-13

Iowa governor says it's 'not sustainable' to give $40 per month to kids from low-income families for food (fortune.com)

submitted 7 months ago by BigMacHole@lemm.ee to c/conservative@lemm.ee

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Iowa will not participate this summer in a federal program that gives $40 per month to each child in a low-income family to help with food costs while school is out, state officials have announced.

The state has notified the U.S. Department of Agriculture that it will not participate in the 2024 Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children — or Summer EBT — program, the state’s Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education said in a Friday news release.

“Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don’t provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families. An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic,” Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said in the news release.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Except it is. And is in everyone’s best interest to do so.

[-] PizzaMane@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Iowa has a budget of $8.5b, and 339,000 people bellow poverty line, that's counting adults too. So $40 a month for the 3 months of summer multiplied by the pop below poverty is $40.6m, or 0.04% of the budget. That is a drop in the fucking bucket, even before trying to figure out how many of those 339,000 people are children eligible under this program. For reference, 1/5th of the Iowan population are minors. And this is a federal program, so Iowa wouldn't even be paying for the full bill.

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-briefs/iowa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/IA/PST045222

Iowa attempts to force women to have children against their will with a 6 week ban, and restricts it by only having a small handful of providers, then denies them the resources needed to raise the children that result from said restrictions. This means unwanted, unafforded children are born to suffer. They pretend this is a good deed.

load more comments (52 replies)

[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

I'm not surprised the people trying to "Protect The Children" are defending letting children starve in the comments!

How do you anger a Republican? Use tax dollars to bail out Billionaires or use tax dollars to feed STARVING CHILDREN?

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee -4 points 7 months ago

Once it’s out of the womb, it’s your problem.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee -4 points 7 months ago

Except these children aren’t going to starve

load more comments

this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023

-13 points (11.8% liked)

Conservative

336 readers

133 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 10 months ago

MODERATORS

Blamemeta@lemm.ee

ConMod@lemm.ee

wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee