I’m not sure having children you can’t support financially is wise. I’m also not sure someone who does have children they can’t support financially should just assume taxpayers will foot the bill for the proper care and feeding of those children.
Then again, there are all kinds of reasons why children find themselves in households struggling to provide for them.
Lately, abortion advocates have taken to arguing that an individual who does not support the view that government has an ever-increasing responsibility to provide for economically disadvantaged children should not be considered “pro-life.”
They argue that anyone who is truly “pro-life” would never deny a mother the right to kill her unborn child because that child’s death might be what is necessary to allow her to avoid the financial hardships associated with caring for a baby.
It’s tortured logic, certainly, but many pro-abortion advocates honestly believe it is they who are “pro-life” because they support every effort to enlarge cash payments to poor children and their families, provided of course, those children are first given permission to be born alive.
There can be little doubt that one of the quickest ways into poverty, and one of the greatest barriers to climbing out of poverty, is raising a child in a single-parent home. However, putting an end to a child’s life so his or her mother can avoid living in reduced economic circumstances seems an extreme alternative.
Life is hard, and it is harder for some than others. There are times when people need a hand up or a hand out of circumstances that keep them from rising to their full potential, despite their own best efforts to improve their lot in life.
There is also no denying, from a purely fiscal perspective, working to ensure all children have access to a healthy diet is a lot less expensive in the long run than the cost of allowing children to go without adequate nutrition.
But programs that result in individuals becoming dependent on the government do far more harm than good.
A 2021 Cato Institute study of California’s generous welfare system concluded, “Increasingly we find that programs once intended to be stopgap or emergency measures have become vectors for long‐term, even multigenerational, dependency.”
Recently, much was made of
Criticism of the Republican governor took a familiar form. She, and by extension, all “MAGA Republicans,” are said to be evil people who don’t care if kids live or die, much less have enough to eat.
The funds in question come from a COVID-19 era supplemental cash benefit that Congress passed to address an increase in pandemic-related “food insecurity.” It was intended to be a temporary benefit to help poor families weather the pandemic.
But like most temporary benefits passed by Congress, the minute it was enacted, it became a de facto entitlement that only a pitiless ogre would consider taking away.
The pandemic is over, but the benefit remains. Who’s surprised?
Iowa’s decision not to participate in the temporary, pandemic-related federal program gives Democrats the opportunity to continue their “all Republicans are extremists” nonsense. Republicans are portrayed as cold-hearted fiends who would love nothing more than to take food out of the mouths of babies.
It’s a lazy argument, of course, but convincing the American people Republicans are callous, unfeeling fanatics is central to President Joe Biden’s efforts to win re-election.
So, between now and November expect Democrats and their media allies to argue endlessly, the only thing standing between American democracy and the despotism and heartless cruelty Republicans will undoubtedly bring is Biden.
Interestingly, Reynolds’ detractors are also ridiculing her expressed concern that the particular benefit in question does nothing to encourage children to eat a nutritious diet.
While I’m not sure it’s the role of the federal government to dictate to families what they feed their children, I seem to recall ensuring children eat healthy foods and fighting childhood obesity were hallmarks of Michelle Obama’s time in the White House.
We must find a way to balance the immediate need to help poor families feed their children, against the long-term risk that while providing that help, we are acting in a way that extends the cycle of poverty to future generations.
Breaking that cycle, while providing for today’s children are twin imperatives that we cannot allow to be in conflict.
Many schools of thought exist about what is in the best interest of the economically disadvantaged. They span the gulf between pure laizze-faire and out-and-out socialism.
Reaching consensus on the approach that works best to meet the short and long-term needs of poor children and their families means everyone must move away from absolutist positions, and discussions concerning the issue must be comprehensive, open and honest rather than accusatory and vitriolic.
The best, most effective policies will undoubtedly blend a wide range of ideas drawn from many points of view.
Accusing those who don’t agree with your preferred point of view of not caring if children live or die is not particularly helpful if one is serious about finding meaningful solutions.
Chris Roemer is a retired banker and educator who resides in Finksburg. He can be contacted at chrisroemer1960@gmail.com
