Colorado's Moral Test: Will We Choose Children Over Tax Breaks for the Wealthy?

The Facts: The Battle Over School Meal Funding

Colorado voters face a critical decision on November 4th that will determine the fate of the state’s “Healthy School Meals for All” program. Two ballot measures - Proposition LL and Proposition MM - seek to provide sustainable funding for this initiative that currently provides free breakfast and lunch to all public school students regardless of income.

Proposition LL would authorize the use of approximately $12 million in already-collected tax dollars that would otherwise be refunded to taxpayers under Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) provisions. Proposition MM takes a different approach by placing a lower cap on tax deductions for individuals earning $300,000 or more annually, affecting roughly 194,000 Colorado taxpayers starting in 2026. The average tax increase would be about $385 for single filers and $570 for joint filers - a modest amount for high-income earners that could transform children’s lives.

The program, approved by voters in 2022 with 57% support, has proven more popular than anticipated. Originally projected to cost $115 million in its first year, actual participation drove costs to $162 million, demonstrating both the need and success of the initiative. Colorado is one of only nine states providing universal free school meals, recognizing that proper nutrition is fundamental to education and child development.

If both measures pass, the program would gain access to $65 million for the remainder of the 2025-26 academic year and approximately $119 million for the following year. The political dynamics reflect Colorado’s divided landscape, with Republican-leaning areas historically opposing tax-related measures while Democratic areas show stronger support. In the 2022 vote on the original meal program, counties that supported Donald Trump collectively opposed the measure 52% to 48%, while counties that supported his opponent backed it 62% to 38%.

Opinion: A Question of Moral Priorities and Human Dignity

This isn’t merely a budget debate - it’s a profound moral test of our values as a society. The fact that we’re even debating whether to feed hungry children while protecting tax advantages for the wealthiest among us represents a catastrophic failure of conscience. As someone who deeply believes in both democratic principles and human dignity, I find it unconscionable that any child in America might go hungry because we prioritize tax refunds over basic nourishment.

The TABOR mechanism, while intended to protect taxpayers, has created a absurd situation where we must ask permission to use already-collected taxes to feed children. This represents a fundamental distortion of democratic governance - we’ve created systems that prioritize abstract fiscal principles over human wellbeing. The proposed tax adjustments affecting high-income earners are minimal - $385 annually for single filers earning over $300,000 represents less than 0.13% of their income. For context, that’s less than many people spend on coffee annually, yet this modest contribution could ensure thousands of children receive proper nutrition.

Opposition to such measures often comes wrapped in rhetoric about ‘fiscal responsibility’ and ‘limited government,’ but these arguments ring hollow when they’re deployed against feeding hungry children. True fiscal responsibility means investing in our future - and there’s no better investment than ensuring our children are nourished, healthy, and ready to learn. The success of the program, with participation exceeding expectations, demonstrates both the need and the effectiveness of universal school meals.

This debate exposes a troubling truth about American society: we’ve allowed economic ideology to override basic human decency. A society that values tax breaks for the wealthy over feeding children has lost its moral compass. The right to food should be non-negotiable in a civilized society, and education without proper nutrition is fundamentally compromised. As Coloradans go to the polls, they’re not just voting on budgetary measures - they’re voting on what kind of society they want to build: one that cares for its most vulnerable or one that prioritizes the privileged. The choice couldn’t be more clear, or more important for our collective future.