School meal subsidy proposal raises questions about the government feeding families

By Fred Knapp , Senior Reporter/Producer Nebraska Public Media

April 8, 2026, 6 p.m. ·

Nebraska Capitol (Fred Knapp/Nebraska Public Media News) — Nebraska Capitol. (Fred Knapp/Nebraska Public Media News)

Listen To This Story

A proposal to increase subsidies for school meals raised larger questions about government growth and family responsibility in the Legislature on Wednesday.

Last week, senators advanced a proposal (LB966) by Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh that would allow students who currently qualify for reduced-price school meals to instead get them for free.

The proposal would mean, for example, that a student from a family with annual household of around $42,000 to $59,000 would get free breakfasts and lunches, instead of having to pay 30 or 40 cents per meal.

At the time, Cavanaugh said Speaker John Arch had said he would schedule the bill for further consideration only if Cavanaugh found private donations to cover the cost, estimated at about $1.2 million per year.

Wednesday, Cavanaugh said she had secured the promised funding from an out-of-state donor who did not want to be named yet because the person did not want to be perceived as lobbying for the bill.

Supporters hailed the development as promising to alleviate hunger for kids from low-income families.

But Sen. Christy Armendariz, who said she grew up in a low-income family, objected to the idea.

“I think parents have the ability to feed their kids. I do not want to become a state giving kids their breakfast and lunch every single day. I want parents to own that when they can. Parents can feed their kids whatever they want at their direction. You don't want the government taking over your child that much,” Armendariz said.

Cavanaugh said the private donation would cover a pilot program that would last five years. But Sen. Kathleen Kauth argued it would be hard to discontinue the program once it started.

“I have real big concerns with this, because in five years, whoever's here in the Legislature is going to have people coming and testifying before them and saying, ‘You can't take this away. It's something that we're used to. It's something that you owe us. How dare you?’ And it will be seen as taking something away rather than the stopping of a generous gift,” Kauth said.

Speaker Arch pushed back against that argument.

“Turning down money from a private donor because it may go away in five years, I think is very short sighted," he said. "In the meantime, we'll have children that will receive some subsidized food and help with their situation… Yes, it may go away in five years, and yes, the Legislature may need to address this issue in five years, but I don't think that's the reason for us to vote ‘no’ on this or to turn down a generous offer from a private donor."

And Cavanaugh sought to focus attention on the present, not what could happen in five years.

Senator Machaela Cavanaugh — Machaela Cavanaugh

“Yes, somebody might come and ask for this to be extended with state funds, but it will be determined by that Legislature whether or not they want to do that. What we are determining today is to feed over 20,000 Nebraska children with private dollars in a public-private partnership. Please, let's feed some kids,” Cavanaugh said.

Cavanaugh had originally proposed the subsidy for both public and private school students, but said the donor wanted it limited to public schools. Sen. Carolyn Bosn offered an amendment to change that.

“I think we should feed all kids. If you fit the category of being a child who needs lunch, I don't care what school you go to. And I'm grateful that there's private dollars that are being used to support public schools getting lunches for kids. This (amendment) will use state dollars to fund lunches for the same category of children in poverty at private schools,” Bosn said.

Bosn's amendment, which Cavanaugh supported, would cost about $111,000 a year in tax dollars. Senators voted 37-4 to adopt it, then gave second-round approval to Cavanaugh's bill on a voice vote.

Also Wednesday, senators gave second-round consideration to a proposal revising the state’s law on cattle brand inspection. Brand inspection is supported by ranchers to safeguard their cattle from theft in far-flung grazing areas, but operators of feedlots, where cattle are fattened before slaughter, have resented the fees they are charged for inspections.

LB1187 would allow fees to support the state’s Brand Committee’s inspections to rise from $1.10 to $1.50 per head, but feedlots would only have to pay 25% of that. Sen. Danielle Conrad questioned the bill's sponsor, Agriculture Committee Chair Sen. Barry DeKay about that.

“We're essentially, as part of 1187, cutting fees or charges from some of the largest feed lots by a million dollars?” Conrad asked.

“I don't know what the total would be, but we're going to a percentage basis. So the feedlots would be at 25% rather than the 100% of what they were before,” DeKay said.

The Legislative Fiscal Office estimates the change will save feedlots $981,000 next fiscal year. Sen. Mike Jacobson, sponsor of the compromise fee structure that is now in the bill, explained the reasoning.

“Cattle are not stolen out of feed yards. They're penned up, they're fenced around, they're lighted. Nobody's stealing cattle out of feed yards, and so feed yards have long complained that they're paying a significant price to support the brand inspection process and getting no value,” Jacobson said.

Senators gave the bill second-round approval on a voice vote.