You're not seeing the forest from the trees. I often wonder about the true motivation of some conservatives opposing any programs such as the one described in

You're not seeing the forest from the trees. I often wonder about the true motivation of some conservatives opposing any programs such as the one described in this article. If your agenda is to cut Government spending, shouldn't you think about ways to do that? It's well understood that preventive programs (such as the one described in the article) cost less than programs that deal with the consequences, e.g. prisons, hospitals to name two. So if your agenda is to cut Government spending, shouldn't you advocate for programs such as this? So when on the other hand these people speak about cutting spending, and then cutting every preventive program in the books, they're not only failing to achieve what they advocate for (in the long run), but also causing real harm for people affected by these program cuts. So to answer the comment I'm responding to. The goal of programs like this is not to "be nice", but to actually reduce to overall spending. I don't understand why it's dumb or dangerous at all.