It hasn’t been a great year for Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). He was booed in his home state last week [“Romney is booed before Utah GOP’s failed censure vote,” news, May 3]. And his Family Security Act (FSA) has gone nowhere in Congress [“GOP turns to cultural attacks on Biden plan,” news, May 2]. But advocates of the FSA are not giving up hope that a simplified and more effective welfare system can be created.

Providing streamlined supports to parents results in healthier children, and healthier children eventually turn into functional, taxpaying citizens. Our country does not value handing money to anyone, even if the money has the potential to create a generation of healthier, more functional citizens. Instead, we offer help by way of multiple, complicated benefit plans that often discourage or prevent parents from getting the help they need. If those parents are disabled, physically or mentally, or if they do not speak English, these barriers, applications, recertifications and complicated rules become insurmountable tasks. Reducing stress for economically disadvantaged parents through the provision of accessible, concrete services creates more stable homes with less maltreatment of children.

The FSA would provide help in a way that reduces barriers to service. And it is fiscally neutral. I think Mr. Romney might deserve some applause.

Polly Lund, Manassas