Oh, Skip, you’re such a meany – how can you take food out of the mouths of babes in school yards! You want them to go hungry and starve while in school? They can’t learn that way?
You know, there was a recent piece on WMUR’s news that Police need more Constitutional training when at the Police Academy (which I can’t find at their website now). Instead, how about Legislators being put through such a class? Now, I know that it will never happen because you can’t legislate a new requirement on top of what is in the NH Constitution (Part 2):
[Art.] 14. [Representatives, How Elected, Qualifications of.] Every member of the house of representatives shall be chosen by ballot; and, for two years, at least, next preceding his election shall have been an inhabitant of this state; shall be, at the time of his election, an inhabitant of the town, ward, place, or district he may be chosen to represent and shall cease to represent such town, ward, place, or district immediately on his ceasing to be qualified as aforesaid.
But given that I have quotes from State Reps showing how BADLY they understand the Constitution (Progressives and the Proper Role of Government – and your subservience to it), it would be nice to have them go through it. Unfortunately, if it was voluntary, it’s rather clear that those that would need it the most would refuse to go.
Like these Democrats who seemingly are violating the NH Constitution’s Unfunded Mandate Article once again just like they did with forcing School District to provide free menstrual products without the State funding it:
[Art.] 28-a. [Mandated Programs.] The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.
And the Union Leader has yet another story of Democrats wanting to further obviate local control (as much as one HAS local control in a Dillon’s Rule State) by forcing schools to provide both breakfast and lunch to students. Oh, it sounds nice – it’s always for the children, isn’t it. But like with Chris Sununu’s “Public Health trumps EVERYTHING” (meaning the Constitution strictures on Government), these Democrats (and only Democrats are sponsoring this) have decided they don’t have to pay attention to our foundation law – OUR SOCIAL CONTRACT!
On Wednesday, the House education panel considers whether the state should require all local school boards to offer subsidized breakfast and lunch for lower-income families.
At present, 456 public schools in the state offer both meals while there are 153 school buildings that don’t serve either one; there are 27 schools that serve lunch but not breakfast. Rep. Arthur Ellison, D-Concord, and six other House Democrats are promoting this measure (HB 429).
So 70% do provide some food assistance. Just further the process of making the State all-powerful in all things. Power should ALWAYS be centralized, according to Democrats – and used as often as possible. There is no “limiting” of government at all in these peoples’ eyes.
Here’s the text:
HB 429-FN-LOCAL – AS INTRODUCED
2023 SESSION
23-0341
10/08
HOUSE BILL 429-FN-LOCAL
AN ACT requiring the offering of breakfast and lunch in all public and chartered public schools.
SPONSORS: Rep. Ellison, Merr. 28; Rep. Woodcock, Carr. 1; Rep. Hall, Merr. 9; Rep. A. Murray, Hills. 20; Rep. Horrigan, Straf. 10; Rep. Seibert, Hills. 21; Rep. Rombeau, Hills. 2
COMMITTEE: Education
—————————————————————–
ANALYSIS
This bill requires school districts and chartered public schools to offer both breakfast and lunch programs to students.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
23-0341
10/08
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty Three
AN ACT requiring the offering of breakfast and lunch in all public and chartered public schools.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Schools; Food and Nutrition Programs. Amend RSA 189:11-a, I to read as follows:
I. Each school board shall make [at least one meal] breakfast and lunch available during school hours to every pupil under its jurisdiction. Such meals shall be served without cost or at a reduced cost to any child who meets federal income eligibility guidelines. The state board of education shall ensure compliance with this section and shall establish minimum nutritional standards for such meals as well as income guidelines set for the family size used in determining eligibility for free and reduced price meals. [Nothing in this section shall prohibit the operation of both a breakfast and lunch program in the same school.]
2 Schools; Food and Nutrition Programs. Amend RSA 189:11-a, VII(a) to read as follows:
VII.(a) Each school district [which participates] shall participate in the National School Breakfast Program and each school district shall maintain annual statistics on the number of breakfast meals served to pupils.
3 New Section; Chartered Public Schools; School Meals. Amend RSA 194-B by inserting after section 3-a the following new section:
194-B:3-b Required School Breakfast and Lunch Programs. All chartered public schools shall comply with the school breakfast and lunch requirements under RSA 189:11-a.
4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2023.
LBA
23-0341
12/19/22
And I have to laugh at this “Fiscal Note”
(click to embiggen)
Translation: WE DON’T CARE HOW MUCH IT COSTS YOU!!!
You know, my town is now starting to talk about replacing the beach bathhouse and with that has been a traditional commercial kitchen. Which would have to be replaced and that’s why I’ve been talking up replacing it with 2 or three Food Trucks. They’ve already made the investments in such equipment so let the Free Market supply the needs of those that are hungry at the beach.
I dryly bring it up as these Democrat nitwits make NO allowance for very small districts or schools (I’m thinking of Croydon as an example) that probably DON’T have the 10s of thousands of dollars just laying around to stand up such a kitchen to serve such a small population of kids (what is it, 25??). And then service them. And staff them. Think of the second and third order cost structures that are associated with this mandate (red tape, permitting, inspections, food sourcing, material/food storage, cleaning, cleaning supplies, staffing, taxes – it can be a long list).
That’s nuts! Which proves, once again, that Democrats only see individuals as ATMs to be plucked.
And unconstitutional because these “I want to FORCE you to my will” Democrats don’t care.
