I was struck — maybe even dumbfounded — by the opening lines of a recent article from The Imprint, titled “Child Welfare Cannot Shoulder Long-Term Costs of Short-Term Cuts.”
“Across the political divide, Americans agree: the government makes a terrible parent. That makes it critical to fund approaches that strengthen families — and keep children out of foster care.
The looming spending package moving through Congress proposes cuts that would devastate government programs that are essential for keeping families together — programs that help pay for food, housing, heat, health care and more — while keeping federal spending for foster care intact.”
I get what they’re trying to say. I even share some of the concern. But I can’t accept the underlying premise — that the government must act as a benevolent parent, paying for everything to keep families intact. That vision may be well-intentioned, but it’s fundamentally flawed.
Government can support, but it cannot substitute. Programs may help stabilize a household, but they cannot restore what’s been broken in the soul of a family. Let’s not confuse material aid with relational repair — or bureaucracy with belonging.
