Free School Lunch Politics by Susan Levine Page A

poverty by integrating the poor into the economic mainstream and that they preferred services over income transfers. Thus, they needed some way to figure out who needed the services. Hence, a poverty line. The Politics ofSocial Welfare, 57–60.
    73. Interagency Task Force on Nutrition and Adequate Diets, 1968, LBJ Library. This report noted, “Many local communities have been unwilling or financially unable to accept the local costs associated with the operation of a food stamp program.” The task force recommended that the law be amended to allow federal funding of local costs “where extraordinary actions are necessary to start or to continue a program,” 2.
    74. Committee on School Lunch Participation, Their Daily Bread, 35.
    75. Ibid., 33.
    76. House Committee on Education and Labor, 1969, p. 100.
    77. Senate Select Committee, Part 11, July 9–11, 1969, p. 3413.
    78. House Subcommittee on D.C., p. 33.
    79. Senate Select Committee, Part 1, December 17–19, 1968, p. 157.
    80. John Perryman, “School Lunch Programs,” in Mayer, U.S. Nutrition Policies in the Seventies, 217–18.
    81. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Professors and the Poor,” in Moynihan, ed, On Understanding Poverty, 22; David Zarefsky, President Johnson’s War on Poverty: Rhetoric and History (n.p.: University of Alabama Press, 1986), 41; and Waddan, Politics of Social Welfare.
    82. Senate Select Committee, Part 1, December 17–19, 1968, p. 25.
    83. House Subcommittee on Education, 1968, p. 186.
    84. Historian Richard J. Jensen observed that while the Democrats tried to extend New Deal type social measures, they were unable to do so because of “the strength of the conservative coalition consisting of the great majority of Republican congressmen in alliance with most of the Southern Democrats this coalition depended upon modern, middle-class families, who were opposed to taxes, and hence spending, except for national defense expenditures.” See his Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854–1938 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983), 14.
    85. (Mrs.) Helen A. Davis to the President, March 25, 1966, WHCF Gen AG 7–2, Box 11, LBJ Library (emphasis in the original).
    86. Vella (Mrs. Olin) Bellinger to the President, WHCF Gen AG 7–2, Box 11, LBJ Library.
    87. Senate Select Committee, Part 11, p. 3413.
    88. C. L. Mooney to the President, WHCF Gen AG 7–2, Box 11, LBJ Library.
    89. Committee on School Lunch Participation, Their Daily Bread, 46.
    90. Ibid. Also see Senate Employment Subcommittee, p. 112. In one Texas district, children had to carry the trays, wipe tables, and wash dishes.
    91. (Miss) Genevieve Olkiewicz to the President, March 14,1966, WHCF Gen AG 7–2, Box 11, LBJ Library.
    92. “Child Nutrition Programs: Issues for the 101st Congress,” School Food Service Research Review, Spring 1989, p. 34.
    93. House Select Committee, 1966, p. 23. The American Parents Committee resurfaced during this debate. See (Mrs.) Barbara D. McGarry to the President, January 18, 1966, WHCF, Gen AG 7–2, Box 11, LBJ Library.
    94. House Select Education Committee, 1966, p. 14.
    95. Ibid., p. 15.
    96. Ibid., p. 14.
    97. See John Burnett, “The Rise and Decline of School Meals in Britain, 18601900,” in John Burnett and Derek J. Oddy, eds., The Origins and Development ofFood Policy in Europe (London: Leicester University Press, 1994). Burnett suggests that “the issue of whether certain children attending school should be fed at public expense has a strong moral and political overtone and has been hotly, even passionately debated … because it raises fundamental questions about the responsibility of the state as against that of parents” (56).
    98. C. L. Mooney to the President (signed by five board members), WHCF Gen AG 7–2, Box 11, LBJ Library.
    99. Memo, Thomas R. Hughes to Henry Wilson, February 17, 1966, WHCF EX LE/HE 1–1, Box 59, LBJ