A bill before the Legislature that would have the state pay for breakfast for more poor children ought to be approved. The bill highlights the need for, and role of, a social safety net, which is often a target in highly charged times such as these, as state government faces a funding shortfall and the economy slows.

The bill, LD 1997, sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro, and co-sponsored by Rep. Pat Flood, R-Winthrop, would require schools that offer free and reduced-price lunch to also provide breakfast. Serving the morning meal in school was initiated as a way to ensure that children from poor families began their day with nutritious food in their stomachs. Studies have shown – not surprisingly – that children have a harder time learning when they are hungry, or fed nutritionally poor diets.

According to supporters of the measure, only 43 percent of children financially eligible for the reduced price or free breakfast participate in the program. The bill would eliminate the current two-tier system that has some children, based on financial eligibility, getting breakfast for free, and others having to pay 30 cents for the meal. To cover the cost, Sen. Mitchell wants to take $1.4 million from the Fund for A Healthy Maine.

The fund itself is healthy, totaling $61 million this year, and projected to grow to $73 million in three years. The money comes from the settlement paid to states by tobacco companies from a lawsuit filed in the 1990s and is designated for smoking cessation and prevention programs, substance abuse treatment and other health-related work.

Fiscal conservatives might respond to Sen. Mitchell’s proposal by arguing that families of children eligible for the reduced price breakfast should be able to scrape together 30 cents for the meal. After all, they might say, these same families seem to spend money on lottery tickets, satellite TV and alcohol. And that stereotyping, whether accurate or not, goes to the heart of why a society insists on safety net programs.

If poor families are able to raise the 30 cents but don’t, their children are going to be just as hungry, and will fall just as far behind their better-fed peers. The case can always be made that the poor could do more to change their plight. Sadly, these kind of invectives grow more common in hard economic times. The middle class, working harder for less, begins to take a more jaundiced view of government assistance to the poor.

As Rep. Flood – a self-described conservative – said in a radio interview, the Legislature can do little to make poor families spend their money wisely. But it can – and should – intervene when it is able to help children. That spending should be seen as an investment in breaking the cycle of poverty for the next generation.