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.

        • @brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          101 year ago

          And full prison system.

          Feed a kid instant ramen for all their meals -> iron deficiency -> behavioral problems. Believe a poor kid like this was featured in A Place at the Table (2012), or a similar documentary. An example who opened my eyes to the fact that… well, it’s not bad to consider thinking kindly, even when it seems like an adult just sucks.

    • BlanketsWithSmallpox
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      Yeah… but if you feed those kids they’ll just expect government handouts for the rest of their life. What do you just expect the government to give them money when they’re old or something? You have to save for retirement!

      Now where’s my social security check?

    • gregorum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Of course, what this is really all about is a refusal to pay taxes.

  • @FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1131 year ago

    As a lifelong Iowan I am ashamed that we continue to employ this woman. Paying her a salary is not sustainable for Iowa, she is holding back this great state from so much potential it’s enraging.

    • SuzyQ
      link
      fedilink
      231 year ago

      She is continually undermining our health (can’t have high COVID numbers if we stop reporting it), and stripping away at our public schools (voucher program for private schools).

      I may be just a transplant but I don’t think I can get anymore pissed at this person. Can’t believe she won the reelection.

  • @NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    961 year ago

    She added, “If the Biden Administration and Congress want to make a real commitment to family well-being, they should invest in already existing programs and infrastructure at the state level and give us the flexibility to tailor them to our state’s needs.”

    In the same speech she talks about how kids don’t need money for food and conflates issues of hunger and obesity. I do not trust your “states rights” bs to actually feed children. That money will absolutely go into a donors pocket of not strictly allocated (which is exactly why they don’t want to be told how to spend it).

  • DarkGamer
    link
    fedilink
    87
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Iowa forces women to have children against their will, then denies them the resources needed to raise them. This means unwanted, unafforded children, born to suffer. They pretend this is a good deed. Monsters.

    • Aniki 🌱🌿
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      They claim it’s the will of their lord and savior who literally preaches the opposite and the brainless just eat that shit up without a second thought.

      • @kool_newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A real easy way to tell good people from bad… the bad ones make claims that they are doing the will of god. No good person needs to say that

  • Iowa has a budget of $8.5B. This program has about 93k eligible families in the state. At $40 per month, assuming 3 months for summer, the total cost is about $11M. Or 0.10% of their state budget. It’s a rounding error…

  • @Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    831 year ago

    So… In order to score cheap political points and attack the Biden administration, she’s blocking food for hungry kids that her state doesn’t even have to pay for.

    What a disgusting creature

  • We just want to make sure that they’re out. They’re at church camps. They’re at schools. They’re at 4-H. And we’ll take care of them at all of the places that they’re at, so that they’re out amongst (other people) and not feeding a welfare system with food at home,” Pillen said.

    Nebraskan gov is a piece of shit too. Only wants to help the children if they get sent to indoctrination camps. Fucking trash. They’re not even pretending to be human.

    • @mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 year ago

      Why, there are no children at the 4-H club either!

      Am I so out of touch!?

      No

      It is the children who are wrong

      • AutistoMephisto
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Exactly. The whole Conservative ethos is “government bad”(unless is our government). They want kids in programs that are almost all religious indoctrination programs.

  • @Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    38
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We will never get better than this, think about it. It’s been years and years of seeing this same shit over and over. Iowa chose this out of touch POS for themselves and they will continue to.

    • Sippy Cup
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      Reynolds is the least popular governor in the country. Her first election she only won by .1%. Her landslide victory this last election was mostly due to no one showing up to vote.

      There are a LOT of people in Iowa who didn’t choose her and never would.

        • Sippy Cup
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          The choice was made for them. There was no primary, only one Democrat even ran, and she had some significant problems fundraising. Even if every person that voted in the previous rejection voted for the Democrat, Reynolds still would have won, albeit by a much slimmer margin.

          • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Even if every person that voted in the previous rejection voted for the Democrat

            Republicans were prohibited from voting for a Democrat in the general election?

            They chose her instead of a Democrat. That’s completely their fault.

            • Sippy Cup
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I’m specifically talking about the roughly 45% of the state that you’ve condemned to suffer for the crime of living in a state that has a few more Republicans than Democrats.

  • @Rooskie91@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    381 year ago

    Oh but it’s sustainable to give billionaires and corporations tax cuts? It’s sustainable to own multiple million dollar plus homes? Allowing private jets is sustainable? An entire economy devoted to weapons manufacturing in a country of starving, struggling workers is sustainable?

    These fucking boomers never progressed beyond their teenage years. I can’t help but see our leadership as highschool students that need to grow the fuck up, abandon their awful, failed special interest policies, and start doing their fucking job; which is providing the average person with the means to live a fulfilled life. Every. Single. Politician. Is an abject failure that should have been cast to the wolves decades ago.

    • @RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Billionaires and corporations have value because they can afford to bribe politicians. Poor, starving children don’t. Simple as that in their eyes.

  • kase
    link
    fedilink
    371 year ago

    Fuck her. What an absolute joke. I know I’m not adding anything of value to this conversation, but I’m just so mad.

  • @GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    341 year ago

    This is an argument that is used all the time in politics and business when a (partial) solution to a big problem is presented.

    “Well there may be unintended consequences to this solution so we can’t do anything until every single potential problem that may arise sometime in the future is completely worked through and solved.”

    I mean if you are going into space then that is probably the way to do things but trying to solve childhood hunger? Yea you got time to fix the problems as they arise.