FTR, it’s one of those obnoxious media that requires you to sign up before you can read it (which I was not about to do). So I had to try to get what info I could from other sources. Thanks for the info.
That’s what those states estimate the “administrative costs” will be. One might reasonably ask why Iowa, with about 160% of Nebraska population, estimates that they will incur 630% as much in administrative costs.
Here is an NPR article that has much of the same info:
This quote from the governor of Nebraska doesn’t make a lot of sense to me:
Nebraska Republican Gov. Jim Pillen: 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.
Hillary Clinton: So, you’re saying it takes a village?
Nebraska Republican Gov. Jim Pillen: DIE WOKE SOCIALIST SCUM!!!
Well, the Iowa governor, among many other terrific accomplishments, recently signed the most restrictive abortion law in the nation, has been in constant battles with Iowa’s courts over her anti-abortion extremism, supported Trump’s election lies, allowed handguns to be carried freely without a permit, allowed landlords to reject tenants receiving rental assistance, and is a notable transphobe. IOW, checks all the boxes for “right-wing lunatic”.
“Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs […] don’t provide long-term solutions”
They’re certainly seeing to that.
Or just bypass the signup using the usual methods that shall not be mentioned.
This part of the article really confused me.
Officials from both states seem to suggest that the Summer EBT program is cutting children’s outdoor time and worsening childhood obesity.
While the Nebraska governor emphasized the importance of outdoor events for children, Iowa also mentioned the mounting childhood obesity problem in the Dec. 22 statement.
How does giving children’s parents food to help feed them cut out their out door time? Are they expecting that if they are made hungry enough they will hunt squirrels and stray cats for extra protein?
The more time children are eating means less time working the fields.
The only sense I could make out of it is that they want to make children leave their houses and they think if the kids have enough to eat at home they’ll never want to go anywhere.
The obesity business seems to me to be meant to read ‘they’re getting more than enough to eat already! They’re already too fat, they need less food, not more!’ – which shows both an assumption that all children in families who would be eligible are fat, and a drastic misunderstanding of basic nutrition; or possibly a drastic misunderstanding of which foods are relatively expensive and relatively cheap; or, very likely, both misunderstandings together.
That’s fucked up. Let them forage through dumpsters so they get enough fresh air?!
I think they were offering to feed them, or assuming that private sector volunteers would feed them, at for instance churches or 4H meetings.
I agree, however, that it’s fucked up.
She also passed a school voucher law, for up to about $7,000 per child per year, so far for parents who qualify, but making everyone eligible is being phased in.
Of course, many private schools are bumping their tuition up to the maximum credit, like some predatory “colleges” have done with Pell Grants and student loans. I don’t have a problem with private schools, but I don’t think the taxpayers should be funding them. Like I’ve said many times, if you have a private school you believe in, donate to their scholarship fund.
BTW, feeding kids at the library, the 4-H club, etc. also requires transportation, which many families, especially in rural areas, may not have. The feeding programs here also require that the food be eaten on-site; some are taxpayer-subsidized and others are not. Some also allow adults to eat, often with a suggested donation, and others are for children only.
“They can detassel corn and walk beans!” Ahem, they have to be 13 to do that.
I had several friends who did that when we were in that age group; they made about $500 for 3 weeks’ work, which was VERY good money in the late 1970s, but I had no desire to do it myself.
Who cares what serfs want? If god loved them, they wouldn’t be poor.
More guns, folks, more guns.
Parents need to be well-nourished so they can be healthier and take proper care of their children.
In the meantime, Ms. Reynolds cited expense, stating that administrating this program would cost about $2.2 million. That, my friends, is 50 cents per Iowa resident.
In all, 15 Republican-governed states ended up rejecting the summer food program for hungry kids.
True to form.
Surprisingly, my state (MO) appears to have tentatively opted in for now. Good for them, and good work by the advocacy groups pushing them to that decision.
Or alternatively, “the cruelty is the point”