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
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months 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.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’ll tell you something that’s a more powerful indication of hating the poor: Colorado’s new anti-plastic bags law.

        The only stores prohibited from using them are large chains. Any business with three or fewer retail locations gets to use disposable plastic bags.

        Just not the big stores, like Safeway or King Soopers or Target. The little boutique shops that sell tea and spices and homemade soap to rich people, they get to use all the disposable plastic bags they want.

        But people without cars, people who talk a mile to the grocery store, or take the bus to the grocery store, they’re gonna have to carry their reusable bags with them all day, OR buy new reusable bags each time they, OR take their chances on a long journey with paper bags.

        See, the problem is these rich legislators don’t have a decent conception of what it means to “carry some groceries”. They think carrying groceries means carrying them into the house from their car. I would wager the majority of those legislators don’t even have to carry them in from outside, just in from the garage.

        This is the sort of horseshit that tells me leftists hate the poor. I’m poor, and I know for a fact they value the environment over my own well-being.

        And I resent that. Grocery shopping just got harder for me. It got a little harder for everyone, but not nearly as much harder for a person with a car as for a person without a car.

        When the rich take on a little burden for the planet, the poor take on a much larger burden.

        • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          You just told me no child in the U.S. goes hungry. So I don’t buy this act you’re putting on.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            That is part of being an adult. Taking care of yourself and your obligations.

            • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              So why is it my obligation to address poverty instead of the governments?

                • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Quit trying to put words in my mouth.

                  I don’t have children, I’m not in poverty. I have not caused others to be in poverty. So how is it my obligation to solve U.S. poverty instead of the governments?

    • WraithGear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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.