Just Thinking . . .

Tomorrow night is a fund-raising dinner at the Governor's Mansion for "Food for Thought," a local charity started by a PTA mom at Gabe's school. From what I understand, based upon the fliers, the charity provides easy meals for the weekend to "homeless children" within the school district (it started at Gabe's school and has grown). There is no registration or background check, as far as I can tell from the divulged information, but needy children are discreetly provided with a sack of food on Friday. Whether the children themselves just decide to go get it, or whether the teachers recommend particular children, I'm not certain.

But the point of this post is that we will not be attending, even though it would be fun to see the Mansion up close. And it's not just because we are already huge contributors to the Save the Boys' Vision Family Fund. It's because I'm not comfortable supporting this particular charity. My reasons?

1. The school district already provides breakfast and lunch five days a week for children. Is asking parents to feed their children two days out of the week seriously asking too much of them?

2. But you insist, these children are homeless. Really? The tomato-licker wasn't homeless, but he received his sack of Friday food (and we also smelled the BBQs his parents held in their backyard). Does renting a house make a child homeless? I think not. I also don't think living in a hotel/motel makes a child homeless. Sucky, yes, but there is a roof (plus free HBO and a kitchenette). Maybe the charity uses the term "homeless" very loosely, but I'm still not swayed. I don't appreciate the dramatic over-exaggeration.

3. Okay, even if the kids aren't technically living in cardboard, they still are very poor and there is no food for them to eat over the weekends. Pardon me, but isn't this a situation where food stamps should be used? Aren't there federal and state programs and soup kitchens and churches that could help for a couple days? Aren't my taxes already paying for such programs?

4. Well, they have food stamps, but the parents are so strung out on meth that there is never any food in the house. This one really gets me. I understand there is a meth epidemic in our area. But if the parents are using so much that they are unable to provide basic needs for their children, isn't that a situation in which children should be removed from the home? By providing food to the children, aren't we enabling the parents to perpetuate their neglect?

I realize this makes me sound a bit scroogey. I certainly don't want to see children suffer and go hungry (unless they are my own who have refused once again to eat the delectable meal I slaved over for them). I read The Glass Castle; I certainly don't want children eating out of trash bins. But I still can't bring myself to support this charity.

Am I a scrooge?