Breeding dependency

A post about child abuse over at onehandclapping got me thinking about the morality of government breeding dependency and then holding it's citizens accountable when they fail to be independent.

Governments often have systems of aid designed to provide food, housing, health care, education, and more for people who cannot afford them, and sometimes for all. The rub comes when those same governments are charged with holding individuals accountable for not valuing the same. For instance the US government (actually these are often State programs federally subsidized) has several systems of food distribution to the poor and the young (WIC, food stamps, free breakfast and lunch at schools). The state also has authority to remove children from homes where food is not provided. It can also criminally punish parents for not providing food.

Is it possible that the very act of food distribution has resulted in a de-prioritizing of the value of providing food for one's child. It becomes an unwise use of resources to provide redundantly, so a wise steward will always use their resources to provide what is lacking. Perhaps the US will see a corresponding decline in the value their citizens place on other items they choose to subsidize. I wonder if there are other examples of this inverse proportion trend of subsidy to value.

The moral question here is can a government morally accept responsibility for providing the basic needs of children and at the same time hold parents accountable for fulfilling this responsibility? If not, which role (if either) is proper for government to hold, provider or enforcer?