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.

  • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      No they don’t. Abortion is allowed till week 20 is inline with most blue states.

      Nobody denies them resources. They can get a job like anyone else and pay for their children.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          What you said is false. Abortion is legal until week 20.

          The rest is emotional word vomit.

          How are people denied resources to care for their children ? We don’t allow them to have jobs? It’s their job to pay for their children

        • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Guess we aren’t allowed to do literally anything then. Roads are just inherently bad apparently. Fuck the kids, let em starve am I right? It is true evil to ask a citizen for a fraction of a cent to feed impoverished children.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe their parents should feed them? Not sure why you think my money should be used to take of others instead of them taking care of themselves. Why do you hate personal responsibility?

            • BigMacHole@lemm.eeOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed! I want my tax dollars used to force women to GIVE BIRTH not to FEED Starving Children!

              • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think women should be allowed to abort if they want. It’s none of my business.

                Just like children should be fed by their parents. It’s none of my business.

                • WraithGear@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Children aren’t poor. Children have parents that are poor. Children do not have boot straps to pull on to hover about the room. A child’s future prospects depend on their education and nutrition. Children do not have the agency required to save themselves from hunger.

                  You are advocating rigging the game against children to keep the poors down. Society benefits from the investment put into its children, so society should foot the bill. Its not only the ethical decision, it also pays dividends if you look farther then 4 years ahead.

                • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I think the government failing to address poverty is a form of hate for the poor. But good attempt to put words in my mouth.

      • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which is why only programs that do good or are vital services should be added.

        Food for impoverished children easily counts for both.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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?