Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm very happy to be joined by my friend Kelly Kawfield,
who is executive director of the Common Sense Institute, where
I am proudly the Mike Laprino Free Enterprise Fellow this year,
and we're going to talk about free school lunches, and before,
just before we get into the nitty gritty of.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
It, I just want to remind folks.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
As I mentioned probably a few times a year on
the show, one of the great acronyms of all time
is tan staffle t a n s t aa fl
tan staffle, and that came from Milton Friedman, and it
stands for there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
It's actually a well known acronym among econ nerds, and
(00:43):
I am one, which is why I'm the Mike Laprino
Free Market Fellow, because they would only have an econ
nerd in that position at Common Sense Institute.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
The thing is.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
The definition of free matters a lot, and I'm being
serious now, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
When many things that appear to be quote unquote free,
we need to really remind ourselves frequently, and I would
like to remind the people who are who are taking
advantage of the thing that free really just means paid
(01:17):
for by somebody else.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
It doesn't mean actually free.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
And that's the context in which Kelly joins me to
talk about the Common Sense Institute's new research report, Colorado's
free school lunch program is getting more expensive.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
All right, Hi, Kelly, sorry for the long introduction, Barnett,
thanks for having me, very glad to have you.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
So, it seems like when voters passed this thing to
begin with the free school lunches for middle class and
rich kids, because lower income kids already got free school lunch,
that they miss underestimated how many people would want the
free lunch, if I can use my favorite George W.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Bushism there.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
So, now that they've missed on underestimated, tell us a
little bit about how much they miss.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Underestimated and what they're trying to do about it.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Sure, Now, this is a measure that has been around
since twenty two. I mean that's when voters first considered
the Health Females Program Proposition FF. And even back then,
Common Sense Institute's economists projected that this program would grow,
and we warned that if costs were not carefully managed,
(02:29):
that revenues would very likely fall short of the projections,
and that is exactly what has happened. We had estimated
that back in twenty twenty four that the ballot measure
and really its first year I think a full implementation,
that it was going to run a deficit. The measure
(02:49):
had raised about one hundred million dollars in revenue, but
it needed more than that. So we had projected close
to a sixty million dollar deficit, and it came in
just short of a fifty six million dollar deficit. So
while the policy may help certain families, the fiscal analysis
(03:09):
of the measure really I think makes me scratch my
head a little bit, because the underlying.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Costs of the program have not been identified or well managed,
and instead the state legislature has sent this measure back
to Colorado voters to just increase taxes instead of addressing
the underlying costs that are driving the program expenses up.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
And I will note to listeners that the primary way
this plan was funded is that the is that taxpayers
who had the misfortune to earn over three hundred thousand
dollars a year had their ability to deduct things you
might deduct massively limited and capped, and will get to
(03:55):
what they're trying to do now because they think apparently
they think they haven't.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Soaked to the enough.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
And I just again just really want you to keep
in mind, you know, the people who support this thing.
And by the way, you know, Common Sense Institute is nonpartisan,
and Kelly is not here saying vote for or against
this thing. But I can right I'm not speaking for
Common Sense Institute. I'm speaking for Ross Kaminski as the
radio host. Okay, so I'll tell you what I mean.
(04:22):
You know what I think. Kelly is not recommending a
vote one way or the other. But I will note
that they tried to do this to me.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
The point I want to reemphasize, and I'll get back
to Kelly.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Lower income kids already got free lunch, free breakfast two
and the people who are selling you this thing conveniently
forget to mention that. They just call it healthy school
meals for all. But really what this is is free
school lunch for middle class and upper middle class and
rich kids. And that's part of what galls me so
much is they're going to tax the Jesus out of
(04:58):
people that Democrats think are rich in order to give
their own kids quote unquote free lunch. All right, I'll
get off the soapbox. So why don't you keep going
with the CSI analysis, Kelly.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
In our most recent analysis, we're trying to educate Colorado.
So what are these two measures? I think a lot
of people are not focused yet on that ballot, but
the election's coming up. So what is proposition LLL and MM?
They both relate to this healthy Meals program. So proposition LLL,
this is allowing the state to hold on two dollars
(05:32):
so that they can continue to pay for this program
and not have taxpayer dollars refunded. So if l L passes,
taxpayers will not be refunded twelve million dollars in fiscally
year twenty six and the instead the state will use
that to continue to fund this program.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
But that's not all.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
There's also this other proposition MM, which raises taxes on
those making more than three hundred thousand. Is ross just indicated,
So once again it is race. It's allowing the state
to hold on to your refund and it would lead
to an additional tax hike for Colorado's who earn over
three hundred thousand, they would incur tax increases. We're estimating
(06:14):
about three hundred and seventy for single filers and about
five hundred and sixty for joint filers, So it's not nothing,
and I hope that's something that voters will will consider.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Right, And if MM passes, basically, if you earn't over
three hundred thousand dollars a year, your ability to deduct
many things from your state income tax will be almost eliminated.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
I think there'll be.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Like you can deduct one thousand dollars if you're filing
singly and two thousand if you're filing jointly, or some
small number like that, Right, But it's essentially what they're
doing is funding it by eliminating tax deductions for people
earning over three hundred thousand dollars a year. You made
a really interesting point at the beginning of this, Kelly,
and even I didn't think about it, probably as much
(06:58):
as I normally would have or should have, and that
is that I really haven't heard any conversation about the
cost of the program. And obviously there's more demand than
they put in their model, just in terms of a
number of people who want the free lunch. But is
(07:20):
it also possible that the way they are providing or
what they are providing, or something beyond just the number
of meals is more expensive than it needs to.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Be, that's right.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
The underlying program has a lot of additional expenses outside
of just the free meals, so it provides technical assistance grants.
It's trying to have the schools buy more Colorado locals,
so there's these by local food grants. It also increased
wages for food workers, so those expenses were not technically
(07:57):
necessary for sustaining the healthy Meals program, but it drives
the cost up, and legislators failed to address any of
the underlying cost drivers in the program and instead are
just asking taxpayers for more money.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Yeah, I mean I wonder which of those things that
you mentioned, or potentially other things that you didn't mention.
And I don't mean I know what they are. I
just mean things I haven't thought about and things you
didn't mention. I mean, I wonder if there are ways
to save money in this. I mean, I don't know
if your analysis has really gone into that so much
as just talking about here's what the numbers are, and
(08:36):
they haven't looked at big picture.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
You know, even the chief economists of the Legislative Council
for the legislature. He warned the same thing. The budgetary
issues that we are seeing for the Healthy Meals program,
they come on the expenditure side. So the legislature has
had these conversations and failed to take action, deciding that
malet measure was the easiest way to keep a financially
(09:04):
unsustainable program moving forward by asking for more revenue and
not addressing underlying cost.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
All right, Uh, do you want to add anything else?
I think we I think we got the highlights there
of the report. And by the way, if you're just
joining this, Kelly Cawfield from Common Sense Institute, we're talking
about CSI's new report, Colorado's free school lunch program is
getting more expensive. I should have mentioned the website. Easiest
link to get there is CSI co dot org like
(09:34):
Common Sense Institute Colorado CSI coo dot org and you
can see this and lots of other great work on
things from economics to crime, to health to this thing
that we're talking about. Anyway, I'll give you the last
nineteen seconds for your your final thoughts on LLL and MM,
and then we'll probably have you back or or another
Common Sense Institute person if you want when the ballots
(09:57):
are out, and we're sort of in the heart of
the election, but ballots are coming out soon, which is
why we're doing this now.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
The bottom line is, if voters approve these ballot measures
and the state does not take steps to better manage
these underlying program cost I think we'll just be back
here ross all. These school meals for all could continue
to run deficits in the future, and that would require
transfers from the general fund and potentially more tax hikes
in the future.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
You know. I actually I have one other question for you,
and I don't know, and you can just tell me
you don't have the answer to this or haven't thought
about it yet. Is there a sense of what will
happen to this program if LL and MM fail.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
If LL and MM fail, interesting, you know, then I
think they would be forced to address some of the
underlying costs and potentially sir fewer students.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Yeah, I mean, at some point I had heard and
this is just rumblings. And it's hard to tell from
politicians whether whether they're sort of telling what they really
think will happen, or whether they're trying to scare people
into voting for a tax increase in this particular situation.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
But they were talking.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
About, you know, like well we'll only we'll only provide
free lunches for half the year or for something like that,
because I don't think the way the law stands right now,
I don't think they could.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Just without passing another law.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
They couldn't just go back and say, all right, well
we're gonna have to charge charge for lunch for you know,
families that make over X, which which will be their instinct.
But I do I do wonder about that. Anyway, anyway,
we'll we'll have time to figure it out. Kelly Caawfield
is executive director of the Common Sense Institute CSI coo
dot org. And this particular report, Colorado's free school lunch
(11:49):
program is getting more expensive. Thank you, Kelly, Always good
to see you.
I'm very happy to be joined by my friend Kelly Kawfield,
who is executive director of the Common Sense Institute, where
I am proudly the Mike Laprino Free Enterprise Fellow this year,
and we're going to talk about free school lunches, and before,
just before we get into the nitty gritty of.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
It, I just want to remind folks.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
As I mentioned probably a few times a year on
the show, one of the great acronyms of all time
is tan staffle t a n s t aa fl
tan staffle, and that came from Milton Friedman, and it
stands for there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
It's actually a well known acronym among econ nerds, and
(00:43):
I am one, which is why I'm the Mike Laprino
Free Market Fellow, because they would only have an econ
nerd in that position at Common Sense Institute.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
The thing is.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
The definition of free matters a lot, and I'm being
serious now, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
When many things that appear to be quote unquote free,
we need to really remind ourselves frequently, and I would
like to remind the people who are who are taking
advantage of the thing that free really just means paid
(01:17):
for by somebody else.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
It doesn't mean actually free.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
And that's the context in which Kelly joins me to
talk about the Common Sense Institute's new research report, Colorado's
free school lunch program is getting more expensive.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
All right, Hi, Kelly, sorry for the long introduction, Barnett,
thanks for having me, very glad to have you.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
So, it seems like when voters passed this thing to
begin with the free school lunches for middle class and
rich kids, because lower income kids already got free school lunch,
that they miss underestimated how many people would want the
free lunch, if I can use my favorite George W.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Bushism there.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
So, now that they've missed on underestimated, tell us a
little bit about how much they miss.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Underestimated and what they're trying to do about it.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
Sure, Now, this is a measure that has been around
since twenty two. I mean that's when voters first considered
the Health Females Program Proposition FF. And even back then,
Common Sense Institute's economists projected that this program would grow,
and we warned that if costs were not carefully managed,
(02:29):
that revenues would very likely fall short of the projections,
and that is exactly what has happened. We had estimated
that back in twenty twenty four that the ballot measure
and really its first year I think a full implementation,
that it was going to run a deficit. The measure
(02:49):
had raised about one hundred million dollars in revenue, but
it needed more than that. So we had projected close
to a sixty million dollar deficit, and it came in
just short of a fifty six million dollar deficit. So
while the policy may help certain families, the fiscal analysis
(03:09):
of the measure really I think makes me scratch my
head a little bit, because the underlying.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
Costs of the program have not been identified or well managed,
and instead the state legislature has sent this measure back
to Colorado voters to just increase taxes instead of addressing
the underlying costs that are driving the program expenses up.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
And I will note to listeners that the primary way
this plan was funded is that the is that taxpayers
who had the misfortune to earn over three hundred thousand
dollars a year had their ability to deduct things you
might deduct massively limited and capped, and will get to
(03:55):
what they're trying to do now because they think apparently
they think they haven't.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Soaked to the enough.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
And I just again just really want you to keep
in mind, you know, the people who support this thing.
And by the way, you know, Common Sense Institute is nonpartisan,
and Kelly is not here saying vote for or against
this thing. But I can right I'm not speaking for
Common Sense Institute. I'm speaking for Ross Kaminski as the
radio host. Okay, so I'll tell you what I mean.
(04:22):
You know what I think. Kelly is not recommending a
vote one way or the other. But I will note
that they tried to do this to me.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
The point I want to reemphasize, and I'll get back
to Kelly.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Lower income kids already got free lunch, free breakfast two
and the people who are selling you this thing conveniently
forget to mention that. They just call it healthy school
meals for all. But really what this is is free
school lunch for middle class and upper middle class and
rich kids. And that's part of what galls me so
much is they're going to tax the Jesus out of
(04:58):
people that Democrats think are rich in order to give
their own kids quote unquote free lunch. All right, I'll
get off the soapbox. So why don't you keep going
with the CSI analysis, Kelly.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
In our most recent analysis, we're trying to educate Colorado.
So what are these two measures? I think a lot
of people are not focused yet on that ballot, but
the election's coming up. So what is proposition LLL and MM?
They both relate to this healthy Meals program. So proposition LLL,
this is allowing the state to hold on two dollars
(05:32):
so that they can continue to pay for this program
and not have taxpayer dollars refunded. So if l L passes,
taxpayers will not be refunded twelve million dollars in fiscally
year twenty six and the instead the state will use
that to continue to fund this program.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
But that's not all.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
There's also this other proposition MM, which raises taxes on
those making more than three hundred thousand. Is ross just indicated,
So once again it is race. It's allowing the state
to hold on to your refund and it would lead
to an additional tax hike for Colorado's who earn over
three hundred thousand, they would incur tax increases. We're estimating
(06:14):
about three hundred and seventy for single filers and about
five hundred and sixty for joint filers, So it's not nothing,
and I hope that's something that voters will will consider.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Right, And if MM passes, basically, if you earn't over
three hundred thousand dollars a year, your ability to deduct
many things from your state income tax will be almost eliminated.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
I think there'll be.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Like you can deduct one thousand dollars if you're filing
singly and two thousand if you're filing jointly, or some
small number like that, Right, But it's essentially what they're
doing is funding it by eliminating tax deductions for people
earning over three hundred thousand dollars a year. You made
a really interesting point at the beginning of this, Kelly,
and even I didn't think about it, probably as much
(06:58):
as I normally would have or should have, and that
is that I really haven't heard any conversation about the
cost of the program. And obviously there's more demand than
they put in their model, just in terms of a
number of people who want the free lunch. But is
(07:20):
it also possible that the way they are providing or
what they are providing, or something beyond just the number
of meals is more expensive than it needs to.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Be, that's right.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
The underlying program has a lot of additional expenses outside
of just the free meals, so it provides technical assistance grants.
It's trying to have the schools buy more Colorado locals,
so there's these by local food grants. It also increased
wages for food workers, so those expenses were not technically
(07:57):
necessary for sustaining the healthy Meals program, but it drives
the cost up, and legislators failed to address any of
the underlying cost drivers in the program and instead are
just asking taxpayers for more money.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Yeah, I mean I wonder which of those things that
you mentioned, or potentially other things that you didn't mention.
And I don't mean I know what they are. I
just mean things I haven't thought about and things you
didn't mention. I mean, I wonder if there are ways
to save money in this. I mean, I don't know
if your analysis has really gone into that so much
as just talking about here's what the numbers are, and
(08:36):
they haven't looked at big picture.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
You know, even the chief economists of the Legislative Council
for the legislature. He warned the same thing. The budgetary
issues that we are seeing for the Healthy Meals program,
they come on the expenditure side. So the legislature has
had these conversations and failed to take action, deciding that
malet measure was the easiest way to keep a financially
(09:04):
unsustainable program moving forward by asking for more revenue and
not addressing underlying cost.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
All right, Uh, do you want to add anything else?
I think we I think we got the highlights there
of the report. And by the way, if you're just
joining this, Kelly Cawfield from Common Sense Institute, we're talking
about CSI's new report, Colorado's free school lunch program is
getting more expensive. I should have mentioned the website. Easiest
link to get there is CSI co dot org like
(09:34):
Common Sense Institute Colorado CSI coo dot org and you
can see this and lots of other great work on
things from economics to crime, to health to this thing
that we're talking about. Anyway, I'll give you the last
nineteen seconds for your your final thoughts on LLL and MM,
and then we'll probably have you back or or another
Common Sense Institute person if you want when the ballots
(09:57):
are out, and we're sort of in the heart of
the election, but ballots are coming out soon, which is
why we're doing this now.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
The bottom line is, if voters approve these ballot measures
and the state does not take steps to better manage
these underlying program cost I think we'll just be back
here ross all. These school meals for all could continue
to run deficits in the future, and that would require
transfers from the general fund and potentially more tax hikes
in the future.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
You know. I actually I have one other question for you,
and I don't know, and you can just tell me
you don't have the answer to this or haven't thought
about it yet. Is there a sense of what will
happen to this program if LL and MM fail.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
If LL and MM fail, interesting, you know, then I
think they would be forced to address some of the
underlying costs and potentially sir fewer students.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Yeah, I mean, at some point I had heard and
this is just rumblings. And it's hard to tell from
politicians whether whether they're sort of telling what they really
think will happen, or whether they're trying to scare people
into voting for a tax increase in this particular situation.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
But they were talking.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
About, you know, like well we'll only we'll only provide
free lunches for half the year or for something like that,
because I don't think the way the law stands right now,
I don't think they could.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Just without passing another law.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
They couldn't just go back and say, all right, well
we're gonna have to charge charge for lunch for you know,
families that make over X, which which will be their instinct.
But I do I do wonder about that. Anyway, anyway,
we'll we'll have time to figure it out. Kelly Caawfield
is executive director of the Common Sense Institute CSI coo
dot org. And this particular report, Colorado's free school lunch
(11:49):
program is getting more expensive. Thank you, Kelly, Always good
to see you.
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!