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.

  • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months 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.

      • makatwork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t think they should get off the hook so easily. By choosing not to vote, they made thier choice.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months 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
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months 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.

            • Wogi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months 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.