No one should begrudge efforts to ensure that schoolchildren don't go hungry. But under a federal pilot program, all students in Detroit's public schools -- including youngsters from middle-class and wealthy families, as well as the poor -- will get their breakfasts, lunches and snacks for free all this academic year.
Why?
Detroit schools officials said they do not want to "stigmatize" children whose limited family income would qualify them for free meals. The Detroit officials say there will be no stigma if all children going through the lunch line get their meals for free.
But who has to foot the bill for this expansion of the welfare state -- especially once this program spreads across the nation? Should U.S. taxpayers really be providing free breakfasts, lunches and snacks every school day not only to children from low-income families but also to those from well-to-do families?
We are fast becoming a nation of people who are heavily dependent on the federal government to meet many of our basic needs -- sapping our independence and our motivation to work and support ourselves.
It seems we have forgotten that Washington cannot simply create benefits without costs. If children from families that could easily afford to provide their school lunches are instead given "free" lunches, then somebody has to pay for those meals.
And avoiding stigmatizing low-income children who receive free lunches is hardly a sound justification for extending free meals to children from families who are readily able to furnish those meals.
Has Washington reached the point where it truly believes there is nothing that the people of our great nation should do for themselves?