Aren’t Free School Meals a Conservative's Dream Policy?

Summary

---

Optimist Economy

Episode: "Aren’t Free School Meals a Conservative's Dream Policy?"
Date: September 2, 2025
Hosts: Kathryn Anne Edwards & Robin Rauzi

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Kathryn Anne Edwards (economist) and Robin Rauzi explore the surprising argument that universal free school meals – often dismissed as a left-wing "welfare" measure – are actually a deeply American, even conservative, policy idea. They trace the history of school lunch programs, break down the research on their impact, dig into ideological debates, and challenge listeners to reconsider what fairness, efficiency, and merit mean in practice. The episode is rich in insight, humor, and the hosts’ trademark banter.

---

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. Why Free School Meals? The Case for Universal School Lunch

• [09:34] Kathryn: “It's free school breakfast and lunch for every public school kid in the United States. Also known as universal school meals.”
• The hosts argue that universal free meals solve stigma, improve outcomes, and are easier to implement than means-tested systems.
• Kathryn: “There is such a thing as a free lunch when the government buys it for your kids... even your most ardent libertarian should be for free school lunch.”
• The conversation challenges the assumption that free school lunches are un-American, reframing them as consistent with American values of fairness and merit.

---

2. Historical Context: How U.S. School Lunches Began

• [10:35] Kathryn: Traces the program’s origins to the post-World War II era (1946), when many draftees were found to be unfit for service due to childhood malnutrition.
  • “One of the first large-scale health tests given to children in the United States was...millions that showed up to fight in WWII...it was not good.”
• The original aim was public health, not necessarily poverty alleviation.

---

3. Means-Testing and Stigma in School Lunch

• The standard model: free/reduced lunch for low-income students, paid by others, administered via school-level income testing and colored tickets.
• [12:48] Kathryn: “The number of people who respond and say, mortifying it was to have the red ticket...so you just had a way of literally putting up a little measure to say, like, here comes the poor kid...”
• Means-testing “traumatizes” and singles out students in need. Universal meals eliminate this.

---

4. Modern Reform: The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and Universal Meals

• The 2010 “Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act” (HHFKA) under Obama:
  • Brought strict nutrition standards (“whole grains, fruits and vegetables have to be fresh—had to ramp this up”).
  • Expanded “community eligibility” so schools could qualify en masse, not just by individual application.
• [18:19] Kathryn: “The studies, like – they're so good.”
  • Universal meals raise test scores, especially among low and middle-income children.
  • Kids actually consumed healthier food.
  • Reduced administration burden for schools.
  • Families saved time, money, and emotional energy.

---

5. Evidence: Universal Meals Improve Outcomes for All

• [18:19–21:26] Key Findings:
  • Higher Test Scores: Reduced hunger and improved nutrition lift academic performance.
  • Healthier Eating: Kids actually eat the improved food, not just throw it away.
  • Reduced School Administration: No more complex means-testing or tracking.
  • Parental Relief: Less meal prep stress and cost.
  • [23:13] Lower Retail Food Prices: Moving school food purchasing to wholesale can reduce local grocery costs for everyone.
  • Policy Spillover: State governments embraced universal meals, often overtaking federal requirements.

---

6. Fairness, Meritocracy, and Conservative Arguments

• [26:19] Kathryn: “Not being hungry should be a level playing field. And let people's actual merits determine what happens to them in school.”
• Universal meals level the “merit” field by erasing hidden nutritional advantages for wealthier children.
• [27:19] Kathryn: “Sometimes the argument that is never said but probably thought on some level is that the more the government helps children, the less of an advantage rich kids have.”

---

7. Pushback & Political Rhetoric – Myths and Misrepresentations

• Conservatives often claim universal meals create “dependency.”
  • [27:47] Kathryn (sarcastically): “Next you're going to tell me I'm going to have to transport them to school on a big bus that I have to buy. Sorry, it's just these kids are takers.”
• Robin: “I think that's never phrased that way. Right. It's always phrased like you're creating dependency of poor people.” [27:30]
• The Paul Ryan anecdote: Used a (fabricated/plagiarized) story about a child wanting a “brown bag lunch” as a metaphor for parental love, arguing “the left is offering a full stomach and an empty soul.” [38:11–42:32]

---

8. Implementation Practicalities & “Ketchup is a Vegetable”

• [31:42 & 33:00] Kathryn: Explains historic attempts (1980s Reagan era) to cut costs by reclassifying cheap foods as meeting nutrition standards (e.g., ketchup as a vegetable).
• The real complexity (and waste) is in targeting and policing eligibility, not in feeding everyone.
  • [36:43] Kathryn: “If you just gave everybody the same food, it's actually a lot less federal government interference in people's lives.”

---

9. Pandemic Lessons and Popularity of Universal Meals

• During COVID, all students got free meals – and the impact was positive.
• Many states have since adopted universal meal policies (California, Maine, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, etc.).
• [29:19] Kathryn: “Universal school meals... I would give it like a decade tops before it’s everywhere in the U.S. because schools love it so much.”

---

10. Cost and Value

• [30:01] Robin: “Don't get me wrong, I want to feed kids, but it's not cheap. I mean, it would be something like, what, $40 billion a year...?”
• Kathryn: “...even if it were $80 billion, that's nothing. Not from the federal government's perspective... For reference, ...$460 billion a year in tax cuts...” [30:18]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• [18:19] Kathryn: “Food does better on tests. Yeah. Unhealthy food versus healthy food. Healthy food does better on tests.”
• [26:19] Kathryn: “Not being hungry should be a level playing field.”
• [35:32] Sen. John Heinz (quoted): “Ketchup is a condiment. This is one of the most ridiculous regulations I have ever heard of. And I suppose I need not add that I know something about ketchup and relish, or at least did at one time.”
• [41:37] Kathryn (on Paul Ryan’s speech): “A school lunch feeds the belly and starves the soul. So gross.”
• [36:43] Kathryn: “If you just gave everybody the same food, it's actually a lot less federal government interference in people's lives.”
• [44:15] Kathryn: “If your principle is fairness and having people succeed on their own merits, you need to be for universal school meals. ... It reduces administrative burden. It reduces government interference. It’s just, here’s the check, buy the food, raise the test scores, make it easier for families.”

---

Segment Timestamps

• [09:34] — Introduction of Universal Free School Meals
• [10:35] — Origins of US School Lunch Program (1946)
• [12:38] — Experiencing the Stigma of Means-Testing
• [13:21] — The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and Expansion to Universal Meals
• [18:19] — Research Findings: Academics, Health, Economic Effects
• [23:10] — Grocery Store Economics: Spillover Benefits
• [26:16] — The Conservative, Meritocratic Case for Universal Meals
• [27:30] — “Dependency” Arguments and Stigma
• [29:02] — Universal Meal State Progress; Predictions
• [30:01] — Cost and Government Spending Comparisons
• [31:42 & 33:00] — “Ketchup as a Vegetable” and Historical Policy Debates
• [38:11] — The Paul Ryan “Brown Bag” Anecdote and Fact-Checking
• [44:15] — Reframing Universal Meals as a Fairness Issue
• [46:10] — Listener Executive Orders (fun segment; parent work on resumes; D.C. statehood, etc.)

---

Tone, Humor, and Engagement

The episode maintains a lively, witty, conversational tone throughout. The hosts mix humor (mocking their own intro skills, debating Tom Hanks’s acting choices, “ketchup as a vegetable”), sharp cultural critique (the “dependency” rhetoric, “empty brown bag” metaphor), and compelling research findings. They regularly poke fun at bureaucratic complexity and policy follies, while returning consistently to optimism and practical reform—“build a better future, one problem and solution at a time.”

---

Conclusion

This episode makes a thorough, engaging case for universal free school meals—not just as a progressive ideal, but as a policy that improves child welfare, reduces stigma, levels the playing field, eases administrative burdens, and aligns with American values of fairness and opportunity. Packed with historical context, empirical evidence, and smart banter, this episode provides both a rousing argument and an accessible policy primer for listeners of all stripes.

---

Transcript

[A]

And let's do a moment of silence for all of the.

[B]

I walked two miles to school.

[A]

In the school. All the moms and grandmas and granddads and dads out there who walked 40 miles to the school.

[B]

I didn't walk 40 miles. I did walk to school.

[A]

Uphill. Both ways, y'.

[B]

All. In the snow.

[A]

Hello, and welcome to Optimist Economy. I'm Kathryn.

[B]

I'm Robin.

[A]

On this show, we believe the US Economy can be better. And we talk about how to get there one problem and solution at a time.

[B]

I like that you don't have that memorized, that you're actually still.

[A]

No. I had to put it on every time there'd be like, hello, welcome to Katherine Optimist. I'm economy. Nothing about me is good for radio is all I'm going to say.

[B]

Okay. At the top of our show, we make a few announcements. Can I go first?

[A]

Yeah, you wait.

[B]

So, in a few weeks, we will be recording another Q and A episode. So if you have a question for the Economist on this podcast, send it to us. Send it to us by [e-mail] Wait.

[A]

They can ask you a question too, though, right?

[B]

I don't know what they would ask me a question about, but they can. Sure. Or you can call us and leave us a voicemail and we will play it on the podcast. Now, I know you're driving or you're off gardening. We will also put this phone number in our newsletter, but it is 202-643-0295. Over to you.

[A]

Okay, great. We also have a website, optimisteconomy.com where there's a whole bunch of stuff on it, but mainly just ways for you to give us money, which we will take and we appreciate and enjoy. And in fact, Robin has some fun news on that front.

[B]

So, first of all, this episode brought to you in part by our new spiritual sponsor, Kevin in Melrose, Massachusetts, but also that we had a donor who donated at the $7.25 cent monthly level, which is, of course, the federal minimum wage. And Nicely done. Nicely done.

[A]

This is so well done.

[B]

We will. I'm considering trying to make that an official donor level, 725amonth, but it does commit you to raising that when the federal minimum wage goes up.

[A]

That's right. So, you know, putting our optimism on the line, huh?

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

Is this would be one of the rare instances of putting our mouth where the money is?

[B]

All right, anything else?

[A]

Nope.

[B]

Okay. Segment two, also known as Retcon. If you're actually new to the show. Retcon stands for retroactive continuity, and this is where we reflect on things that we talked about in previous episodes or.

[A]

Fix things we said that were wrong. We haven't had one of those in a while, though, to be fair, if you've been following along on the retcon, I have an important retcon, which was that I mentioned that Charlie Wilson's war is an outstanding Philip C. Moorhoffman role.

[B]

You said it was a top three.

[A]

From Philip Seymour Hoffman, and I stand by that statement. And I rewatched the movie since and I still stand by it because everything he says is quotable and amazing. But I think I would retcon to say it's a good Hanks movie, too. Tom Hanks stars as Charlie Wilson. He's the main character. And I think I didn't give enough like love or flowers to Tom Hanks and that he's. It's a pretty good Tom Hanks movie. I don't know if it's a top three Tom Hanks movie, but it's certainly a good Hanks movie. To which I replied, to which Robin was like, actually, so I hadn't seen the movie.

[B]

I watched it after our last conversation. We watched it last weekend. I find Hanks miscast. Now I just want to say I love Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks, among other things, is a fantastic Angeleno Robin.

[A]

We are going to lose listeners that are going to be dropping like flies.

[B]

Love Tom Hanks.

[A]

These communists don't like Tom Hanks.

[B]

No, no, no. I love Tom Hanks, but I think he's such a nice guy and the character is a womanizer and a drinker, and I just don't think he's. I don't think he was the guy to put in that role.

[A]

Who would you cast?

[B]

I know who would you.

[A]

If we're going to be red if you're going to throw around such shade to Tom Hanks as Charlie Wilson, I.

[B]

Actually o so Andy suggests Bill Paxton, and I'm not good at coming up with. I'm not one of these fantasy movie casting.

[A]

That is a podcast my sister and I want to have together is just fantasy book adaptation movie casting.

[B]

But I actually watched it and thought, well, Philip Seymour Hoffman should have played Charlie Wilson.

[A]

I'm just glad this movie was made when it was because now it would have been like Glen Powell in every role.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Every episode, we like to make sure we put in something that gets people really mad at us. That's unrelated to economics.

[B]

That's good. It's good for engagement.

[A]

It's good for engagement. Like when I said I wanted to have either no mean yelling or a quiet section of stadiums.

[B]

People, like, people were jump on that.

[A]

Just stay at home, you entitled bastard. Seriously, I'm sorry that my fake law.

[B]

My fake executive order that is just.

[A]

Kind of made up was so offensive to you. So, yeah, let's. You gotta play into the nego algorithm.

[B]

Yeah. Okay. All right. Terms and conditions.

[A]

I don't have anything.

[B]

You got nothing. Okay. I looked up death knell. Now, it's not that, because I didn't totally know what a death knell is, but it was used in a sentence in such a way with the verb, we are witnessing the death knell. But I want down this rabbit hole about these bells. And so what I did not know is that the death knell was one of three bells. And actually, the way that we use this phrase metaphorically to mean it's like a warning of something is about to die away would actually have been what's called the passing bell. The passing bell was like, you were sick and expected to die. It was a little risky because, you know, maybe the person wouldn't die. And then the death knell was the bell when the person actually died. And then there's something called the lich bell was when they buried you in the ground. These were in the Middle Ages in England, and they also would sometimes have very specific patterns, depending on who it was who died. So, like, three sets of three bells might mean a bishop had died or a noble person had died. So anyway, they were like the news alerts of their day of letting people in the village know who a prominence had died in their community.

[A]

Okay, so I think that's weird. I think, like, going back to the theme of the show being optimism. Like, there's also some pretty great things about being alive not in the Middle Ages. I'll take today's problems over the complicated bell system that's developed because so many people die all the time. I'm going to take a minimum wage in need of raising over that whole bell.

[B]

This was like village life. This isn't, you know, Houston. But. Yeah.

[A]

Wait, so then how is death knell correctly used today?

[B]

So death knell is often used. It's got a whole second meaning, meaning the warning of something is about to go away.

[A]

So it's the warning and not the. Like, it's happened.

[B]

Right. As opposed to, yeah, it's already too late.

[A]

So if it's a death knell, it's not Too late.

[B]

I know, which is weird. But that is how people use it.

[A]

Okay, so that's good to know for optimism that we might be at a death knell. But, like, here's where our podcast is of, like, hey, just because it's the death knell, that doesn't mean we're past it.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

It's not the Lich.

[B]

That's not the Lich bell. Which is we are dead and in the ground. No, not yet.

[A]

Is that the one that tied a string to people's finger in case they were buried alive and they would ring the bell that. No, but that's a whole other bell.

[B]

There's, like, a whole lot of bells. They would also ring hand bells as they carried the bodies to the cemetery. To protect your soul from being, I don't know, attacked by evil spirits.

[A]

Sure. So I'm just going to reiterate that being alive today, optimistic, being at a death knell, still some optimism there, and we're gonna jump on it.

[B]

And life after antibiotics, all so good.

[A]

Okay, so that's. That's really not related to our centerpiece, even though it is some interesting food for thought. I just thought the last few episodes, we've been dealing with some hard stuff of, like, GDP and measurement and underemployment, and so we just wanted numbers, a lot of numbers, and, like, definitions of measurements. And it wasn't necessarily, like, uplifting to know that our economy is so complex and how it can mistreat people. Sometimes it's hard to measure. So we wanted to bring it back as a real winner. Today's episode is about a truly banger policy that we wanted to talk about in the fall because a lot of people are sending their kids back to school. A lot of people are going back to school themselves and just tell people what it is.

[B]

Yeah, you're going to get there.

[A]

No, I have another six minutes. It's an intro. Gotta give Sophie something to do.

[B]

It's.

[A]

It's free school breakfast and lunch for every public school kid in the United States. Also known as universal school meals.

[B]

Universal school meals.

[A]

There is such a thing as a free lunch when the government buys it for your kids. What I wanted to talk about with you, Robin, was I actually think that this is a very American thing to do and that it would be like, at first brush, and certainly first blush. Brush, blush, blush. Okay. I think I'm just not gonna say it. So definitely, when you first think about it and the history of how school lunches have been approached, it's like this is communist. This is like the government interfering in parents lives and government encroachment of the welfare state. But I actually think if you got down to it, this is incredibly American policy. And so I want to talk about all the good things it does and then kind of sell it as even your most like ardent libertarian should be for free school lunch.

[B]

Okay, okay.

[A]

So back in 1946.

[B]

Perfect, perfect.

[A]

This is like World War II. So we're like post war, kind of during the war. But the first entry of the federal government into school lunches was right after World War II. It was in 1946 and it was a direct result of the fact that so many cons, script and draftees that showed up to fight in World War II were dramatically underweight to the point of like failing fitness exams because they were so malnourished.

[B]

Well, was it depression too? I guess.

[A]

Yeah, I mean it was coming off of a not great period. And, and I mean definitely you could see this as. So we don't have enough army bots. So we need to. We're only reason why we're going to give kids food is so we can have future army bots. But it was also one of the first large scale health tests given to children in the United States was the millions that showed up to fight in World War II. And then giving them a basic physical was one of the like biggest data points we'd ever gotten about the basic health of U.S. children. And it was not good. And so they passed in 46 a school lunch program to start helping. And the, the school lunch program from 1946 until roughly 2010 was not that different. It was basically if you are poor, the government will buy you lunch at a fixed price per meal cost with some nutrition requirements attached. And if you are like not poor poor, but like not doing great, they will give you a discount on lunch. And this is the free reduced lunch which is standard in the US you have to apply for it, you have to fill out a form with your school. The school has to do an income test. They have some type of school or city wide ticketing system of how you're billed for school lunch. You know what color ticket you get to decide how subsidized your meal is. And some people are actually charged for lunch, they don't realize they don't get free lunch anymore than they have school lunch debts. Like it is really a means tested program that is administered by schools and.

[B]

Administered at the individual family level. I mean that's certainly the school meal program. I remember from My public schools.

[A]

Yeah. And when I've talked about.

[B]

Not yesterday.

[A]

No, no. When I've talked about school lunches on social media, the number of people who respond and say, mortifying. It was to have the red ticket, which meant that you were poor enough to have the free lunch, so you had to, like, walk into the cafeteria with the red ticket, and the kids who paid. Whose parents paid for lunch had the green ticket. And so you just had a way of like, literally putting up a little measure to say, like, here comes the poor kid. She's that one. There she goes. And how traumatizing this was for them in, like, eighth grade to have. To have the poor kid ticket.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So a really big change to the program came in 2010 when Congress passed the Healthy Hungry Free Kid Act. And the Act.

[B]

I'm sorry, what is that called again?

[A]

The Healthy Hungry Free Kid Act.

[B]

The Healthy Hungry Free.

[A]

Hhfka.

[B]

Which doesn't make any sense.

[A]

I know. And for whatever reason, my mind goes to Hungry Hungry Hippos. The Healthy Hungry Free Kid.

[B]

It's not hunger.

[A]

Free Hunger Free. Hungry Free. Oh, God. It could be. I say the words pretty similarly, but I wouldn't know which one it is. But let's find out. This is why God invented the Internet. All right. Healthy it is Hunger. Damn, Robin, you're a good editor. That was such a sharp pickup.

[B]

I was like, that's the weirdest name, because it does sound like Hungry Hippos.

[A]

Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

It's still HHFKA for those of you who prefer the acronym.

[B]

Okay, so 2010. This is the Obama administration.

[A]

Obama administration. And it basically does two things to radically change school lunch. One of them is that it adds actual nutrition requirements.

[B]

Yeah, I remember. I remember that being a big fight.

[A]

It was a huge fight, but it was like, you have to serve whole grains and the vegetables and fruits.

[B]

And vegetables.

[A]

The fruits and vegetables have to be fresh, and you have to ramp this up. And that kind of set off a series of policy announcements and regulations where every year they kind of make updates to the nutritional standards. And so even in the last year, the Biden administration, they were putting a cap on how much saturated fat or salt or sugar could be added to foods that are served in the cafeteria. That's the big thing. And I mean, if you go back to the school lunch's origins, I mean, it's. It's health. Like, this is a public health intervention, that kids aren't healthy. And we have a way to intervene pretty conveniently when they're on site and hungry, that if we give them healthy food, we can. We can make this health intervention. And that was the whole motivation, even for the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act. I know. I want to call it the Healthy Hunger Games Act.

[B]

That's where you put the kids in the cafeteria, but there's only one meal.

[A]

Oh, man. This act was. Was aimed at childhood obesity, which has been rising. And the.

[B]

Oh, so that was just about making the food healthier, not making sure more people got it or whatever?

[A]

No, no. The big impetus for the bill was we have a scourge of childhood obesity that's getting worse. And so we need to make sure that if we have them two meals a day and they need help buying it anyway, like, we need to make this food a lot health, healthier. But there were provisions in the law that changed what's called the community eligibility provision, where they told schools, listen, if you have enough kids that were going to be eligible for free and reduced lunch, we can just certify the whole school.

[B]

Right?

[A]

And what. The community eligibility provisions in the bill just changed that component so that a lot more schools would qualify. And the expansion of the community eligibility provision, they rolled this out as experiments. So once the bill came into law, states kind of like, took the lead of, like, changing eligibility or changing nutrition to kind of like, learn as we go. Like, the big, like, headline of the law was all the nutritional changes. And for what it's worth, y' all might remember this as Michelle's lunch law. She was a huge proponent of. Was part of her let's Move campaign. And conservatives hated this law and referred to it as Michelle's lunch law. You know, they. They basically say that she's trying to co parent your kids because she's arrogant. But that got most of the. The community eligibility provisions were. Were a little bit more of an experimentation of let's roll this out kind of one state at a time, let them take advantage of it and see if they like it. And so it was a kind of expansion into universal school meals that wasn't like, I guess it wasn't a mandate. So we start seeing school districts and schools apply for community eligibility provisions in really large numbers, larger than we'd ever seen before. And so it's. It starts the single largest expansion to free lunch and breakfast that the US has ever seen in schools. And because it was rolled out in different states, because the thresholds varied over time and the community eligibility provisions were set at different levels, you just have a lot of, like, variation of when schools and School districts started to do this, which means that heartless economists like myself as a researcher bonanza, sometimes I like looked at this and I'm like, did an economist tell them to do this? Like, don't let everybody get it, make it random for the first five years so I can get that top five journal publication and we can find out what school meals do.

[B]

But there was a lot of studies.

[A]

There were a lot of studies and the studies, like, they're so good. So universal school meals under the provision of healthy hunger free kids, that has higher quality. Here's what it does. Raises test scores on both end of year test and grades. It does this on two margins. The first margin is that it reduces hunger, that raises test scores. And then the second margin is that it makes meals healthier, which also raises test scores. So no, food versus food. Food does better on test. Yeah. Unhealthy food versus healthy food. Healthy food does better on tests. And those are, that's one reason why the results on higher test scores wasn't just concentrate amongst low income children. It went up the income distribution and hit a lot of middle income kids too.

[B]

Because they were getting better quality food for lunch.

[A]

Because they were getting better quality food for lunch. Which stings if you're a parent because the school was better at getting them to eat healthy than you were. But honestly, any parent will tell you it's a process and being humbled every day, every hour of every day. Okay, so one improves academic performance. Two kids actually did eat healthier. So it's not just that the meal, they put healthy food in front of them and then it became a healthy trash can. Like the kids actually did eat healthier and they measured this in a couple ways. I mean the USDA at one point had a study where they went out and just measured how much food was being thrown away in cafeterias to see if the nutritional food was just going straight to the trash can. But no, the kids ate healthier. They ate more fruits, they ate more vegetables, they ate more whole grains. Schools loved it because the administrative burden.

[B]

Essentially went away, which must have been a nightmare.

[A]

I mean, I can't imagine how awful it is to be a school administrator and then are getting like having to do income. I mean sometimes they would do an automatic of like if the person was on food stamps. But then they still had to like.

[B]

Ask even family is there on food stamps.

[A]

Yes, that's which I. And then they had to come up with a system of how they apportioned the free versus not free meal to the poor. Kids, they have like the person who told me about the little red tick that haunted her in high school because she was one of the poor kids. But schools didn't have to do that. Everybody got lunch and all they had to do was find a vendor to buy it off of.

[B]

But they still had to determine that they had enough people who would qualify to be part of the community eligibility provision. Provision.

[A]

Yes. So they did have to do that. And then once they hit community eligibility provision, I want to say they didn't have to do it anymore. But at the same time, what ends up happening is that this is so popular that states start to make up the difference. States are like, we do not need to wait on the federal government. Like this is raising test scores and reducing obesity of children. Like, we need to get this money out the door. And so states kind of overtake the federal standards and they just start giving it to everybody. So some of the data comes from the federal rollout of where we know these are so good. Some of the data comes from when the states take it over.

[B]

Got it, got it.

[A]

It also reduces the budgeting burden on parents because they don't have to provide those meals anymore. So that's more money for families.

[B]

Time, effort, energy.

[A]

Oh my God. The emotional burden of trying to make lunch for children. Oh yeah. We just switched from a daycare that provided two meals and a snack on site to having to pack two meals and a snack for our kids. And it's, I mean it's such hell and they don't eat as good. Like if 10 little 3 year olds are sitting at a preschool and everybody has broccoli in front of them. Is different from, you're the only kid with carrots and broccoli and the other kids are like chowing down on a fruit by the foot. You know, peer pressure helps with doing things, especially when they're really young. And also I'm just not good at it. And you can't bring peanut butter into like any establishment with children. So like you make 10 meals a week, week to be sent to your kids school that you can't prepare on site. You can put an ice pack in the bag, but you can't include peanut butter. Like it's such hell.

[B]

God, I, I, I lived on peanut butter for at least eight years.

[A]

Anyway, we shouldn't bring our emotions to the table. Let me go back to being an economist and give you the most econ result that they found.

[B]

So the kids get better test scores.

[A]

And are healthier and are healthier. The schools have Less to deal with. With the administration of the program.

[B]

Burden is less.

[A]

Families save money.

[B]

Families save money.

[A]

Okay. And then the other big finding was that it can reduce food price at the grocery store.

[B]

It reduces food prices at the grocery store.

[A]

Yeah, because it removes demand for food from the retail market to the wholesale market. And so in communities that had big expansions to universal school meals, local food retailers, they saw reductions in prices. So it makes a grocery store cheaper for everybody. If you take this big part of the market and shove it into wholesale.

[B]

From retail, that's really crazy. Like that it would be that big a part of the grocery buying market in a town that if you were.

[A]

On food stamps, they do not re up food stamps on the first of the month. You do not give every person in your state on food stamps a re up of food on the first of the month. Because if you did it that way.

[B]

Everybody would go to the store in the same day.

[A]

And grocery stores would raise prices to recognize especially for the foods that people on food stamps bought. And in fact, when they used to do it that way, you could take scanner data from grocery stores and absolutely, they had higher prices at the start of the month for bulk food, especially frozen food that poor people would buy. And then at the end of the month, those prices would be a lot lower. Oh, my God. And so you could see like over the month movement in the price of goods that people on food stamps were more likely to buy based on when the food stamps were allotted. So it's like, all right, y', all easy fix. Like randomize it throughout the month. Yeah, but okay, then they randomize it throughout the month, which means when you're on food stamps, you do not eat consistently over the month because food stamps is never enough to cover the all everyone's meals. So typically you eat best the first week and you eat worse the last week. And now instead of that all being aligned, now that's like split up across the population. So group of researchers went in and they looked at kids SAT scores and back to backtracked it to where they were in their monthly food stamp allotment. And this is one of the like seminal findings. Oh, your SAT score is slightly lower if you had to take it the last week before you got food stamps as opposed to the first week. And that wasn't even school lunch.

[B]

Like, who thought of that? That's like, it's genius. I mean, it's a study.

[A]

It wasn't even school lunch. Like, it was, it was food stamps, not even school lunch. So. So then you know, you have that in hand and you're like, kids are doing worse on the SAT because food stamps aren't adequate. Give these kids meals twice a day at school. Like, it becomes a really compelling argument. This is why I think it's ultimately a very American, like, probably more conservative leaning argument is that if this economy in this country is truly about getting ahead on your own merit, you need to put meals in school. Because we have a very clear link from were you hungry? To how well did you perform on a test? And you are letting rich kids who never have to worry about food get an advantage over poor kids based on how hungry they are. So if you truly think America is about meritocracy, sure. Then you cannot let kids like coast off of the fact that because they're well fed, they do better in school like you.

[B]

Not being hungry should be a level playing field.

[A]

Not being hungry should be a level playing field. And let people's actual merits determine what happens to them in school. Because you're ranked in school, you're competing against other kids and you're, you shouldn't have to compete on your parents feeding you.

[B]

Yeah, interesting. That's a fascinating study.

[A]

This is my like first, like big, like conservative American argument of like, don't let the rich kids win. I don't know if that, I don't.

[B]

Know if it'll fly or not. But good on you for trying.

[A]

I just told you all this stuff that school lunches do and then these are the big findings. There were other findings too, that high school students had better emotional well being because there was less anxiety and stigma about being the kid with a red ticket. And that led to fewer suspensions because they weren't getting as many fights.

[B]

Yeah, I mean creating essentially a more equal society within the four walls of a school building might teach us a lot also about society in general. But I can see how that would be beneficial in the classroom as well as on test scores and things.

[A]

But sometimes the argument that is never said but probably thought on some level is that the more the government helps children, the less of an advantage rich kids have.

[B]

Well, yeah, I mean, I think that's never phrased that way. Right. It's always phrased like you're creating dependency of poor people.

[A]

I'm sorry, I'm creating dependency amongst like 11 year old kids.

[B]

To eat food. To eat food.

[A]

Yeah. So that's the welfare.

[B]

They're dependent on your welfare state run across.

[A]

Next you're going to tell me I'm going to have to transport them to School on a big bus that I have to buy. Sorry. It's just these kids are takers. This is what always gets me when they're like, you can't invest in children. You create dependence. I'm like, of the grubby little takers that our children, they like, eat money.

[B]

They'Re gonna get used to. Have you had them at home, they're takers.

[A]

I was like, they're takers no matter what. But I don't think people understand or would be able to process that their kids advantage does not come from their kids brilliant or hard work, but that other kids are hungry. Like, oh, your kid's at the top of the class. Statistically that means they're least likely to be hungry at home. So, like, good for you. Like, I don't think people can internalize how much advantage they get from other kids being hungry. And then if you put it that.

[B]

Way, the cognitive dissonance on that is really high.

[A]

No, I mean, being a parent is already being. I mean, like, you're on a knife's edge. So there's so many aspects of parenthood of like, I'm on a knife's edge here. People are trying to make a good life for my children, and now it's my fault that other kids are hungry. No, but like, other kids are hungry and this, you know, don't be opposed to free school meals.

[B]

So there are like nine states now that have universal, totally universal meal programs in the whole state. And they're. And California's one I know. Maine, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota. Minnesota, of course.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Tim Waltz made that a big part of their campaign.

[A]

I will say I have talked to congressional staffers who are like, universal school meals is. I would give it like a decade tops, before it's everywhere in the U.S. because schools love it so much. And it's also a way for the federal government to give money to schools that improves test scores that state governments don't have to raise.

[B]

State. You mean state governments don't have to raise the money?

[A]

No, I mean, not if the federal government paid for all of it. The states that currently have universal school meals are paid for it. But if the federal. The federal government was like, the feds are just going to buy everybody lunch. It is the cheapest way we have ever found to increase test scores.

[B]

Don't get me wrong, I want to feed kids, but it's not cheap. I mean, it would be something like, what, $40 billion a year or something.

[A]

I mean, right now the federal government spends around 25 billion because it's. I say it's 20 now, but it's projected to go up to 27 per year. So you can just bookend it between them and there's not a small difference. Right. But it's. I mean, even if it were 80 billion, that's nothing. Not for the federal government's perspective. For reference, the one big beautiful bill includes $460 billion a year in tax cuts. So that's. I mean, that's something. At least nine universal school meal programs we just passed in a tax cut, and that's a high estimate for how much this would cost.

[B]

Yeah. So here's. Okay, I mean, maybe this is not important to your argument, but schools these days, they're hiring sodexo or somebody to come in and provide food they don't have. We don't have lunch ladies cooking in the back in commercial kitchens and schools anymore.

[A]

We do. It depends on how they buy it. So some places they buy. I don't want to say it's the equivalent of a meal kit, but it's not necessarily far off where, like, they will deliver everything and you prepare it on site or, you know, apportion it on site. So, like, they're going to deliver Blue.

[B]

Apron for schools and kind of like.

[A]

Blue Apron for Schools, but, like, they're not going to deliver apple slices. They're going to deliver, like, 100 apples that then have to be sliced. And what happened in the inflation spike was that the amount that they were getting from the federal government for food was not keeping up with what they were being charged for food. And so there was a ton of pushback that these nutritional standards had to be rolled back because they were being forced to buy food that they couldn't afford.

[B]

It's too expensive to have good food.

[A]

It's too expensive to have good food. And actually, this all echoes ketchup as a vegetable. Should we talk about ketchup as a vegetable?

[B]

Oh, sure, let's talk about ketchup as a vegetable.

[A]

Were you around for ketchup as a vegetable? Like, do you. Is this anything. You remember me?

[B]

Oh, yeah.

[A]

You do.

[B]

I mean, I don't think I ate ketchup as a vegetable, but I remember the argument about ketchup is a vegetable.

[A]

I just think it's really. It's funny now in hindsight. And it's also like, what a gift to give child advocates for decades to come that it's like, well, remember, you thought ketchup was a vegetable, so we don't listen to you. So y' all Reagan wins in 80, in 81. He wants to cut taxes and cut government spending and cut out the bloat and so on. And so he wants to cut, that's like a billion to $2 billion from school meals, which is at that time on a free reduced lunch. It's a lot. But he thinks that it's not the food that's costing money, it's all of the administrative waste that goes with it and the federal government bloat. And so he announces that he's going to cut funds to help schools buy lunch, but it won't affect lunch. That they're going to save money from like making the program more efficient and updating the standards. And the kind of argument they make is that if the standards for nutrition are too exacting, it's more expensive. So you need to give states and schools like more freedom, loosen up the.

[B]

Nutritional standards and it'll get cheaper.

[A]

Yeah. So I pulled up the Federal Register from 1981 in which they said, who's there? This is the US Department of Agriculture proposes in the Federal Register, which is where the government goes to post rules. They have a section on meat and meat alternates, including nuts, seeds, yogurt, tofu, equivalencies of cooked dry beans and peas or eggs, main dish and other items. Remember, this is your small government Republican itemizing all this, but under fruits and vegetables that they're supposed to have two servings of fruits or vegetables a day. They say in a section on concentrates. An additional proposed change in crediting policy would allow vegetables and fruit concentrates to be credited on a single strength reconstituted basis rather than on the basis of the actual volume serv. For example, 1 tablespoon of tomato paste could be credited as 1/4 a cup of single strength tomato juice. Previously it was only credited as 1 tablespoon the volume as served. This change eliminates the so called water requirement. While not specified in regulations, this policy would be addressed in program aids. And if people were like, yo, that's ketchup counts as a vegetable. And they didn't really deny, like, yeah. So this became ketchup as a vegetable. They were like absolutely torn through the mud on this one. Democrats, like went to schools and had lunch, but they were trying to like, they were just trying to cut costs and cut corners on food. And so they. Yeah, I mean you can read Washington Post articles and New York Times articles at the time of like, they're just like gleefully trying or they're trying to not seem as gleeful as the, like the Infighting.

[B]

I mean, this all got rehashed when the new. When the new food nutrition rules went in. Like, it will never be forgotten. I don't think in the lore of school meals in America.

[A]

No, no, it will never be.

[B]

Like, I mean, you might as well just serve. Would you say fruit is a mile? Like fruit leathers? You know, it's fruit. It's so concentrated.

[A]

I think my favorite quote came from Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, whose family owns the H.J. heinz company. He said, Ketchup is a condiment. This is one of the most ridiculous regulations I have ever heard of. And I suppose I need not add that I know something about ketchup and relish, or at least did it one time.

[B]

Excellent.

[A]

I'm so happy.

[B]

So it wasn't the ketchup lobby trying to, like, slip this in.

[A]

The Heinz family was like, this is ridiculous. Senator John Hines of Pennsylvania. The idea that, like, making kids have healthy food represents government bloat and waste, is how school lunches have always been presented. And I don't know how salient this is, but I've always thought that it's much harder to be cheap. Like, it requires a lot more effort getting your fingers dirty. And, like, I don't want to give everybody food, and I don't want to give them good food. So here's like, a 15 pa page concept paper on how to get around nutritional regulations. And, like, I need to look at every single school kid in America and, like, see what their parents make and get into it. It's like, you know, if you just gave everybody the same food, it's actually a lot less federal government interference in people's lives. It's a lot less federal government kind of like going in and making decisions. It's like, here's the rules, here's the money. Go forth, go forth.

[B]

Make some nice bean and cheese burritos or whatever it is you're gonna make. But I do think it's worth saying that nobody's required to eat school lunches.

[A]

You don't have to eat school lunch.

[B]

You do not have to eat it.

[A]

We also have, in this country, millions of dollars of school lunch debt.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Where people owe school districts money for schools for meals that their kids ate, and they haven't paid their school lunch bill.

[B]

This became kind of a big deal right after the pandemic. Cause everybody got free meals during the pandemic. Right?

[A]

Right.

[B]

They.

[A]

Yeah, they expanded a lot of the meal intervention, like the. The summer meals program, where if you're on food stamps and free and reduced lunch. Then you can come to the school and get, like, a week's worth of meals in the summer.

[B]

But they didn't do any. There were no changes to the actual free and reduced programs themselves.

[A]

Oh, I don't know. There was so much changes to food.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

In the pandemic that I could not be reliably called upon to say what they are. And then states plussed up those changes, and then some states rejected them because they said they didn't want a welfare state.

[B]

A welfare state with. They wanted hungry children.

[A]

Hungry children, man. This is also. Hold on. The thing about school lunch is that it really does bring out. I don't mean this to sound like this. It can bring out the absolute worst in conservatives because you're talking about hungry kids and you have to make an argument of like, no, no, no, they're not that hard. It's better that kids are hungry. So there's also an amazing fact checker about this with Paul Ryan.

[B]

Paul Ryan, the congressman.

[A]

Paul Ryan, the congressman from Wisconsin who then became vice presidential candidate and then was speaker. Okay. Paul Ryan, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in March of 2014, said, the left is making a big mistake here. What they're offering people is a full stomach and an empty soul. The American people want more than that. This reminds me of a story I heard from Eloise Anderson. She serves in the cabinet of my buddy, Governor Scott Walker. She once met a young boy from a very poor family, and every day at school, he would get a free lunch from a government program. He told Eloise he didn't want a free lunch. He wanted his own lunch. One in a brown paper bag, just like the other kids. He wanted one, he said, because he knew a kid with a brown paper bag had slept someone who cared for him. This is what the left does not understand.

[B]

What on God's earth?

[A]

Yeah. So is it true that Eloise Anderson, Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, ever met such a child? Basically, she kind of made it up.

[B]

So she did tell him this.

[A]

Anderson has told the story. You know, a little boy told me once that what was important to him is that he didn't want school lunch. He wanted a brown bag. Because the brown bag that he brought with his lunch in it is meant that his mom cared about him. I mean, the kid wouldn't want a brown bag if everybody was getting a school meal. Just saying. Right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But Rip Wonette, they wondered if it's possible that she actually lifted this from a 2011 book called the Invisible Thread by Laura Scroff Schroff, which is about a busy executive and her relationship with an 11 year old homeless panhandle named Maurice. His mother was a drug addict in jail who had stolen things and cashed in food stamps to pay for drugs. And at one point, Schroff offers to buy Maurice lunch every day so he won't go hungry. And they have a whole little exchange that comes straight out of the book that has to do with having a brown paper bag, meaning that your mom cared about you. So then they actually ask Eloise Anderson, is it possible that you took this from a book and didn't actually talk to a little boy who brought up a brown paper bag? And her communications director responded. In the course of giving live testimony, Secretary Anderson misspoke. What she intended to say was the following. Once I heard someone say what was important to him as a boy was that he didn't want school lunch, he wanted a brown bag. Because the brown bag that he brought with his lunch meant that his mom cared about him. She was referring to a television interview which she had seen of young Maurice.

[B]

So wait, was Maurice a real kid?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So the book is a nonfiction book.

[A]

Let's see. The Invisible Thread, A true story of 11 year old panhandler, a busy sales executive and an unlikely meeting with destiny. By Laura Schroff. S C H R O F F Scroff Schroff. So when Eloise Anderson, then at the state government Wisconsin was testifying in front of Congress, she passed off as a firsthand story talking to a little boy about school lunch, something that she had read in a book that Paul Ryan then picked up and said at the Congressional Conservative.

[B]

And this is how policy gets made.

[A]

Yeah, the left is making a mistake here. Remember? It's the left making a mistake.

[B]

I come from a place that believes in the power of storytelling, right? But if the story's not true, it's like what you say all the time about if you don't diagnose the problem, right? If you're just making shit up.

[A]

And also the boy isn't saying, I don't want lunch from school. School. No, like the whole conversation about is how he wants a mom that cares about him and that that's what the brown bag signifies. And like, that's why he wants to have a lunch, because he wants his mom to care about him, but she doesn't. And then it's not like, I don't want school lunch. It's not like he's up there advocating of like, look, people like Me become dependents if you made sure I had food at age 11. And he totally conceptualizes the school lunch debate, which is why it was appropriate for Paul Ryan to say that a school lunch feeds the belly and starves the soul.

[B]

So gross.

[A]

It's so gross and so funny. The fact check article, it's from 2014. Is a story too good to check. Paul Ryan and the tale of the Brown Paper Bag.

[B]

We'll have to link to that.

[A]

So I, I understand that the way that rhetoric has brought Americans up into this point of now we have a set of states that are providing universal school meals and generating so much evidence of how beneficial. Beneficial it is that it doesn't matter how good. It doesn't matter how good we show it to be or how helpful it is, there are going to be people that are opposed to it on principle. And I think what I'm trying to make the case for is like the principle. The principle.

[B]

The principle's American.

[A]

Yeah, your principle should be for this. Like, if your principle should be fairness. Fairness. And if your principle is fairness and having people succeed on their own merits, like you need to be for school lunch, for universal school meals. And if you don't want the government being so large and so interfering, you know, it's a lot easier for the federal government to write a check than it is to root around in tens of millions of people's bank accounts and income statements.

[B]

When we talk about red tape, it.

[A]

Means testing is really hard to do cheaply or efficiently. And I'm never going back to having to like divide kids up and find out their parents income. Like, this reduces administrative burden. It reduces government interference. It's just, here's the check, buy the food, raise the test scores, make it easier for families. And then like, here's the nutrition. Like, I mean, I understand that they don't like that the federal government dictates nutrition, but that's, that's like given your.

[B]

Make America Healthy Again mom core around the country, why not?

[A]

We can align on school lunch. I think school lunch is something that can bring a lot of people from a lot of sides of the political spectrum and the mahog spectrum together because. Because it just, it hits so many marks. And if you could put any person in this country in front of me and ask me to sell school lunch, and between like the scores and the health and the food and the funding and the admin burden and the retail prices and family budgets, like, I could find a way to sell school lunches.

[B]

I have a pie chart for you.

[A]

As Long as it's not Paul Ryan. Because he would prefer not to starve the soul.

[B]

He would prefer that our souls be fed bed by fasting.

[A]

I will give him an empty brown paper bag upon meeting him.

[B]

With a.

[A]

Note inside that says, your mother doesn't love you, man.

[B]

That's up there with your sash for Mansion. Okay.

[A]

We're coming up with, like, the seeds of a reality show of, like, Catherine meets politicians who she's, like, decided to hate with the fire of the thousand sons. It's just me giving it or just like, it's. This is like Timothy Geithner all over again.

[B]

Yeah. Have you ever watched the rehearsal? Maybe we need to get that guy Nathan Fielder. Yeah, we need to get Nathan Fielder on the. On the case so we can rehearse this.

[A]

I guess it's a little, like, Godfather esque. It's like, not the dead horse in the bed, like, the empty bag.

[B]

It's the empty bag.

[A]

The empty paper bag. But as Godfather, father, as I get people.

[B]

Okay, well, I have no children, but I'm sold schools.

[A]

Let's feed kids.

[B]

Speed kids. All right, executive orders.

[A]

This is where we get to the real part of the show.

[B]

Hey, I just wanted to say, by the way, I was looking at the votes on our executive orders just to kind of see how things are going. The, like, the most votes overall has gone to your executive order for corporate disclosures of job turnover rates.

[A]

Yes. Wow. They picked a real one.

[B]

God, yeah. But also with fewer votes overall, but coming in unanimous at this point is the children's trust fund from the estate tax. Also, Morris stops on the 101 and bathrooms at playgrounds. This is a pro bathroom optimist community.

[A]

This is a big government bathroom community.

[B]

Yeah. People also like billboards pointing out labor violations. Yay. These are your friends.

[A]

You get on there. I didn't juice this at all.

[B]

Okay. You didn't go through.

[A]

This is so exciting. Okay, so now, no pressure for this Executive order.

[B]

Executive order.

[A]

Executive order. Why don't you go first?

[B]

My executive order this week, we got from listener Pamela, Pamela Gordon. Pamela says that work performed as a parent or stay at home parent should be listed on resumes and recognized in the same manner as traditional jobs. And she gave this example, used applied mathematics degree to successfully organize a carpool of three families and five children without any fighting or tears. She gave up the same, but that was the best.

[A]

Getting a kid into a car without tears. What did you do?

[B]

Anyway, I'm endorsing that one this week.

[A]

Man, I love that. My Executive order is that Congress has to put statehood for D.C. up for a vote, and if you vote against it, your state loses 700, 000 people in house representation.

[B]

So wait, wait, wait. Like, they need to put it up for, like, a constitutional amendment and so all the states would have to vote. What do you say?

[A]

No, no, I just mean that, like, I mean, Congress could make D.C. a state right now. Now, it's not a constitutional. You don't have to amend the Constitution.

[B]

Oh, okay.

[A]

The Constitution says that there needs to be a federal zone. And right now that federal zone encroaches on three quarters of a million people who don't have a vote in Congress. If D.C. were a state, the federal zone would just be downsized to the federal buildings and installations and offices and the mall and would let all the people who live in D.C. become their own state and have a member of Congress that votes for them, which, given what has been happening in D.C. they are in sore need of. So I think that if you don't think D.C. should be a state and you're from, you know, Louisiana, Wyoming. Well, Wyoming would lose statehood because I think D.C. has more people than I want to say Wyoming and maybe Rhode Island.

[B]

Okay. Smallest states by population. Delaware, 970. Wyoming, 580. Haiti.

[A]

So Wyoming, Vermont are smaller than D.C. alaska. It's like neck and neck. So you. You lose representation in Congress because if those 700,000 people don't matter in D.C. they shouldn't matter in your state. So you just can hand them over. So if, like 10 representatives from California decided to vote against this, like, California would lose.

[B]

Those people would lose 10 times. Seven. Or just. We would just lose it once for a state.

[A]

No, I think 10 times. I want this to bind. I haven't thought it through fully, but really, I just. Come on.

[B]

I. I think California is going to come out better than Texas on this whole front.

[A]

But I think there should be some type of consequence that if you truly.

[B]

Believe in disenfranchising 750,000 fellow Americans.

[A]

Yeah. Put your money where your mouth is. We put our mouth where our money is, but we're putting your money where your mouth is. If you don't think 700,000 people in the District of Columbia matter, that's fine. You have 700,000 people that don't get to matter anymore either. And you would keep losing people and keep disenfranchising people in your own state until you voted for D.C. statehood.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I have to do a special shout out that there is only one DC Area sports team that has said anything about the fact that the National Guard is walking through their city and pulling people off of mopeds who are delivering for door dash and instacart to check and see if they're undocumented. Documented. And that would be the Washington spirit. And also shout out to the fans who in the 51st minute of the game chanted out Free D.C. yeah. There's a reason why I love women's sports more.

[B]

Me too.

[A]

So that is my executive order. Every vote against D.C. statehood is a loss of 700,000 people of representation in your state. We had such a fun episode, and now I'm ending with D.C. statehood. I almost want to change the executive order and put this on like a. More depressed.

[B]

That's all right. That's why we have spiritual sponsors.

[A]

Spiritual sponsors. Who. What is your spiritual sponsor?

[B]

So my spiritual sponsor this week is steam rooms. Like, in the gym. So I had never had a gym with a steam room until I joined the downtown YMCA here in Los Angeles. I now belong to a slightly bougier gym, but it also has a steam room. And, man, when it is so hot and the steam is so thick that you can't even see anybody else in the there, it just is like, it's. It's the purge that you just need sometimes. So, okay, I love it.

[A]

Keeping on slightly soccer theme. My spiritual sponsor this week is stoppage time goals.

[B]

Oh.

[A]

If you are a soccer fan, there is nothing like the reward of a stoppage time goal of, like, God, five more minutes. Is this going to happen? And then, like, in the final closing seconds, there was a stoppage time goal. I have to shout out that the Houston Dash has scored three stoppage time goals in their last three games. All of them were incredible. Yes, incredible comebacks. But the real crowning achievement has to go to Alyssa Nair, legend goalkeeper, who in the last, like, 10 seconds past stoppage time.

[B]

You're waiting for the list.

[A]

I mean, they said there was seven minutes of stoppage time. It was the eighth minute, there's a corner kick. Her defender reported she just saw a blur of green go past and head for the goal, and she scored. She was a goalkeeper that came up for a corner kick and actually scored. It was her 200th game in the National Women's Soccer League. Her first goal, and she scored in the 98th minute of stoppage time. It's amazing.

[B]

I've got to look this up.

[A]

It's so. I mean, it's so incredible. Her defender, Sam Staub, was like, I just saw her go by like, they got a corner kick and she just ran all the way to the goal. She didn't. No one told her to go. And she's standing right by the goalie. The ball is like, it's a total mess. The ball is like ping ponging around and she just gets a foot on it and taps it in. And then she turns around and she's.

[B]

Like.

[A]

Like, oh, my God.

[B]

Oh, my God. Did you see that?

[A]

Yes. In the history of the nwsl, only three goalkeepers have ever scored. And she just became the third. And so I, I just, I've watched it. It's such a disaster of a goal. Like, it's not like it's a Galazzo. She's not like shooting from the halfway line and it soars in. I mean, it's an absolute. I can't even keep my eye on the ball half the time. I'm like, well, where is it now? And then it just. It's just like the tap. Her arms go up and I'm like, this is one of the greatest things I have ever seen. And I don't even understand what I just saw. Except for that Alyssa Narrow scored a goal in stoppage time.

[B]

Excellent. That's amazing.

[A]

That's my spiritual sponsor. That's true.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay, so now we should snap.

[B]

Oh, yeah. Thank you, Sophie. Thank you, Andy.

[A]

Thank you, Sophie. Thank you, Andy. Had a lot of. And I also just want to shout out that they often give us production notes in the chat if there's anything we need to be aware of. But we can tell it's a good episode. When they're commenting on what we say, they're actually listening.

[B]

They haven't fallen asleep.

[A]

They haven't fallen. They didn't just like, hit record, go off camera and be like, they'll never know.