Iowa Willing To Pay Anything For Privilege Of Starving People To Death

It's not about the money.

There are few myths Americans embrace as greedibly as the myth of the Secretly Rich Poor Person. The most enduring example of this, of course, is Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" — a real woman named Linda Taylor, who was convicted in 1977 of welfare fraud.

"In Chicago," he said during a 1976 campaign speech. "They found a woman who holds the record. She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans' benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands. Her tax-free cash income, alone, has been running $150,000 a year."

Taylor was caught and she was convicted and she went to prison, which should have actually served as evidence that this is not something people can easily get away with. It wasn't. Reagan made Taylor legion. He talked about her as if she were exemplary of every other single mother relying on welfare to get by, and she became the image that millions of Americans saw in their minds whenever the term was brought up. He made it so they were able to displace any compassion they might have had for the poor with contempt, with anger, and with betrayal. That contempt, anger and betrayal was what made it possible for him to begin the long process (completed through several other presidencies) of dismantling the welfare system and making it as difficult for people to access help as humanly possible.

To this day, people love to trade stories of "fancy" things they supposedly saw people with SNAP cards (previously, food stamps) buying at the grocery store. Rep. Louis Gohmert, famously, raged about poor people supposedly buying "king crab legs" at the grocery store. They also love to talk about peoplewho live in mansions but spend their whole day on the street panhandling and pretending to be homeless. It's easier to think this way than to fully reckon with the fact that so many people in the richest nation on earth are so desperately poor.

When the Right talks about SNAP, when they talk about WIC, when they talk about other welfare benefits meant to keep people from drowning, becoming homeless or starving to death, they rarely really talk about money. They don't say, "We simply cannot afford to feed these people" anywhere near as much as they talk about the moral character of those who receive those benefits — how they are either scam artists like Linda Taylor or in danger of having their work ethic wither away by becoming "dependent on the government." Of course, the vast majority of families receiving these benefits have at least one member who is working and a full third of them have two.

There's little question that the initial reason for going after welfare benefits was greed, but they had to frame it as a moral crusade in order to get people to go along with it more easily — and now many of those in charge of making laws regulating those benefits are true believers in the pretend moral crusade.

This, in part, explains why states like Iowa are willing to actually spend millions of dollars in order to keep people from getting these benefits.

Via Washington Post:

 

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.

“There are pockets where you are seeing a movement toward more restrictions to kick people off SNAP,” said Diane Schanzenbach, a professor at Northwestern University’s School of Education and Social Policy. “But the SNAP program is really well-designed. It’s effective and efficient, and it does a tremendous amount of good. Generally, proposals to change it usually are going to make it worse.”

The thing is, these people actually do need help — and since COVID, more people need more help than ever. Which is why Iowa's food cupboards are stretched thin.

It's not that they don't have the money — in 2022, Iowa ended up with a general-fund budget surplus of $1.91 billion — they just actually think that it's bad for people not to starve.

In January, 39 Republican House members sponsored a bill that would require an asset test, meaning families and individuals are barred from accessing SNAP, Medicaid, and other assistance programs if the value of their cars, farm equipment or other items are too high. The measure would also create more paperwork for recipients, and ban those using SNAP from buying candy and soda, as well as fresh meat, white bread, baked beans or American cheese, among other items. None of the 39 legislators, including [House Speaker Pat] Grassley, responded to requests for comment.

The proposal’s backers argued that SNAP assistance de-incentivized families from working or from taking on more hours at the jobs they already had. They also pressed the case that the current program would eliminate “SNAP fraud.”

These sorts of regulations "sound good" to the kind of people who gripe about poor people "driving Cadillacs" — though this belief is largely rooted in the fact that, due to redlining, Black families often had to live in certain neighborhoods regardless of their personal economic situation but were able to buy whatever the hell kinds of cars they wanted. In reality, since most people are only on SNAP or other programs for about a year or so until they "get back on their feet" and are able to find better employment, expecting them to sell all of their worldly possessions (including possessions that help them get to work and back) is a little rash.

Being able to eat food they like doesn't "de-incentivize" people from working, either. Indeed, heavily restricting what people are able to eat and being forced to sell their car in order to qualify for getting to eat whatever it is they're allowed to eat is the kind of thing that might make people get into a rut they can't get out of, that can make them feel stuck. Luckily, they eventually struck the ridiculous food restrictions, but kept the stupid asset test and the other regulations that are set to cost the state $15 million more a year than it does to just run the damn SNAP program like normal.

Last week, Democrats tried their best to convince their colleagues that this was a bad move, a cruel move, but they didn't budge. The legislation will soon make its way to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who will most certainly sign it. Other states have moved towards similar legislation, also preferring to spend many millions on administrative nonsense over spending a few million to feed people.

Because ultimately, they actually do care less about saving money than they do about getting to stick it to all of those imaginary people pretending to be poor in order to get an average of $240 a month in SNAP benefits. Because it's easier to believe in legions of lazy scam artists than it is to believe that so many people can be so poor in this country as to need those benefits without being morally deficient in some capacity. It's easier to believe that than it is to believe that one day they or someone they love could be in that position. It's easier to believe that than it is to stop believing that anyone who is willing to work hard can make it in America, even though it is very obvious — judging by all of the people now complaining that not enough people are willing to work crap jobs that pay peanuts — that the country would cease to function if everyone did.

 Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons .

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!