 If you ever wonder why conservatives fixate on cultural issues so much as opposed to economic issues affecting families that they claim to care about, well, it's because every single time they open their mouths, they prove how out of touch they are. For example, a couple of weeks ago, multimillionaire Ben Shapiro demonstrated how out of touch he is by claiming that there's no such thing as a non-livable wage. And this week, he's saying this about free school lunch programs for children. If government can protect kids from the sick radical left, shouldn't they also protect kids from hunger? Wouldn't it make sense to strengthen food stamps and have school lunch be free since some kids are in school lunch debt? Well, I mean, if you are a parent, school lunches are not going to solve the problem of child hunger at any serious level. If there is a problem of children actually starving, that is a child endangerment scenario to which CPS needs to be called. If you're talking about an actual child starvation, the truth is it does not take that much money to feed a child. I know I have three of them. You should be feeding your child before you feed yourself. It's that simple. There's a much deeper problem at work than school lunches if kids are legitimately starving. The truth is it does not take that much money to feed a child. I know I have three of them says the man worth an estimated 48 million dollars. I mean, he says this while Americans are still dealing with crippling inflation. And even though in his bubble, no one does struggle to feed their children, free school lunches, believe it or not, do make a massive difference. As CNN reported back in September of last year after the pandemic era free school lunch program expired, for Don Overmire, spending $80 a month on school lunch for her five-year-old grandson, could force her to be late on other bills. Overmire and her husband, who both work at a supermarket distribution warehouse, have custody of the boy and his younger brother who, quote, love to eat, she said. Now that's just one anecdote, but this family isn't alone. They make too much money to qualify for their state's means tested program. So as a result, some of their bills may go unpaid to feed their grandchildren. Now this wouldn't be an issue if school lunch programs were just universal and everyone got them regardless of income. But Ben Shapiro also said school lunches are not going to solve the problem of child hunger at any serious level. And this is so disingenuous because nobody is saying that free school lunches are a panacea. Other policy interventions are required as well, like an increase in food stamps, which your party, by the way, wants to cut. I'm sure that he supports that as well. But what people are saying is that free school lunches make a huge difference. For example, free school lunches reduce food insecurity by an estimated 3.8%. They also reduce nutrition inadequacies and significantly increase dietary quality for low-income students. And as a result, free school lunches also reduce childhood obesity rates by around 17%, reduce overall poor health by 29%, and free school lunches also improve academic performance. They increase school attendance rates and they decrease the likelihood of negative social interactions among teens. The benefits are overwhelming. So it is absolutely despicable for Ben Shapiro, a father, mind you, to downplay the significance of school lunches. These are not insignificant benefits. These are very, very important for children. But I'm assuming that his viewer asked him that question because Republican State Senator Steve Drozkowski from Minnesota went viral for being opposed to school lunches as well, albeit for an even dumber reason than Ben Shapiro, if you could believe it. Mr. President, I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that is hungry. Yet today. I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that says they don't have access to enough food to eat. Now, I should say that hunger is a relative term, Mr. President. You know, I had a cereal bar for breakfast. I guess I'm hungry now. That, to some, might be maybe that's the definition of the bill. I don't know. I didn't see a definition of hunger in the bill, Mr. President. But I think most reasonable people suggest hunger means you don't have enough to eat in order to provide for metabolism and growth. You heard that right. He is actually claiming with a straight face that out of the roughly 5.7 million residents of Minnesota, none of them are going hungry. Just because you haven't seen it, and I shouldn't have to say this, but I am, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it's not happening. As HuffPost explains, if Drozkowski wanted to find one of those hungry children he claims to have yet to meet, he could check the very county he represents. In Wabashia County, more than 8% of kids lived in poverty in 2021, up from about 7% the previous year, according to the Federal Reserve of Economic Data, approximately 1 in 6 children in Minnesota are food insecure, meaning they don't know where or when their next meal will be available according to a fact sheet from anti-hunger groups in support of the bill. But don't worry, because that wasn't the only reason why he's against free school lunches. He also denounced it as welfare and called it pure socialism. What a fucking moron. But thankfully, most lawmakers in Minnesota acknowledge the importance of free school lunches and the measure passed 38 to 26. And once their Democratic governor signs it into law, Minnesota will join other states like California and Colorado who did the right thing by offering free school lunches to all children. And that's how it should be, because in the richest country on the planet, we shouldn't have things like school lunch debt or child hunger. But for conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Steve Drozkowski, they don't actually care about these issues because in their bubbles, these things don't exist. So I believe Steve when he says that he's never seen it, right? And I'm sure that everything feels great when you're extremely wealthy, but that's not the reality for most Americans. And maybe you should learn a thing or two about their struggles if you purport to either speak for them or represent them in a legislative body. So we'll leave that there. Conservatives are out of touch unsurprisingly, which is why they're forced to create solutions to problems that don't actually exist because they don't support actual solutions to real problems. But if you agree with me, hit that like button and don't forget to subscribe to help us reach our goal of 400,000 subscribers.