Governors Kathy Hochul of New York and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania have announced they are providing free breakfasts to all kids in schools of those states because kids should not be in school with “empty bellies.” Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts is introducing legislation to declare public transit free because mobility is a “right.” New York City Mayor wannabe Zohran Mamdani wants the Big Apple to run grocery stores because he abhors “profits” on food.

Before the usual Catholic suspects all announce that these are brilliant ideas which advance “social justice” and show “solidarity and concern for the poor,” let me sound a dissenting note. None of this is required by Catholic teaching. There are, in fact, good reasons in Catholic thought against doing them.

I don’t know about you, but my parents’ names were Caroline and John, not Kathy and Josh. Caroline and John made sure little John did not leave the house without breakfast. Because my primary school was three blocks away, my high school one block, Caroline also made sure John had lunch. For 12 years. The point is: parental responsibility. Parents are the first point-of-recourse for children in everything. And among the most basic responsibilities of a parent is feeding his child. Ah, you say, but some parents’ budgets are tight. When my father John died, Caroline inherited a $115/month fixed pension from the American Smelting and Refining Company and Social Security survivors’ benefits. She managed.

Initially, many school breakfast-and-lunch programs were income-tested. Why eliminate that? “Poor shaming”? No — the loss of the idea of frugality and thrift. (For more, see here.) The idea that the state should generally step in as breakfast short order cook of first resort is a violation both of parental rights (and duties) and of subsidiarity.

Should we say the quiet part out loud: But freebies get politicians (especially blue ones) votes?

Transportation does not happen magically. Somebody has to pay salaries of workers (engineers, maintenance staff, custodians, station masters) and costs of operation (gasoline, gas, electric). These things are not free. Why is it a violation of “rights” to expect their users, rather than the general public, to pay at least a significant part of those costs?

I’ll tell you why. Because most freebie-advocate politicians want to force Americans into public transportation and abhor the personal freedom one’s own car provides. Perhaps we want to encourage the latter, but there is no “Catholic” position on whether or not people may use cars. And if you don’t think the “green” agenda is the real motive here, take Sen. Markey on his word: If he is really just about mobility, let’s amend his bill to eliminate all  gasoline taxes, which inhibit driver’s mobility. Incidentally, federal law already gives employers tax breaks if they provide subsidized mass transit benefits to employees.

Likewise, many municipalities think it beneath them to enforce penalties against fare-beaters. Every kid in elementary and secondary school in Washington, D.C. can get a Metro pass. But there are still faregate jumpers. And the DC Council — in contrast to Virginia — in fact reduced the farebeating fine.

Zohran Mamdani wants a city takeover of the grocery business. Again, the core question comes back to why is the state in the feeding business? Food is not public property. Somebody works to produce food, be it growing it, preparing it, and transporting it. Food products and household goods also cost, and it is not illegitimate for those who supply them to make a profit from them. That is their job and they are entitled to earn a living from it.

We have lost sight of the principle of subsidiarity, which is a foundational principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity teaches that responsibility for a function should not be given to any level higher than necessary, which means it should not be taken from private initiative by government unless absolutely necessary and, within a federal system, by the lowest possible level of government if government takes it over.

What masquerades as Catholic social thought on the part of some “Catholic” public policy positions in the United States is a flabby notion of “an option for the poor” that sees every opportunity for government to offer handouts as the “Christian” thing to do. Doubt it? Ask when’s the last time you saw the USCCB say “this program should be curtailed because it undermines personal responsibility and individual initiative.”

The arrogation of state power may momentarily relieve a person’s economic challenges, and for some that seems more than enough to qualify for “Catholic” social practice. Lost in that shortsightedness, however, is the long-term erosion of personal responsibility and limited state power that creeping expansion of the state necessarily entails. It also does not address how civil society progressively loses its own independence of agency to act free of the state, rather than as the state’s contractor. Doubt it? Ask the USCCB why it had to abandon its extensive involvement in immigration — good or bad — once federal grants disappeared.

As the saying goes, “there’s no free lunch!” Neither are there free breakfasts. And there are no free riders. We need to recover that element of Catholic social thought that enables us to respond to politicians bearing freebies with a “no.” Because when a state decides to dilute parental responsibility in loco parentis, parents eventually then become agents of the state.