I have to wonder if some state lawmakers are serious about defending the state's sovereignty and the notion of limited government. Witness a bill that was before the House Health and Welfare Committee a few days ago: The measure in question would expand the role of state government in the upbringing of children. Under Idaho law, the government already has a program to swoop in and offer early childhood services for “at risk” infants and toddlers with disabilities. Under the changes being pondered by the Legislature, support would be offered up to children from birth to age 5 who have “special needs.” Of course, the Department of Health and Welfare insists that such an expansion of its role isn’t an expansion at all, that the words  “special needs” are merely a kinder, gentler way of describing an array of human frailties in which the government may offer support.  And those children who are at risk? Why, that includes every possible combination of ailment under the sun/Wayne Hoffman, Idaho Freedom Foundation. More here.

Question: Do you view this issue the same way that Wayne Hoffman/IFF does?