Ideal solution not so ideal

Some weeks ago I heard an NPR story (I believe it was on NPR) about kids going to school hungry and attempts to address the problem. Their parents were often drug addicts and/or homeless or ill; essentially, unable to provide for their children.

Obviously, children being hungry is a problem that should be addressed.

But what struck me is that an advocate made a statement that the "ideal solution" for kids not getting enough food would be a program to supply free lunches.

I'm not going to argue against providing kids free lunches -- that is certainly better than them going hungry and the attendant problems associated with trying to study when you're hungry (not to mention medical and other problems).

But is is obviously NOT an "ideal solution."

At best, it is a stop-gap measure and should be considered nothing more than a temporary bandaid put in place because political leaders and citizenry alike were not smart enough or forward-looking enough to avoid the problem in the first place.

The "ideal solution" is much more in the ballpark of the parents off drugs, educated, working productively at jobs and able to support their children so that feeding them is not even close to being a problem.

I just think we're going to get further if we correctly name the problem and the end result we're going for instead of talking about half-measures as if they are full-blown solutions.