With the rapid changes underway within the U.S. government, the question of where American taxpayer money should be spent grows larger. Topical issues, including food insecurity, are among the many that could be alleviated with the help of government assistance. However, not everyone agrees.
For many people within and outside of government, food insecurity is an individual issue. It is a byproduct of the individualistic values that have been in the United States for decades. The debate around child food insecurity exemplifies this, with many believing that it is solely the parents who provide for their children.
In an ideal world, parents should have no trouble providing food for their children. Unfortunately, not everything can be so simple. Families that have been poverty-stricken constantly have to choose between food and keeping the lights on in their homes.
Additionally, food insecurity not only affects people on an individual level but also on a societal scale. People who don’t get enough proper food to eat can end up hurting their physical and mental well-being, which can lead to poor performance in their jobs and daily life, and even develop chronic diseases.
One solution to tackle child food insecurity is to incentivize schools to provide children, no matter their class, with free lunches. Republicans have been a consistent obstacle to initiatives like these, countering that they should have a say in where their money goes and that it should be the parents’ sole responsibility to care for their children. In reality, these programs would be beneficial to poor families. Any money saved by these programs will likely go to paying the bills needed to keep these families afloat.
