per employee. 

   So this money that is going out as unemployment insurance to support the recently laid-off is not from the general pool of taxpayers. Rather, this money comes from the payroll taxes paid by employers, and is essentially covered by money paid by the employers in the previous jobs the now-unemployed person had held.  In order for that employer to pay money into the unemployment insurance fund, they must have workers that are in occupations covered by unemployment insurance.  For example, if you incorporate your farm and have that farm pay you for your work as a farmer, you are not covered by unemployment insurance, so your farm does not need to pay your unemployment insurance to the state or the federal government, but you will not be insured by unemployment insurance, and if your farm ceases to employ you (if your farm goes bankrupt or you sell out to some other farm and cease to work on what was your farm), you will not be eligible to collect unemployment insurance. In Illinois if someone is looking to get into this program they would just go to the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES), or to the IDES website. When a person gets the money the state calls this unemployment insurance “benefits”. These benefits are distributed biweekly. The amount is based on the need of the person that is reserving it, and need is determined by their former income. When someone is on the plan they may lose the benefits if they do not follow rules or what the IDES calls the instructions in the book. 

If someone loses their benefits, they do have the right to have representation to help when trying to get it back or fighting to understand why it was taken away in the first place, but their representation must be authorized first. When a person does need to file for the benefits they must do so the first week after they lost their job, or as fast as they can. If they wait or just don’t do it, then when they do try they will not get their benefits or else they may miss out on most of what they could have received. On the IDES website they show who can get the insurance, and if someone doesn’t fit into those groups, that doesn’t mean they can’t; it just means they don’t show it. On the other hand, there are some who cannot get it no matter what. The farmers cannot because they are self employed. The IDES website also explains how someone maybe eligible for unemployment benefits. Some examples would be: you were registered to seek work with IDES, and you aren’t working through no fault of your own. The IDES website also gives a lot of examples why someone may not get unemployment benefits. A couple reasons for denial benefits are: you are not working because you quit for no good reason, or you were fired. Someone may also not get unemployment benefits if they don’t apply to get it early enough, or their health, safety and morals are at risk. There are many other things the website gives like how to apply what you can get when you apply and what you need in order to apply. 

Reference 

Unemployment Insurance Benefits Handbook, Illinois department of Employment of Security. 

Student Paper About Safe Roads Amendment

Transportation Amendment-Yes or No

I had planned a trip to Chicago with my family last month.  My son was so excited; my husband not so much.  We were going north on I-55, and my husband was already agitated with all the construction and orange barrels everywhere.  That is when we hit the mother of all pot holes.  This thing was as deep as it was round.  I could instantly see the panic in my husband's eyes, then I heard the sound of a cannon going off.  It was our tire, there was no saving it.

Anywhere you go in Illinois; this is how our roads are.  Why is that? Where is Transportation revenue going?

On November 8, voters will have the chance to add an amendment to the Illinois Constitution.  The proposed amendment is called the Safe Roads Amendment or Transportation Lockbox by supporters. This amendment prohibits the General Assembly or any local government from using, diverting, or transferring money raised from transportation revenue sources for non transportation purposes.  Transportation revenue includes gas taxes, fees, license taxes, and registration and title fees.  Over the past decade, the state of Illinois has diverted more than $6.8 billion away from transportation projects that should have been spent on them.  The result of these diversions is crumbling roads and unsafe bridges across the state.  This will affect pretty much everybody in Illinois; we all drive or use the roads one way or another.  The following is a quote from a flyer that is being distributed to homes across Illinois in support of the Safe Roads Amendment.

PRO: from a flyer being distributed by Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding: "Half of Illinois’ roads and 4,200 of our bridges are in poor condition. … Our state of disrepair isn’t because we lack money. It’s because the politicians have used the Road Fund as a slush fund. Over the last decade, $6.8 billion has been swept out of the Road Fund.  

The next quote is from House of Representative members against the Amendment, this is what they says:  CON: From a letter written by State Reps Barbara Flynn Currie, Laura Fine, Elaine Nekritz and Pamela Reaves Harris:"This amendment would severely curtail the ability of the state to react to these types of events. … Other states that have passed transportation funding lockboxes, have release valves for emergencies. …The proposed Illinois amendment is missing a safety valve."

Illinois is not the first state to put a "lockbox" on their road funds.  Wisconsin and Missouri have passed similar amendments.  The problem with Illinois compared to Wisconsin and Missouri is we do not have a balanced budget and they do.  

Polling in Illinois shows that 85% of voters support the idea of a transportation lockbox. All the amendment needs is a 60% majority vote to pass.  Most of the general assembly that was polled, was in favor of the Safe Roads Amendment; and those that were not in favor was because the amendment needed a safety net, in case of emergencies.  This new amendment will not cost the state of Illinois any more money because the money is there.  It just needs to be spent on what it is allocated for.  Some sources do say that if this amendment is passed, Illinois will have another reason to raise taxes.  

This paper does not make the case that this is relevant to social welfare policy, so I will try to make that argument.  Safe roads and infrastructure are a way to encourage economic development and increase incomes throughout the state.  If we neglect transportation infrastructure, it is possible that this will drive away businesses, or create dangerous situations for motorists such the disaster your family encountered on the 55. Neglecting transportation infrastructure can cause deaths, as for example in the I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse on August 1, 2007 or notorious Point Pleasant Silver Bridge Collapse on December 15, 1967.  Also, spending on transportation infrastructure will stimulate the economy, so it is a way for the government to provide a public good while at the same time pumping tax dollars back into local economies.

One does need to ask what the money diverted away from transportation was used to purchase.  I do not know the specifics, but I do know in general where state money goes.  The state of Illinois spends most of its money on Health & Social Services (41.8%) and Education (24.7%).  The state spends 5.5% on transportation, but I notice that only 2% of state revenue comes from motor fuel taxes. (All this information comes from the FY 2015 report from the Illinois Comptroller).   So, it is quite possible the money was taken from the transportation fund to spend on education or health and social services. Education, even more than transportation infrastructure, is a sort of investment in the public good that ought to bring economic returns to the whole state.  Spending on health and social welfare is more often pure consumption (although some of it is investment that can save money, like in prevention programs).

Here is an update on the final result of the voting for the amendment: it passed with about 80% voting in favor.  I voted against it. The amendment was supported by trade unions and large businesses that all profit from infrastructure spending.  I am not always a knee-jerk opponent to what large trade unions or large businesses desire (I am often quite sympathetic to whatever unionized labor is trying to get), but in this case, I was not convinced that this amendment would really improve the state, and I am not sure that transportation infrastructure spending is so much more important than, for example, education spending.  Should we have an amendment that forces the State of Illinois to pay a certain amount per student for every student in public K-12 education, or for each student in public Illinois universities?  Perhaps we should, but the education lobby is not as strong as the lobby that backed this particular amendment.  I doubt there will be any terrible consequences of this amendment, or at least it will cause no harm to compare with the horrifying disaster the state is experiencing because of the inability of political leadership to make a series of tax increases and spending cuts the state needs. Time will tell.    

A student wants restrictions on what SNAP can purchase

A letter to a person in government written by a student:

I would like to discuss an issue with you regarding social welfare and the use of food stamps. Although I strongly believe they are doing more good than harm, I think there are some improvements that need to be done. 

Food stamps are supposed to help out those families in need with low incomes to be able to provide food for their families. They are sent an x amount of money each month to be able to go to the grocery store and purchase food. Although I know that food stamps cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco, there should be more restrictions on them. I am sick and tired of standing behind families and watching them buy bags of chips and sodas with their food stamps. I also don’t like seeing families purchasing high dollar steaks and seafood. Food stamps main purpose is to help those families in need. I am a hard worker, as well as my parents, and it’s still a struggle to be buying high dollar meals from the grocery store. I feel that food stamps should be more along the lines of WIC. WIC allows mothers to buy their infants the products they need to survive but doesn’t allow them to buy any baby food they prefer. Therefore with food stamps, families should only be able to buy fruits and vegetables or potatoes and hamburger. 

Overall I know food stamps are a necessity to many families and they are using them as they should, but there are also all of those families out there taking advantage of the free money and using their money to purchase alcohol and tobacco. It just doesn’t seem fair. 

There are really two issues here.  In the first place, there is a real problem when a government program that should promote nutritional health may be promoting obesity and poor health.  That is, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) should reduce malnutrition and hunger, and help people get nutritious food that will keep them healthy and strong.  But, if people are free to use this program to buy products that are injurious to health, some of them may choose to buy too much of these unwholesome things, and not enough of the nutritious food they ought to buy.  In the second place, people may be upset if people using SNAP purchase expensive foods that most people cannot afford to regularly consume.  Assuming the SNAP recipients who are purchasing luxury foods are honestly receiving SNAP, their luxury purchasing suggests they have poor budgeting skills and probably run out of SNAP money and go hungry in the final days of each benefit period.  But, the remedy is also fraught with problems.  Restricting what people can purchase with SNAP is a matter of diminishing the liberty of the poor, and it is a paternalistic approach to managing and controlling the poor.  This may not be a problem for everyone, but some people are concerned about this.  There will also be controversy as any bureaucrat or committee determines which products are luxurious or unwholesome.  Are all cookies to be banned, or should we allow some sorts of more nutritious cookies?  What is a luxury food?  Salmon often costs $9 or $10 per pound, and berries and nuts can also cost that much.  But, fatty fish such as salmon is an important part of a nutritious diet (if you happen to eat meat), and nuts and berries are an important part of a wholesome diet (especially if one refrains from eating much meat).  Do we simply insist that SNAP benefits can only be used to purchase unprocessed foods, or minimally processed foods?  Where is the dividing line between foods that are "too processed" and foods that are okay?  Imagine the complexity of the regulations! Imagine the turmoil at the check-out lane as grocery store employees try to determine whether a specific type of cheese is permitted or is considered "luxury" and banned.

There are studies of what people actually purchase with SNAP benefits, and you might have referred to these to support your proposal to restrict how SNAP benefits should be used.

Think People On Food Stamps Are Eating More Lobster Than You? Think Again  (Huffington Post, May 16, 2015)

Stores Accepting Food Stamps Face Stricter Rules (Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2016)

Government Accounting Office information about SNAP.
 

Facts about Immigration Policy

Here is a very short student paper about immigration:

Family-based immigration is a policy developed by Congress to help aid in the reunification of families. There were many problems with families being separated because some members could not easily obtain documentation to enter the United States; to alleviate this Congress developed a system to reunify families.  The total number of family visas per year is approximately 480,000. 

Family-based immigrants are admitted either as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or through the family preference system. In order to be admitted through the family-based system, a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident sponsor must petition for an individual relative, establish the legitimacy of the relationship, meet minimum income requirements, and sign an affidavit of support stating that the sponsor will be financially responsible for the family member upon arrival to the United States.  To meet eligibility requirements a relative must be: spouses of a U.S. citizen, unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens (21 and under), or parents of a U.S. citizen (must be 21 or older to petition for parents). 

A limited number of visas are also available in the family preference system for legal permanent residents to bring family. However, to meet eligibility requirements for legal permanent residents, it must be a spouse or else a child under the age of 21. While family unification is an important principle governing immigration policy, the number system that Congress developed is complicated. The number is determined by starting with 480,000 and then subtracting the number of immediate alien relative visas issued during the previous year and the number of aliens “paroled” into the United States the previous year. Any unused employment visas are then added to this number to establish the number of visas that remain for allocation through the preference system. However, by law, the number of family visas made available through the preference system may not be less than 226,000. The number often exceeds 480,000 visas from the family preference system per year. 

The policy is performing well, based off of the guidelines they have set up, but it still leaves many families without the opportunity for reunification.  And of course, immigration is to some extent controversial.  There are many grounds for supporting immigration, and there are many grounds for opposing immigration.  Among the reasons for desiring decreasing immigration and lowering the number of family preference or reunification visas are some racist or racialist arguments about non-European immigrants, and these motivations among some immigration opponents can cloud the issue, since there are also many genuine issues related to population growth and environmental pressures, and the influence of immigration on wages in certain sectors of the economy, which could reasonably justify opposition to high levels of immigration.  The arguments in favor of immigration include the benefit that immigrants tend to be younger and more fertile than native-born Americans, and bringing them into the country helps give our nation a more sustainable dependency ratio (ratio of persons too young or too elderly to be expected to engage in the labor force and pay taxes to those who are working age and might be expected to earn incomes and pay taxes).  Immigrants may also bring talents and ideas, or foods and art forms that enrich our culture and economy.  In terms of demographic power, having a slowly growing population may offer the United States a stronger future in international relations, relative to societies (e.g., China, Japan, Italy, Spain, Russia, Germany, etc.) where population growth is likely to cease (or has already ceased) and population decline will set in.  In the form of capitalism that now dominates America's society, the constant addition of more workers and consumers (immigrants) helps foster economic growth.  

Information about immigration and naturalization can be found at the website maintained by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services within the Department of Homeland Security.  A recent report explains that between 2009 and 2014, an average 708,000 immigrants were naturalized (became American citizens) each year. A little over a third of immigrants (35.5%) are admitted to the United States because they are immediate relatives of United States citizens.  Another 18.6% are admitted through the family preference program. These rates are higher than those who are admitted through employers (15.5%), refugees and asylum-seekers (14.5%), and those who come in through the diversity lottery or are paroled (11.9%).  The five countries that supply the United States with the most immigrants include: Mexico (13.3%), India (7%), the Philippines (5.7%), China (4.8%), and The Dominican Republic (3.6%). 

New law makes it difficult for schools to suspend or expel students, and this is generally a good idea.

In this reaction essay, a student discusses her feelings about the new law changing the educational laws to make it more difficult to use expulsions and suspensions in Illinois. 

I chose to write about Senate Bill 100 (105 ILCS 5/1-2, Public Act 99-0456), which was just passed this year. This bill makes it very hard for a child to be suspended or expelled from school. In order for a child to be expelled or suspended the approval for that punishment must go all the way up through the school board. This bill gets rid of the zero tolerance approach to establishing discipline and a safe learning space in schools. 

I believe this is a good idea in most cases. It helps children who have had to miss class be able to catch  up with the rest of the class. I believe it also helps because before this law, children would see that if they get suspended their punishment is more like a reward: they get to sit at home instead of going to school. Now those kids must stay in school and just may not get to be with their classmates all day. I feel like for some kids they shouldn’t be sent home because it may not be safe for them, and school is supposed to be a safe place. If they get in trouble at school, it should be taken care of at school ,and the child should not be sent home to a unsafe place. I know at the schools I work at they have created a thing called a buddy room. When a child gets in trouble they are sent to the buddy room to cool down and write out what went wrong and how they can fix it. The bill states that a child who it suspended for longer then four days they will be offered support services and mental health support. I agree with this also, even though the child was in the wrong, somehow to be missing this much school they do need help to make sure that they know their school things. The child also may need the mental health care because maybe there is actually something going on in their emotions or mind to cause them to act out the way they are acting. This is why I do agree with this bill, because it is better for the school district and the growing population.  This is all public knowledge and can be googled, but as I am working in the school district, things like this are things I must know and work hard to enforce and get approved.

SB 100 is very significant, since zero tolerance policies were popular for years, and this act repudiates those laws.  Do you have any ideas about why some people might have opposed this act?  It passed with broad support, so it makes me wonder about what the people in the legislature thought about the practices that were common up until this year.  

Applying theories from Haidt and Lakoff to the issue of immigration.

Reaction Paper written by a student, with additions made by myself:

Through these first few weeks of the course I have learned a lot of interesting information that opened my eyes, not only about policies, but also about how situations and morals can influence someone’s actions or beliefs. I used to think that everyone had different morals and no one had the same as me. When we got our assignment that we were to complete for week three, it included taking a few moral foundations tests. The moral foundations theory was created by Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues (and George Lakoff has developed a theory about metaphors and moral narratives that people use to interpret and filter information about the world and how they should evaluate policies and behaviors). The moral foundations theory originally theorized that everyone has the same five more foundations, but people over the past few years have argued there was a sixth moral foundation (for liberty, against oppression), and perhaps a seventh (for conservation, against waste and destruction). The first five moral foundations are care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity. 

After taking the moral foundation tests my eyes were opened. Through these tests, I have learned what are my strongest moral foundations. My three strongest moral foundations are care, fairness, and liberty. My scores for these three moral foundations were 83.3% for care and 72.2% for fairness and liberty. Along with the moral foundations tests, we were also instructed to read and learn about George Lakoff’s theories about metaphorical understanding of reality. Even after reading the information on George Lakoff’s moral narratives theory, I was still confused on what exactly it all meant. During class we discussed in depth George Lakoff’s moral foundations theory and went over what our scores meant. After learning what exactly the moral foundations theory meant and going over scores and comparing ours to others, I began to realize that we all had different levels of how much we cared about each moral foundation. I compared mine to my three of my classmates and the person I was closest to in class I found had about the same exact scores as mine for their moral foundations. As we learned about our moral foundations, we were able to better understand how it made us libertarian or conservative. We were able to see how each moral foundations fit into being a libertarian or conservative. I kept receiving scores on our political tests as a left-liberal. I began to understand exactly what it meant. My top three moral foundations reinforced my liberal views. 

We then went over situations on policies that our moral foundations fit into. One example is, we went over the example of what types of moral foundations a person would have if they were for immigration and what a person would have for moral foundations if they were against immigration. People who are for immigration might have strong moral foundations in care, fairness, and liberty. These people care for others and want to help the immigrant. These people believe that everyone deserves the fair chance to come into this country and gain citizenship. These people believe that everyone has a right to liberty and freedom. People who were against immigration might have strong moral foundations in authority, purity, and loyalty. These people would believe that authority should control immigration, and feel that immigration without following the laws is a transgression that cannot be allowed. Their loyalty values lead them to emphasize that we need not worry about the immigrants, and should instead care most about protecting and supporting the current citizens. These people have a lot of trust in the government as an institution that ought to enforce the laws and protect citizens from immigrants who could compete for resources. These people would also possibly believe we need to keep our country pure and not let outsiders in; they might feel uncomfortable about the “impurity” of seeing people all around them who have different cultures or values, who speak non-English languages, or who have unusual religious beliefs. These people would have a large amount of loyalty in the government and a vision of “traditional” America with its old values and cultural practices, and so they want to have the government strictly control immigration and enforce laws against undocumented immigrants. Anti-immigrant beliefs could also be informed by the justice moral foundation, as the persons who oppose immigration might be concerned that those who “cheat” by staying in America without following the law are getting advantages over those who obediently wait for their paperwork to allow them to legally immigrate here, and so it does seem unfair that cheaters would get ahead of those who are playing by the rules. 

From Lakoff’s theories, we can see that the pro-immigrant position is informed by an idea that the government ought to act like nurturing parents, and the government ought to take care of everyone who lives in our country and contributes to our society, and that would include an obligation to treat undocumented immigrants with kindness and benevolence.  The anti-immigrant position is informed by the metaphor that the American government (and perhaps the “free market”) ought to act like a strict father who imposes discipline. In this view, the government must step in to protect the “real” children (American citizens and legal immigrants) from the neighborhood children who have come to live in our household instead of staying in the households where they belong, and the government ought to force the undocumented immigrants to go back where they came from. 

Knowing the moral foundations theory and Lakoff’s theories about metaphors and moral narratives can help us understand why people have different views from each other and what they believe in and what they don’t. While some of us may strongly support better policies to help most undocumented immigrants, others may just as strongly desire that all undocumented immigrants be forced to depart. It is not the case that one side is moral, while the other side is selfish or foolish and immoral.  Both sides have moral reasoning and value assumptions that make their positions seem correct, and the other positions seem irresponsible or wrong. While I may strongly support one side on some policy issue, it’s important to listen to what the other side says, and consider what they believe, so that I will not demonize or dismiss the concerns of the other side.  Only by understanding the assumptions and values of all sides can we be persuasive and thoughtful in debate about policies.

I contributed significantly to the middle (third paragraph, and wrote most of the fourth and fifth paragraphs.  The student wrote the first two paragraphs, and I only slightly edited those, and contributed most of the third paragraph.