Luckily, if you're an American child whose parents don't make much money, there's still such a thing as a free lunch.

The Republicans, however, would like to change that.

The school lunch provision of the "Contract With America," due to be voted on the week after next, would increase spending on school lunches next year by only 4.5 percent. This would be a far cry from the 5.2 percent increase experts say is necessary to keep up with demand and inflation.

And in a potentially more disastrous move, the proposal would transfer responsibility for administering the program from the federal government to the states.

Currently, all states must follow nutritional guidelines set down by the national government. Under the staterun program, there would be no such ground rules, leaving states free to establish guidelines as they wish. When such leniency was last allowed, the Reagan administration tried to call ketchup a vegetable in order to meet nutrition standards.

Under the proposal, states could also use up to 20 percent of their allotted school lunch funds for other nutrition programs, making the cuts at the cafeteria level even more biting. States with a high number of poor people would suffer disproportionately from the budget trimming, an administrator in the Department of Agriculture has acknowledged.

Children living in different regions and states could end up with different amounts of money based on politics and not need. "Some poor kids would be at the mercy of what state or district they live in," says David Liederman, head of the Child Welfare League of America.

These logistics and administrative details, however, matter less than the principles--or lack of them--behind the proposal itself.

The cuts the Republicans propose would allow children to slip through the cracks and go hungry. It doesn't take much thought to realize that eating well directly correlates with academic performance and alertness. Nor does it take much compassion to understand that making children shoulder the brunt of cuts borders on the inhumane. It simply doesn't make sense to cut a program that so clearly affects the future of the nation.

"What are they--plain stupid?" asks Wisconsin resident Gloria Brown, who makes $6 an hour and has two children who qualify for free lunch at school.

Jack Costello, director of food services for the Chicago Public Schools, correctly points out the scarcity the cuts would bring: "We'll have to reduce the portions of food served" if the cuts go into effect, Costello says. "They [the kids] get little enough as it is. And studies show that a child who doesn't eat right doesn't do well in school." Ninety-five percent of the 275,000 lunches Costello serves each day go to students who can't afford to pay for lunch.

On the other side, some claim that moving the programs to the states would eliminate paperwork. The choice, however, between signing an extra sheet of paper and providing a child with a nutritious lunch shouldn't give anyone qualms.

More significantly, there is the everpresent specter of balancing the budget, an absolutely necessary task. But the school lunch program is not the one to cut. It currently serves 25 million children per day. Why take the risk that even one of those kids won't eat today?

Hearteningly, many Americans aren't willing to let the Republicans take that risk. On Monday, hundreds of protesters from 31 states brandished lunch trays and forced House Speaker Newt Gingrich to cancel an appearance before 2,500 Washington, D.C. executives. On an even more grass-roots level, nine-year-old Jennifer Halton of Northern California wrote a letter to her Congressional representative asking him to stop the federal cuts proposed in her school lunch program. And President Clinton has said that if the bill gets to him, he will veto it.

The Republicans should take a hint from the protesters and the President. Cut something else--cut defense spending, cut Congressional perks--but don't give the poor children of America short shrift.

Sarah J. Schaffer's column appears on alternate Fridays.