This fall’s ballot will be a short one. Locally, there will be a Ute Mountain Ute election on Oct. 10, a Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 School Board election and two statewide questions on Nov. 4. Of the latter, both are for the same need – student breakfasts and lunches.
In 2022, Colorado voters passed Proposition FF, which established the Healthy School Meals for All program. The program funds free breakfasts and lunches for all K-12 public school students by limiting the state income tax deductions for households with a federal adjusted gross income of $300,000 or more.
In its first two years, program participation was higher than expected and inflation was also higher than projected. As a result, the revenue generated did not fully cover program costs, leading to a funding gap.
If you believe that successful learning is more likely to take place when a student is not hungry, as does the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, and that Coloradans with incomes above $300,000 can step up a bit further to make that possible, these questions ought to elicit an easy “yes.”
LL will allow the state to retain more than the $100 million TABOR-required first year stipulation that appeared in 2022 ballot language authorizing the program, which passed handily. Apparently, the tax on incomes above $300,000 is bringing in about $130 million, and thus as a component of TABOR requires a follow-up ballot question in order for that excess to be retained and put to use.
MM would do more in terms of funding, and eliminate the need for LL. Beyond filling the immediate funding gap, revenue from Proposition MM would also be used for other program components that have been delayed due to the budget shortfall:
- Increase wages and stipends for school meal workers
- Provide grants for schools to purchase locally grown and raised food
- Cover grants for equipment and technical assistance
MM’s further limits on tax deductions would raise an estimated additional $95 million to fully fund 2022’s Healthy School Meals for All. The increase is estimated to amount to about $486 annually for high income earners.
And, if by chance there is excess funding available beyond what’s needed for the two meals, that will be added to what the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, aka food stamps) has available. The portion of SNAP’s federal funding, along with other federal program cuts ordered by the White House and passed by Republicans in Congress, will decline, perhaps by as much as $170 million.
Again, both LL and MM would only apply to those with adjusted gross incomes above $300,000, funding a free meal and lunch program the voters very much liked in 2022 with 57% in favor.
Yes, opposition to the two could come from those who don’t want government, in this case state government, to have any more money to spend, or from those who feel that it’s not equitable to require more from high income earners. Neither objections are those of the Journal’s editorial board, nor those of HD 59 Rep. Katie Stewart who sponsored the bill referring the two measures to the voters.
This tax revenue is targeted. The program has been a success. It reduced the stigma for students eligible for free and reduced lunches, supports student learning and performance, and those with greater resources can fund and fully realize the extent of the program.
Recommended is a “yes” vote on each LL and MM.
