Another lesson in dependency

The Nanny State quest to provide all of our cradle-to-grave needs isn't merely unaffordable. In a nation founded on self-reliance, it should be widely regarded as downright insulting. Yet government keeps stretching its reach beyond our means in the lofty-sounding name of helping the helpless.

Such was the successful sales pitch for the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act that President Barack Obama signed into law in late 2010. That legislation appropriates federal funds for "after-school-dinner" programs in areas where at least half of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

As The Associated Press reported last week: "The Congressional Budget Office estimates there will be almost 21 million additional suppers served by 2015 and that number will rise to 29 million by 2020. The added spending would total about $641 million from 2011 to 2020."

Under federal rules, students with family incomes up to 130 percent of the poverty level qualify for free meals, and the subsidized-meal standard rises to 180 percent. The weak economy of the last few years has significantly boosted the ranks of children receiving those free and reduced-price meals.

Critics of this trend are easily branded as uncaring of children in need. And certainly government should provide reasonable assistance, nutritional and otherwise, to disadvantaged kids.

Yet while good intentions fuel this program, it is increasingly teaching children lasting -- and misguided -- lessons in excessive dependency on government.

As the late economist Milton Friedman, a powerful champion of the free market and limited government, long ago warned, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

In other words, somebody has to pay for that lunch.

And now that we've gone from free school lunches to free school breakfasts and to free after-school dinners, what's next?

Free after-school bedtime snacks?