“Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger and reckless with misery. He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity: 'Please, sir, I want some more’.”— Oliver Twist. Charles Dickens
Addressing hunger
In 2023, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, Congress and the Biden administration approved the Consolidated Appropriations Act. One part of the law extended a COVID-era summer food program for poor children. The measure provided funds (Summer EBT) to ensure that all kids had enough to eat during summer break.
Thirty-five states signed up for the program by the January 1 deadline. Fifteen — Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming — did not. It will surprise no one that of the 15, 14 are ruby red — what’s up Vermont?
Iowa
The well-fed, pro-hunger governors offered a smorgasbord of excuses for condemning the most powerless of their constituents to want. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) said she saw no need to add money to a program that helps food-insecure youths “when childhood obesity has become an epidemic.” If Reynolds were concerned about overweight kids, she would support a state tax on sugar — do not hold your breath.
She added that she was unwilling to pay the $2.2 million it would cost to administer the program. Instead, Reynolds claimed the state would expand its existing nutritional programs. This assertion makes no sense.
Either the supposedly fiscally conservative state will spend more than the $2.2 million it claims it is saving. Note: Iowa received $20+ million annually from Summer EBT in past years. Or — and this is more likely — Reynolds is lying that the state will expand its programs.
Nebraska
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen (R) was more honest. He declared bluntly, “I don’t believe in welfare.” He expanded his thinking in a statement claiming that the program is “unnecessary and is not adequate to meeting the needs of children. … Handing out money is not enough to meet kid’s needs. They need much more.”
I am not sure how something can be both “unnecessary” (i.e. too much) and “not adequate” (i.e. too little). I also doubt his commitment to providing the “more” in “they need much more.”
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) floated varying reasons for not joining the program. All of which smack of pure BS. For one, he said there was not yet enough information. It is not a new program. What information can he possibly lack?
He added it was “duplicative” of existing federal programs. That is like an employer denying an employee a pay raise because the additional dollars would be duplicative of the dollars they are already earning. In addition, he said he was “satisfied” with the state’s current resources. I wonder if Oklahoma’s poor kids concur with his grade.
Conservatives think people suck
Tests given to assess an individual’s honesty comprise two kinds of questions. One type asks, “Did you ever steal office supplies from an employer?” The other asks, “If people knew they could steal from their employer without being caught, what percent of them do you think would steal?’
The answers to the questions about what the respondent would do themselves are discarded — no one admits to being a thief. What reveals someone’s character is how they rate others. If you answer that most people would not steal, even if they knew they could get away with it, the chances are you are an honest person. I would not be surprised if conservatives tend to believe that most people would be thieves given the chance.
This “projection” is universal among right-wingers, who think it is the Democrats who are trying to rig elections.
It is also why conservatives believe that the majority of people on SNAP and other nutritional programs are cheaters (welfare queens). And that the recipients will take government money earmarked for food and spend it on ding-dongs and soda — even though the rules forbid that.
I am sure some people have figured out a way around those rules. But to condemn 1,000s to hunger because a few are gaming the system is unchristian.
Being a patriotic citizen
My taxes go to paying Republican Congressional salaries. I am not thrilled about that. But I accept that is the cost of having a democracy. On the other hand, I do not begrudge my tax dollars spent on feeding hungry children. Although it would be better for everyone — conservative, liberal, and other — if the US economy benefitted the low-income earner with the same enthusiasm it coddles billionaires. And there were fewer poor kids in the first place.
Republicans have frozen the minimum wage for 15 years — it buys 30% less than in 2009. Note: Oklahoma and Iowa workers are only guaranteed the federal rate. While Nebraska does at least have a minimum of $12 (credit where credit is due)
All three are also “right to work” states — an Orwellian way of saying "union busting." This anti-worker philosophy has left Iowa, Oklahoma, and Nebraska workers with gross salaries and after-tax, take-home pay in the bottom half of states.
Just how many ways can conservative politicians hurt “the least of these brothers and sisters of mine,” as Jesus embraced the people he truly cared about?
Well written! Excellent points all. The denial of food to children already impoverished by the cruel American system is beyond heartbreaking; even more bizarre is the justification.