> something as simple as that seems like a given that would be embarrassing not to provide. It's confusing (and embarrassing) because, in the grand scheme of g

> something as simple as that seems like a given that would be embarrassing not to provide. It's confusing (and embarrassing) because, in the grand scheme of government spending, it is something that could be (and should be) easily provided without any strings attached. If literal 10-year-old Richie Rich is dropped off at school in a helicopter, he should still be able to get a free lunch: that's how simple it should be. Adding means-testing of stuff like this is what cocks the whole thing up and makes it doubly expensive.