Wealth & Money Quote by Dana Rohrabacher

There is a lot packed into that adverb "Clearly" - a soft cudgel that tries to pre-empt dissent by framing a contested premise as obvious fact. Rohrabacher isn't just describing a funding problem; he's quietly building permission for government to step in, while keeping the language friendly enough ("benevolent programs") to make resistance feel faintly cruel. The sentence functions like a moral speed bump: if you hesitate, you're the person slowing down help for children.

The subtext is about legitimacy and leverage. "Private sources of money" signals a familiar American argument about the limits of philanthropy: donations are fickle, attention spans short, and the causes that win tend to be the ones with better marketing. By emphasizing "struggle" and "sustain", he cues the listener to see charity not as a feel-good supplement but as an unreliable backbone for essential services. That framing nudges the conversation toward stable revenue - usually code for public funding, earmarks, or policy mechanisms that replicate what the market won't reliably do.

Context matters because politicians rarely praise "children's charities" in isolation. It's often a rhetorical bridge in debates over social spending, tax policy, or regulations around fundraising and nonprofits. Children are politically untouchable; their suffering is a bipartisan solvent. By centering them, Rohrabacher can argue for a specific fiscal or legislative move without naming its trade-offs up front. The craft here is that it sounds like empathy, but it operates as groundwork: an attempt to define the problem in a way that makes his preferred solution feel not ideological, but inevitable.