AP NEWS
Related topics

Recent Kansas editorials

May 28, 2019

The Wichita Eagle, May 23

What kind of person argues against feeding hungry children?

John Whitmer, a former state representative from Wichita, began a recent Facebook post: “I don’t mean to be cold-hearted, but. . .”

What followed was a scathing criticism of a program that feeds hungry children. It’s a common and perennial accusation voiced by many, and it’s absurd.

Whitmer argued that the Summer Food Service Program, a federal initiative paid for by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, should require families to prove citizenship and financial need before their children can receive a free meal.

Currently the program, which begins next week at 42 sites around Wichita, is open to all children 18 and younger — no questions, no reservations, no qualifying guidelines or paperwork.

And that’s the way it needs to stay.

The program was created to ensure that children in low-income areas can continue to receive nutritious meals during long school vacations, when they don’t have access to school lunch or breakfast. It’s financed through federal tax dollars, not district funds.

Last summer, nearly 700 sites across Kansas, including schools, churches, libraries and recreation centers, served about 1.4 million meals through the program. And while that’s impressive, it represents just a fraction of the need.

Kansas provided summer meals to fewer than 10 percent of children who qualify for free or discounted school lunches. Twenty-one Kansas counties had no summer food program sites, meaning many families in rural areas struggle to keep their children fed.

Whitmer presumes that families scam the system and waste taxpayer money by grabbing free meals that they could easily pay for themselves. But that’s simply not the case.

“I would encourage him to visit a site to see the impact it has on the families and youth that are participating,” said Christina Ostmeyer, spokeswoman for Kansas Appleseed, an anti-poverty nonprofit group.

“Volunteers at these sites work hard to make sure that kids with more needs aren’t going hungry or falling behind through no fault of their own.”

To qualify as a sponsor and receive reimbursement for summer meals, any school, church or nonprofit group has to locate their site in a low-income area where a significant portion of households qualify for free school meals. In 2017, the Wichita site that served the most summer meals was the Boys and Girls Club near 21st and Grove.

Whitmer said Thursday that he doesn’t oppose the summer lunch program in concept. But free meals should go only to truly needy children, he said, “and means testing would accomplish that.”

But requiring families to prove financial need by submitting tax forms or other documents is an unnecessary hurdle — one that would contribute to the stigma poor families feel and would dissuade many from participating.

Should children in our state go hungry because their parents are unable or unwilling to fill out required paperwork? Advocates of the summer food program say no, and we agree.

Sedgwick County Commissioner Michael O’Donnell, a Republican and frequent supporter of Whitmer’s anti-tax, anti-big-government stances, responded to his colleague’s Facebook post by sharing a poignant personal story.

Growing up in south Wichita, O’Donnell said, he and his siblings frequented Aley-Stanley Park for what they assumed was a fun family picnic. Their mother’s main objective, though, was the free lunch.

“Did that make my parents proud? No. Was it unfortunately necessary? Yes,” O’Donnell wrote.

Whitmer and other self-proclaimed Christian conservatives with a similar view on this issue would do well to visit a summer meal site, talk to grateful participants, and remember Matthew 25:35:

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.”

___

The Topeka Capital-Journal, May 25

Editorial: Kansas should avoid prolonged legal battles

Kansas taxpayers recently paid outside law firms $899,000 in a losing effort to cut off Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds. The above-market rates paid to the law firms should generate more scrutiny of legal contracts and more caution from state officials when choosing which legal battles Kansans should fund.

Conventional wisdom says we should fight the fights worth fighting, and fight the fights we can win — the Planned Parenthood lawsuit was neither.

In 2016, Kansas informed Planned Parenthood that it would end the organization’s Medicaid contract, a move with the potential to cut off 450 to 500 patients from receiving such care as cancer screenings, testing for sexually transmitted infections and birth control from Planned Parenthood.

Federal law already prohibits Medicaid funds from covering abortion services.

At the time, there was reason to believe they would lose in court. The director of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Vikki Wachino, sent a letter sent to all 50 state Medicaid agencies warning them not to stop contracts based on a provider also offering abortion services.

Similar cases involving multiple states wound through the courts for two years, resulting in five federal appeals decisions in favor of Planned Parenthood and one against. Kansas lost in every court decision. The Supreme Court refused to take up the case in 2018, leaving the federal court decisions in place.

The state attorney general’s office typically defends the state in court but contracts with private law firms in complex matters. Three law firms hired by the state of Kansas charged from $492 per hour to $750 an hour, in contrast of average billing rates for Kansas law firms of $244 an hour, according to a 2017 survey by the Kansas Bar Association. The charges may not have been inappropriate as the work was undoubtedly complex.

Making political decisions with the full knowledge that they will drag the state into prolonged legal battles requiring specialized law firms is risky business. Given our limited state resources, such decisions should be carefully evaluated.

Taxpayer resources would be better spent on maintaining the health and welfare of Kansans.

All contents © copyright 2019 The Associated Press.All rights reserved.