|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 16, 2023 20:51:28 GMT
people off food stamps. Because spending more money to kick people off food stamps makes more sense than actually feeding families and children? Republicans can't even claim they're being fiscally conservative because the bill will cost more money to administer and the SNAP funds are federal. Absolutely despicable and cruel. www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/04/16/iowa-snap-restrictions-food-stamps/Iowa to spend millions kicking families off food stamps. More states may follow.
Food banks in the state say they are already facing a surge in demand and the legislation will only exacerbate that.
The state legislature, with the support of the Republican supermajority, was poised to approve some of the nation’s harshest restrictions on SNAP. They include asset tests and new eligibility guidelines. By the state’s own estimate, Iowa will need to spend nearly $18 million in administrative costs during the first three years — to take in less federal money. The bill’s backers argue the steps would save the state money long term and cut down on “SNAP fraud.”
The measure is part of a broader national crackdown on SNAP, the federal program at the heart of the nation’s welfare system. The proposed legislation was not a homegrown effort but the product of a network of conservative think tanks pushing similar SNAP restrictions in Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin and other states. But experts say Iowa’s represents the boldest attack yet on SNAP, and Republicans in Congress have signaled a similar readiness to impose limits on federal food assistance.
Enacting the bill is expected to cost Iowa more than $17 million in the first three years, far more than the $2.2 million the state spends each year to administer SNAP. (The federal government funds SNAP and splits administrative costs 50-50 with the state. Last year, Iowa received $60.4 million in federal SNAP funds).
Most of that amount would go toward hiring workers and installing systems to process, authenticate and monitor compliance.
Opponents in the Iowa Capitol and beyond wonder if the expense is really necessary to police the rolls of a federal program that for many recipients is still not enough to live on.
“The arguments in favor of this bill are just myths and misleading stereotypes,” said state Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, a Democrat who voted against the bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delta Dawn on Apr 16, 2023 20:58:50 GMT
We had a stupid gov’t in power years ago and kicked everyone off disability and welfare. You needed a severe disability like one leg to get on they were such nazis. Anyway, new gov’t gets into power and surprise everyone is back on disability and welfare and they have people on Facebook looking for potential recipients for welfare or disability. This is a fact. At least we are trending in the right way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Apr 16, 2023 21:11:21 GMT
I remember when Iowa was actually progressive. These things are cyclical.
|
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Apr 16, 2023 21:52:57 GMT
Truly it is extraordinary to me that you would spend money to not feed people. It is proof to me that making people suffer is the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Apr 16, 2023 23:32:23 GMT
I remember when Iowa was actually progressive. These things are cyclical. With Chuck Grassley!! Not progressive.... |
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Apr 17, 2023 0:44:39 GMT
I remember when Iowa was actually progressive. These things are cyclical. With Chuck Grassley!! Not progressive.... One of the first in the nation to allow same sex marriage. Those days. I always thought our slogan should be "Iowa...more progressive than you might think" 🤣 Seriously, it used to be live and let live for the most part. Midwesterners tend to mind their own business. I guess when I left it all went downhill 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Apr 17, 2023 0:47:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 17, 2023 1:00:13 GMT
Just wanted to say again, I don't think Iowa is a terrible state, just their Republican congress is terrible and cruel. Tennessee is not a backwards place even though their Congress is racist and out of control for evicting 2 black men for protesting gun violence. I don't think Florida is a terrible place even though DeSantis has taken some evil, authoritarian actions like banning books, going after Disney for criticizing him, the Don't Say Gay bill, sending migrants to Martha's Vineyard to score political points etc. The super majority Republican congress in my state (NH) has tried to pass some absolutely terrible bills including abortion bans, succeeding from the union and a voter suppression bill to prevent out of state college students from voting. That doesn't make us a backwards state.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Apr 17, 2023 1:03:36 GMT
Most of my extended family live in Iowa and it is a shitshow. Their current governor is on par with Abbott and DeSantis. They have passed laws making it easier to own a gun, passed school choice (it failed last time, but the governor hand picked people to challenge four Republicans that voted against it--those people won their races so now school choice passed), they want to reduce the ability of the state auditor to actually audit, which would probably lead to losing many programs that are federally funded, like student loans, Medicaid, etc. And on and on. They have crumbling bridges and poor infrastructure, as well as dwindling population, but of course there is no blame put on the state and local Republicans that they vote for. Here is a good article that goes into some of the reasons for the shift towards Trump. www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/us/politics/iowa-democrats-republicans.html |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 17, 2023 1:04:48 GMT
people off food stamps. Because spending more money to kick people off food stamps makes more sense than actually feeding families and children? Republicans can't even claim they're being fiscally conservative because the bill will cost more money to administer and the SNAP funds are federal. Absolutely despicable and cruel. www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/04/16/iowa-snap-restrictions-food-stamps/Iowa to spend millions kicking families off food stamps. More states may follow.
Food banks in the state say they are already facing a surge in demand and the legislation will only exacerbate that.
The state legislature, with the support of the Republican supermajority, was poised to approve some of the nation’s harshest restrictions on SNAP. They include asset tests and new eligibility guidelines. By the state’s own estimate, Iowa will need to spend nearly $18 million in administrative costs during the first three years — to take in less federal money. The bill’s backers argue the steps would save the state money long term and cut down on “SNAP fraud.”
The measure is part of a broader national crackdown on SNAP, the federal program at the heart of the nation’s welfare system. The proposed legislation was not a homegrown effort but the product of a network of conservative think tanks pushing similar SNAP restrictions in Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin and other states. But experts say Iowa’s represents the boldest attack yet on SNAP, and Republicans in Congress have signaled a similar readiness to impose limits on federal food assistance.
Enacting the bill is expected to cost Iowa more than $17 million in the first three years, far more than the $2.2 million the state spends each year to administer SNAP. (The federal government funds SNAP and splits administrative costs 50-50 with the state. Last year, Iowa received $60.4 million in federal SNAP funds).
Most of that amount would go toward hiring workers and installing systems to process, authenticate and monitor compliance.
Opponents in the Iowa Capitol and beyond wonder if the expense is really necessary to police the rolls of a federal program that for many recipients is still not enough to live on.
“The arguments in favor of this bill are just myths and misleading stereotypes,” said state Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, a Democrat who voted against the bill.
Gah, these folks are horrible human beings. Little kids will go hungry. I have seen kids come to school on a Monday who are ravenous. It is awful to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Apr 17, 2023 1:47:27 GMT
people off food stamps. Because spending more money to kick people off food stamps makes more sense than actually feeding families and children? Republicans can't even claim they're being fiscally conservative because the bill will cost more money to administer and the SNAP funds are federal. Absolutely despicable and cruel. www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/04/16/iowa-snap-restrictions-food-stamps/Iowa to spend millions kicking families off food stamps. More states may follow.
Food banks in the state say they are already facing a surge in demand and the legislation will only exacerbate that.
The state legislature, with the support of the Republican supermajority, was poised to approve some of the nation’s harshest restrictions on SNAP. They include asset tests and new eligibility guidelines. By the state’s own estimate, Iowa will need to spend nearly $18 million in administrative costs during the first three years — to take in less federal money. The bill’s backers argue the steps would save the state money long term and cut down on “SNAP fraud.”
The measure is part of a broader national crackdown on SNAP, the federal program at the heart of the nation’s welfare system. The proposed legislation was not a homegrown effort but the product of a network of conservative think tanks pushing similar SNAP restrictions in Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin and other states. But experts say Iowa’s represents the boldest attack yet on SNAP, and Republicans in Congress have signaled a similar readiness to impose limits on federal food assistance.
Enacting the bill is expected to cost Iowa more than $17 million in the first three years, far more than the $2.2 million the state spends each year to administer SNAP. (The federal government funds SNAP and splits administrative costs 50-50 with the state. Last year, Iowa received $60.4 million in federal SNAP funds).
Most of that amount would go toward hiring workers and installing systems to process, authenticate and monitor compliance.
Opponents in the Iowa Capitol and beyond wonder if the expense is really necessary to police the rolls of a federal program that for many recipients is still not enough to live on.
“The arguments in favor of this bill are just myths and misleading stereotypes,” said state Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, a Democrat who voted against the bill.
Gah, these folks are horrible human beings. Little kids will go hungry. I have seen kids come to school on a Monday who are ravenous. It is awful to see. And these same people want to do away with free breakfast and lunch at school. As usual, teachers will be the ones solving the problem out of their own pockets. |
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,380 
|
Post by RosieKat on Apr 17, 2023 15:56:23 GMT
Also, I am pretty sure that the last time a solid analysis of SNAP fraud was done, they discovered that the amount of money scammed was far less than the amount that would be needed to stop it. In other words, it was cheaper to let a little bit of fraud go by.
They also discovered that the number of people falsely claiming the benefits was surprisingly insignificant.
Obviously scamming is bad, and it would be better all around if no one did it. But frankly, I would suspect (this is purely my conjecture) that most of the people who are bothering to scam are not exactly rolling in dough as it is. In other words, they may be using it improperly or may not technically qualify, but they also aren't buying 500K houses or something.
I don't remember the source, and may be remembering it entirely incorrectly, but I was doing some informal research for a food pantry program and that's what I recall finding.
|
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Apr 17, 2023 16:27:55 GMT
Also, I am pretty sure that the last time a solid analysis of SNAP fraud was done, they discovered that the amount of money scammed was far less than the amount that would be needed to stop it. In other words, it was cheaper to let a little bit of fraud go by. They also discovered that the number of people falsely claiming the benefits was surprisingly insignificant. Obviously scamming is bad, and it would be better all around if no one did it. But frankly, I would suspect (this is purely my conjecture) that most of the people who are bothering to scam are not exactly rolling in dough as it is. In other words, they may be using it improperly or may not technically qualify, but they also aren't buying 500K houses or something. I don't remember the source, and may be remembering it entirely incorrectly, but I was doing some informal research for a food pantry program and that's what I recall finding. There is always some story about people rolling up to the market in a BMW and using food stamps to buy caviar, and I think the power of narrative (even if it's probably apocryphal) is greater than that of statistics  . |
|
.