 So the North Dakota House recently passed a bill allocating an additional six million dollars over two years to expand the eligibility of their free school lunch program, which is really important because currently only households who make less than 130% of the poverty level are going to qualify, but the expansion would have made it so that way families who make below 200% of the poverty level also would qualify and kids in those households would get free lunches as well. The problem, however, is that when it got to the Senate, it was rejected by Republicans by just one vote. Now you might instinctively think that this really isn't that big of a deal since the poorest families are already being taken care of. The problem is that income alone isn't necessarily the best indicator of need. A family could just make 1% too much to qualify and even if their income is technically higher, a parent in that household could have been laid off or there are other expensive not accounted for like medical bills. So this is why these means tested programs, if they're going to be means tested, I for one support universal programs, but if they are going to be means tested, they need to be adjusted so that way they can adapt to the changing economic issues, inflation being one of the biggest issues, but Republicans in the Senate rejected it. And that's not necessarily what's surprising about this story, but what's surprising is the way that they went out of their way to add insult to injury by voting to approve funding for their own meal program after rejecting additional funding for children. Yeah, so as in forum reports, 10 days after narrowly defeating a bill to provide free school lunches to low income K-12 students, the North Dakota Senate approved legislation to increase the amount of money lawmakers and other state employees receive in meal reimbursements. Quote, I thought today's vote was very self-serving, said Senate Minority Leader Kathy Hogan. Quote, how can we vote for ourselves when we can't vote for children? Yeah, I mean that's a very good question, Kathy. Now, like the free school lunch program, state employees already got reimbursed up to $35 for meals per day, but this would increase the disbursements to $45 per day for meals to make sure that all of their meals are covered. And it cost the state approximately $1 million over two years. So it's not like this was a small cost, but they probably recognized that the cost of living has increased and the current reimbursement rates don't really cover the full cost of meals. So in order to make sure that everyone is fed, why don't we just increase the reimbursement rates? Now, it makes sense. I get why they did this. State employees should be fed. But what doesn't make sense to me, obviously, is their inability to apply that same logic to children. See, because when it comes to them being fed, they'll make sure that nobody goes hungry and all of their meals are reimbursed. But when it comes to kids, I mean, is it really that bad if they have to skip a meal? $6 million. I mean, come on. I'd rather spend that money on something else or use $1 million of that to feed ourselves instead. It's just very on-brand for modern Republicans. Now, here's some statistics about child hunger in the state of North Dakota, courtesy of Feeding America. 1 in 21 people in North Dakota face hunger currently, and 1 in 12 of them are children. And an estimated $17.8 million in funding is needed to address this issue. And obviously, I think that that additional $6 million that Republicans rejected probably would have made a significant impact in curtailing hunger in their state. Now, 41.7% of households receiving SNAP benefits have children. Now, that's great, but SNAP alone isn't sufficient to eliminate hunger in that state. A combination of robust federal and state programs are needed to end hunger and child hunger in particular. But to be fair, it's not like North Dakota is the worst state when it comes to child hunger. But I mean, with that being said, it's not like they've conquered the issue of child hunger either, right? I mean, mediocrity shouldn't be the bar. You can strive for more, especially when it comes to an issue like this, where you're feeding children. So it's just very on-brand for Republicans, and it's just extremely selfish. But who's surprised by this? However, what makes the story even more hilariously sad is the response from Republicans, because they basically responded to this story by saying, Like, I don't know why we did it. Like, literally, this is what one of them said. We don't have an answer for this, essentially. So 13 Republican senators, including Majority Leader David Hoge and Assistant Majority Leader Jerry Klein, voted to increase meal reimbursements after voting against the free school lunch bill. Hoge declined to comment on the reason he voted for Senate Bill 2124 and against House Bill 1491. He said North Dakota lawmakers often are asked to devote state funds to expand federal programs like the National School Lunch Program or Medicaid. Quote, I don't have a good answer for you as to why we do it sometimes and not others, Hoge said. Klein said he doesn't think there's any correlation whatsoever between the two bills, noting that lawmakers have to treat each issue separately. That's such a load of horseshit. State employees should get a higher per diem because inflation has made eating out much more expensive he noted. You've got to be kidding me. This man had the audacity to bring up inflation as if families who don't make just over 130% of the poverty line aren't feeling the effects of inflation. Just you all? I mean, just for a second, put yourself in somebody else's shoes. And if you can consider that inflation currently is bad, it's improving, but it's still bad. And you feel it, perhaps, people less privileged than you also feel it? Have you had this thought? Of course not, because Republicans, they are literally incapable of caring about any issue that doesn't directly affect them. So when they say, well, these two issues aren't correlated, what they mean essentially is that, well, the issues aren't correlated because one issue affects other people and this issue affects me, which is why I actually care about this issue. Now, because they deserve shaming, these are the names of the Republicans that rejected the expansion of school lunches for children but approved the expansion of meal reimbursements for themselves. This includes Randy Burkhard, David Clemens, Bob Erbil, Judy Estenson, Kurt Kroon, Judy Lee, Randy Lam, Larry Lewick, Don Shable, Terry Wanzek, and Mike Wabema.