The governors have given varying reasons for refusing to take part, from the price tag to the fact that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds ( R) said she saw no need to add money to a program that helps food-insecure youths “when childhood obesity has become an epidemic.” Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen ( R) said bluntly, “I don’t believe in welfare.”
unpopular opinion: it’s not the states responsibility to pay for people’s children. if you think otherwise donate your money to non-profit charities that do what you believe in.
First off, it’s a federal funded program
Second, most of already donate taxes to our state
charities are good and all but they are not a viable substitute for a working civilized society.
the problem with charities is that they pick and choose who benefits from their “benevolence” and people pick and choose whether they give to them. charities can have agendas, bigotries, and other arbitrary restrictions on their charity.
social programs are taxpayer-funded and for everyone, and discriminating as to who receives benefits (as charities often do) is forbidden.
Instead of just donating to charities, people could vote to enact programs to do what they think the government should do. Such as social programs that work best at large scale and feed children.
But let’s think through this. It’s not the state’s responsibility. Who’s responsibility is it? What do we do if there are hungry children?
It is unpopular with people who understand that ditching a government program that helps everyone for a charity that can pick and choose who to help is a terrible idea.