Q: Is there anything more absurd than red state governors rejecting federal programs that directly benefit their constituents?

Simple answer: Yes. It is the explanations they give to make their actions look like sober, responsible budget decisions.

The Republican governors of Iowa and Nebraska brought us the latest examples of this phenomenon just before Christmas.

Announcing three days before Christmas that we have consciously chosen not to feed hungry children? The Dickensian parallels write themselves.

At issue in both states is a summer food program that provides $40 per month per child in June, July and August to families who qualify for free or reduced-price school meals.

The program is known as the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer Program for Children, or Summer EBT. The aim is to provide eligible families with a financial bridge during the months when their children are not in school.

The governors didn’t see it that way. Here’s how Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds justified her decision to reject federal subsidies for low-income Iowans: COVID-era federal benefit programs are not sustainable and do not provide long-term solutions to the problems children and families face.

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s statement was, “I don’t believe in welfare.”

Both governors said their states had already established programs to meet the food needs of low-income families, and that was enough.

It is worth noting that both Reynolds and Pillen’s statements are fundamentally incoherent. What does Reynolds even mean when he calls the program “unsustainable”? It would survive as long as Congress continues to fund it, which is almost certain as long as Republicans don’t take control of both houses and kill it.

As for Pillen’s comment about ‘welfare’, he didn’t bother to explain what he thinks is wrong with ‘welfare’ as such; he just uttered the term, knowing it’s a dog whistle to conservative voters aimed at dehumanizing the program’s beneficiaries.

Column: The Republican Party is back on the attack on Obamacare, and it makes less sense than ever

What makes these governors’ denials so much more irresponsible is that the federal government picks up 100% of the benefits; states only have to agree to pay half of the administrative costs. Their shares, according to estimates from those states, are $2.2 million in Iowa and $300,000 in Nebraska.

In return, 240,000 children in Iowa would receive a total of $28.8 million in benefits over the three summer months, and 150,000 Nebraskans would receive a total of $18 million. Sounds like a hugely profitable investment in children’s healthcare in those states.

The defense of the governors

smack of the same tense pursuit of the

plausibility of these statements

made

by banks, streaming networks, and other commercial entities explaining that their price increases and service decreases are “attempts to better serve you.”

The politicians claim that they are doing their taxpayers a great favor by eyeing their state spending with suspicion, without mentioning how much they are giving up to portray themselves as budget hawks or how much citizens will suffer in the process.

Reynolds’ defense of her action was particularly foolish. An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic, she said.

Not only is there no evidence that household food purchases under this or any other federal program promote obesity, the truth is quite the opposite. It is widely accepted among poverty and nutrition experts that food insecurity, which is rampant among low-income families, increases obesity rates.

Iowa and Nebraska may not be the only red states to reject the summer food program. By the deadline from January 1 to

accept the program

30 states had done so, including at least nine red states. But the list published by the Ministry of Agriculture may not be complete at the time of writing. However, Iowa and Nebraska are the only two states that have publicly announced their opposition.

The governors’ announcements immediately drew fire from anti-poverty advocates.

“Announcing three days before Christmas that we have consciously chosen not to feed hungry children? The Dickensian parallels write themselves,” said Luke Elzinga, president of the Iowa Hunger Coalition.

Column: Is America Cheating Its Children to Subsidize Old People? Refuting a common untruth

These are not the only cases in which Republican state governments have visited upon their residents what we might call the death wish of the Republican Party.

In ten states, Republican governors or legislatures (or both) have blocked Medicaid expansion for low-income residents under the Affordable Care Act for a decade, even as the federal government picks up 90% of benefit costs. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, a Democrat, has tried to implement the program in her state, but the Republican-controlled Legislature has refused to provide money to expand the state budget.

Nebraska did not implement Medicaid expansion until 2020, only after voters required the expansion through a ballot measure in 2018.

(Iowa accepted it upon its introduction in 2013, effective the following January 1, under Republican Gov. Terry Branstad.)

Red state political leaders’ hostility to public health measures

So

evidenced by their data on COVID treatments, especially vaccines. COVID death rates have consistently tracked the level of Trump votes in the 2020 election: the COVID death rate in the reddest counties (that is, those with the largest percentage of Trump votes) is almost three times as high as that of the bluest provinces.

COVID vaccination rates are a mirror image of the same trend: The counties Trump won have lower vaccination rates than Biden’s in 2020, which certainly reflects efforts by conservative Republican political leaders to deliberately undermine confidence in the vaccine and vaccine block mandates.

Efforts to roll back child labor laws, especially those that force children to work in dangerous conditions, are on the rise, especially in red states. In May, Iowa Governor Reynolds signed one of the most extreme rollbacks in the country.

Column: Voters, like investors, are fed up with Republican extremism

The new law allows employers to employ children as young as 14 to work in industrial laundries or factories; for children aged 16 and 17 who are allowed to carry out demolition, roofing, digging and operating powered machinery, all of which were previously prohibited;

And

to allow teenagers from the age of 14 to work in shifts of up to six hours during the school year, among other things. Most of these changes violate federal law, the Dept. said. of Labor advised the Iowa legislature. They still passed.

Of the 10 states that rolled back child labor protections in 2021-2023, as tracked by the unionized Economic Policy Institute, seven were Republican-controlled.

Reynolds and Pillen’s announcements seem almost tailor-made to confirm the adage that for Republicans, “life begins at conception and ends at birth.” Iowa and Nebraska are anti-abortion states.

Iowa requires a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion, prohibits state Medicaid coverage and requires parental consent for an abortion of a minor. Nebraska is much more restrictive. Abortion is prohibited after 12 weeks or later, Medicaid coverage, and private health insurance coverage

Are

prohibited, and medication abortion (i.e. through pills) must be provided in person, because mailing pills to patients is prohibited.

In other words, despite making it harder for women to end unwanted or dangerous pregnancies, both states make it harder for low-income mothers to care for their children. Catch-22 does not begin to explain how these policies are intended to work together to “make a real commitment to the well-being of the family,” in Reynolds’ words.