Another red-blue divide: money to feed kids in summer
WASHINGTON>> The governor was firm: Nebraska would reject the new federal money for summer meals. The state already fed a small number of children when schools closed. He would not sign on to a program to provide all families that received free or cutrate school meals with cards to buy groceries during the summer.
“I don’t believe in welfare,” the governor, Jim Pillen, a Republican, said in December.
A group of low-income youths, in a meeting, urged him to reconsider. One told him she had eaten less when schools were out. Another criticized the meals at the existing feeding sites and held a crustless prepackaged sandwich to argue that electronic benefit cards from the new federal program would offer better food and more choice.
“Sometimes money isn’t the solution,” the governor replied.
A week later, Pillen made a Uturn the size of a Nebraska cornfield, approving the cards and praising the young people for speaking out.
“This isn’t about me winning,” he said. “This is about coming to the conclusion of what is best for our kids.”
Pillen’s extraordinary reversal shows the conflicts shaping redstate views of federal aid: needs beckon, but suspicions run high of the Biden administration and programs that critics call handouts.
The new $2.5 billion program, known as Summer EBT, passed Congress with bipartisan support, and every Democratic governor will distribute the grocery cards this summer. But Republican governors are split, with 14 in, 13 out and no consensus on what constitutes conservative principle.
One red-state governor (Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas) hailed the cards as an answer to a disturbing problem. Another (Kim Reynolds of Iowa) warned that they might increase obesity. Some Republicans dismissed the program as obsolete pandemic aid. Some balked at the modest state matching costs. Others hinted they might join after taking more time to prepare.
The program will provide families about $40 a month for every child who receives free or reduced-price meals at school — $120 for the summer. The redstate refusals will keep aid from about 10 million children, about one-third of those potentially eligible nationwide.
The rejection of federal aid has parallels to the bitter fights over the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Ten states, mostly Southern and low-income, decline to run an expanded Medicaid program largely financed by Washington.
Still, some analysts find the rejection of the grocery cards surprising. Summer EBT is much cheaper for states than Medicaid, it passed Congress with Republican support, and it grew from a pilot program widely deemed successful. Plus, it targets children.
“It should be less controversial than it’s been,” said Elaine Waxman, a hunger expert at the Urban Institute, a Washington research group.
The outcome illuminates the arbitrary nature of the American safety net, which prioritizes local control. North Dakota and North Carolina are in; South Dakota and South Carolina are out. Children in Oklahoma can get aid in Tulsa but not in Oklahoma City, as state and tribal governments clash. In the impoverished Mississippi Delta, eligibility depends on which side of the Mississippi River a child lives.
As with Medicaid, poor states are especially resistant, although the federal government bears most of the cost. Of the 10 states with the highest levels of children’s food insecurity, five rejected Summer EBT: Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas.
Like the school lunch program, it serves families up to 185% of the poverty line, meaning a family of three would qualify with an income of about $45,500 or less.
The initial school meal program faced resistance, too. Congress created it in 1946, partly from fear that poor nutrition weakened military recruits. But opponents saw free meals as socialism, and Southern states demanded assurance that federal aid would not undermine segregation.
More than a decade later, only half of schools ran the program, Susan Levine, a historian at the University of Illinois-chicago, noted in her 2008 book “School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America’s Favorite Welfare Program.”
A separate Summer Food Service Program followed in 1968. But it offers meals at limited sites, which some families cannot reach, and serves only about 15% of children fed during the school year.
Some critics see the new program as an extension of pandemic aid. (A similar effort, Pandemic EBT, distributed grocery cards when the coronavirus closed schools.) But Summer EBT, having started experimentally in 2011, long predates the pandemic. Evaluators found that even benefits as low as $30 a month cut “the most severe food insecurity among children by one-third.”
Drawing on those results, Congress in 2022 established the program nationwide. In exchange for the federal benefits, states pay half the administrative costs. Perhaps is one of the young people who
sensing some might resist, a Republican backer, Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, said in a promotional video, “We’re counting on you to put these new tools into action.”
His home-state governor, Sanders, did. As a White House press secretary under President Donald Trump, Sanders does not want for conservative credentials, but she celebrated the federal aid.
“Making sure no Arkansan goes hungry, especially children, is a top concern for my administration,” she said in a news release. Arkansas officials estimate the program will cost the state about $3 million and deliver $45 million in benefits.
Iowa rejected the program with equal verve. In forgoing about $29 million in federal benefits, Reynolds called the program “not sustainable” and criticized the lack of constraints on which food parents can buy. “An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic,” she said.