[ad_1]
The governor stood firm and said Nebraska would deny new federal funding for summer meals. The state was already feeding a small number of children when schools closed. He did not intend to sign on to a program that would give every family receiving free or reduced-price school lunches a card to buy groceries over the summer.
“I don’t believe in welfare,” Republican Gov. Jim Pillen said in December.
A group of low-income youth urged him to reconsider in an in-person meeting. One person said they ate less during school holidays. Others criticized existing feeding station meals, holding up prepackaged sandwiches without crusts and arguing that electronic benefit cards from a new federal program would provide better food and more options.
“Sometimes money is not the answer,” the governor responded.
A week later, Pillen made a U-turn the size of a Nebraska cornfield, approved the card and praised the young man who spoke out.
“This isn’t about me winning,” he said. “This is about coming to a conclusion about what is best for the children.”
Mr. Pillen’s unusual reversal illustrates the conflict that shapes red states’ views on federal aid: Needs beckon, but suspicions are growing about the Biden administration and programs that critics call handouts.
A new $2.5 billion program known as Summer EBT passed Congress with bipartisan support, and Democratic governors will hand out grocery cards this summer. However, Republican governors are divided, with 14 in favor and 13 against, with no consensus on what constitutes conservative principles.
One Red state governor (Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas) hailed the card as an answer to a worrying problem. Another, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, warned that obesity could increase. Some Republican lawmakers dismissed the program as outdated pandemic aid. Some balked at the state’s modest matching costs. Some hinted that they might take more time to prepare before participating.
The program provides families about $40 per month ($120 in the summer) for each child who receives free or reduced-price meals at school. Red state denials would deny aid to about 10 million children nationwide, about one-third of those who might qualify.
The denial of federal aid is similar to the bitter fight over the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Ten states, mostly low-income states in the South, have refused to implement expanded Medicaid programs, largely funded by Washington.
Still, some analysts think the grocery card rejections are surprising. Summer EBT is much cheaper for states than Medicaid and evolved from a pilot program that passed Congress with Republican support and was widely considered a success. Moreover, it is targeted at children.
“It should be less controversial than it has been,” said Elaine Waxman, a hunger expert at the Urban Institute, a research group in Washington.
The results highlight the arbitrary nature of the U.S. safety net, which favors local control. North Dakota and North Carolina are among them.South Dakota and South Carolina are absent.. In Tulsa, children can receive aid, but not in Oklahoma City, where the state and tribal governments are at odds. In the impoverished Mississippi Delta, eligibility is determined by which side of the Mississippi River a child lives on.
Like Medicaid, poor states have been particularly resistant, even though the federal government pays most of the costs. Of the 10 states with the highest child food insecurity rates, five rejected summer EBT: Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas.
Similar to the school lunch program, it serves families up to 185% of the poverty line. That means her family of three, with incomes of about $45,500 or less, would qualify.
The original school lunch program also faced resistance. Congress created the program in 1946, in part out of concern that poor nutrition weakened recruits. But opponents viewed free meals as socialism, and Southern states demanded assurances that federal aid would not undermine racial discrimination.
More than a decade later, only half of schools had implemented the program, says Susan Levin, a historian at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in her 2008 book, School Lunch Politics: The Surprise of America’s Popular Welfare Program. It is stated in “The History of Japan”.
Another summer meal service program followed in 1968. However, meals are provided in limited locations that some families do not have access to, and only about 15 percent of children receive meals during the school year.
Some critics see the new program as an extension of pandemic aid. (A similar effort, Pandemic EBT, handed out grocery cards during coronavirus school closures.) But Summer EBT, he said, began as an experiment in 2011 and long predates the pandemic. I am. Evaluators found that benefits as low as $30 a month could reduce “the most severe food insecurity among children” by one third.
Based on those results, Congress in 2022 established this program nationwide. In exchange for federal benefits, each state would pay half of the administrative costs. “We hope you will put these new tools into action,” Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas said in a promotional video, perhaps sensing that some people might resist. I look forward to it.”
So did his home state governor, Mr. Sanders. Sanders, who serves as White House press secretary under President Donald J. Trump, does not seek conservative credentials but praised the federal aid.
“It is my administration’s best interest to ensure that Arkansans, especially children, do not go hungry,” she said in a news release. Arkansas officials estimate the program will cost the state about $3 million and provide $45 million in benefits.
Iowa rejected the plan with similar vigor. Gov. Reynolds called the program “unsustainable” by forgoing about $29 million in federal benefits and criticized the lack of restrictions on what food parents can buy. “EBT cards do nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity is so prevalent,” she says.
A pilot program found the opposite. EBT cards “increased fruit and vegetable consumption” and reduced soft drink consumption, the evaluators wrote.
More than half of the children excluded from aid by Republican governors live in Texas and Florida. Both states point to the complexity of administering the program, with schools often lacking students’ current addresses or the technology to easily share data with institutions that issue EBT cards. However, neither excludes future participation.
The Biden administration has sought to protect the program from any partisan sheen and has generally not criticized states that have denied aid.
“Many non-participating states have told us they are experiencing scheduling challenges and hope to have the program in place next year,” said Stacey Dean, Under Secretary of Agriculture.
Some Republicans refused the aid, realizing they had detractors within their own ranks. After South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster dismissed Summer EBT as a redundant “entitlement,” state Sen. Katrina Sheeley, a fellow Republican, wrote a column with her Democratic colleagues saying, “Hunger will not stop during summer vacation. ” he warned.
In an interview, Ms. Seeley said the state shouldn’t be denied $65 million “because Biden is president,” perhaps partially jokingly wrapping her appeal in Trump-style bunting. Maybe. She said, “Everyone wants to say ‘America first’ -” Well, first, let’s feed the kids. ”
Oklahoma initially said it rejected the program because federal officials had not finalized the rules. But in response to critics, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt went on the offensive, saying Summer EBT is a duplicative “Biden administration program” that will “create even more bureaucracy for families.”
Tribal governments with influence over much of the state intervened. Already feuding with Mr. Stitt, they promised to distribute the cards to all eligible families living on the land, regardless of tribal status, while paying $3 million in administrative fees. His five participating tribes will cover nearly 40% of Oklahoma’s eligible children, most of whom are not Native American.
“I am still stunned that the governor of Oklahoma would refuse to spend federal tax dollars to support low-income children,” said Cherokee Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr.
In Nebraska, Governor Pillen was an unlikely candidate to support new poverty programs. A wealthy pork processor, he campaigned on a commitment to fighting critical race theory, resisting “federal encroachment,” and ridding the state of “socialist policies.”
Existing meal locations are preferable to Summer EBT because they allow children to socialize and staff can check on children’s health, he said. However, many families, especially in rural areas, lack the time and transportation to bring their children there.
Historically, the number of children fed in the summer in Nebraska is only about 7 percent of the number of children fed at school, according to the Center for Food Research and Action, a Washington state advocacy group. It is among the lowest in the United States. By contrast, her summer EBT will reach nearly every family eligible for subsidized school meals.
After the governor rejected the plan, thousands of Nebraskans signed a protest petition and 19 members of the unicameral legislature supported a bill that would force the state to participate. That includes senior Republican Sen. Ray Aguilar, who said in an interview that the program reflects conservative values because “kids need to eat.” .
State financial analysts estimated the program would cost about $360,000 a year and provide $18 million in benefits.
Megan Young, 25, doesn’t care about politics, but she heard about the controversy. Growing up relying on her school lunches, she watched her mother go hungry as she ate less in the summer. She said her food insecurity worsened her mother’s depression and she was placed in foster care. She said she was “shocked” to hear the governor refer to EBT cards as “welfare.”
Young was part of a program in which underprivileged teens and young adults lobby the governor on issues of their choosing. Her group chose Summer EBT.
Matthew Floyd, 18, who stood before Pillen in state Supreme Court, said the federal money would help the economy. Lexi Simonsen, 18, brought a brown bag lunch to complain that the dining venue’s prices were meager and unappealing.
Ms. Young spoke in the most personal terms, explaining, “My mother would eat nothing or very little for us to eat.” She did not tell the governor about her foster care and homelessness, fearing that the governor might find it difficult to believe such hardships.
The presentation lasted 8 minutes. The governor didn’t seem to be convincing. He questioned the group’s estimates of how many children would benefit from the card. He argued that summer sites meet the needs of children. “I’m not asking you to agree with me,” he said.
The group left disappointed.
A week later, Simonsen was in study hall when she learned the governor had retracted his statement and announced that Nebraska would issue EBT cards. He cited several youth organizations, including hers, for changing her views on him.
She said it was unusual for people in power to change their minds, and praised Pillen, a former college football star, for not making the issue a must-win contest.
“I was blown away by the fact that he listened and said Nebraska can be better,” she said.
[ad_2]
Source link
