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?

According to figures released by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), some 22,000 food stamp recipients are receiving benefits, but are not required to do anything to help themselves get back into the workforce. Of the 235,000 Idahoans on food stamps, 40 percent of them, or about 93,000, are non-disabled adults without children. A portion of them, about 22,000, are not required to do any work searches or job applications to take part in the program. These 22,000 are without jobs and don’t qualify for unemployment benefits, which require recipients to be actively seeking work in order to receive money/Dustin Hurst, Idaho Reporter. More here.

Question: Should unemployed recipients of food stamps be required to seek jobs?