Thank you Dave. I had wondered why she chose to make that announcement right before the holiday weekend. Apparently USDA may be lenient with states that miss January 1 deadline and choose later to participate. I will hope (but not hold my breath hope) that the Iowa Legislature “encourages” Reynolds to do the right thing.
My favorite example was the release of the Culver administration initial bomb of the Iowa Film Tax Credit scandal at @4:56 on a high-school football Friday, though I'm sure you have better ones. Enjoyed the article.
I'm convinced this tactic doesn't work nearly as well in the social media age. As you probably saw, news of the Iowa governor's decision to deny food assistance to needy families went viral on many platforms.
Even in the time I've been writing about Iowa politics (just under 17 years), I've noticed that these slow news weekends are not as slow as they used to be. On the contrary: sometimes a story published right before a holiday weekend can actually do better, because there is less competing political news to take up people's attention. I think that dynamic explains why so many people (even some national websites) picked up the story about Kim Reynolds and food assistance last weekend.
My worry about social media outrage is that decisions either by private or public sector entities is that some of these organizations quicky change their minds due to public blowback. And they don’t explain well how they arrived at the decision in the first place. On the other hand, of course, too many in the public don’t think clearly about things either and their emotional response is based either on bias or incomplete information. This is not to defend Iowa’s EBT decision. It’s fair to ask if Iowa’s share of the EBT administrative costs is $2.2 million, why doesn’t the state use that money to do what EBT does? Also, Nebraska’s administrative cost for EBT, which it also rejected, is only $300,000. Why the difference? This is a question worth asking by the media—either social or legacy.
$40 per month amounts to $1 for each breakfast or lunch students miss when school is not in session.
First Kim claims she is rejecting the funds because it is not a long term solution. So just what is her solution? Couldn't she accept the funds while she works on a long term plan? Reminds me of Trump and his "I will have a beautiful health care reform in just 2 weeks. "
Then she said she rejected funding because of childhood obesity. So- $2 more per day will make kids fat??
She touts parents' rights and that they know what is best for their children, but somehow does not trust parents to spend that $2 a day more responsibly.
She also said local groups are better set up to handle hunger issues than the state is. Open your eyes, Kim! Iowa is full of small, rural towns -37% of our population! Rural area often have no food banks, and no churches large enough to fund/operate such a program.
Thank you Dave. I had wondered why she chose to make that announcement right before the holiday weekend. Apparently USDA may be lenient with states that miss January 1 deadline and choose later to participate. I will hope (but not hold my breath hope) that the Iowa Legislature “encourages” Reynolds to do the right thing.
My favorite example was the release of the Culver administration initial bomb of the Iowa Film Tax Credit scandal at @4:56 on a high-school football Friday, though I'm sure you have better ones. Enjoyed the article.
Great article! Feeling bad that you wrote this when Louisa (and her parents) were in town 🫂
Happy holidays 🎈
I'm convinced this tactic doesn't work nearly as well in the social media age. As you probably saw, news of the Iowa governor's decision to deny food assistance to needy families went viral on many platforms.
Even in the time I've been writing about Iowa politics (just under 17 years), I've noticed that these slow news weekends are not as slow as they used to be. On the contrary: sometimes a story published right before a holiday weekend can actually do better, because there is less competing political news to take up people's attention. I think that dynamic explains why so many people (even some national websites) picked up the story about Kim Reynolds and food assistance last weekend.
Kudos to Dave for releasing this on a Friday.
My worry about social media outrage is that decisions either by private or public sector entities is that some of these organizations quicky change their minds due to public blowback. And they don’t explain well how they arrived at the decision in the first place. On the other hand, of course, too many in the public don’t think clearly about things either and their emotional response is based either on bias or incomplete information. This is not to defend Iowa’s EBT decision. It’s fair to ask if Iowa’s share of the EBT administrative costs is $2.2 million, why doesn’t the state use that money to do what EBT does? Also, Nebraska’s administrative cost for EBT, which it also rejected, is only $300,000. Why the difference? This is a question worth asking by the media—either social or legacy.
Thanks for writing, even on a Friday. I don’t understand the heartless of that decision.
$40 per month amounts to $1 for each breakfast or lunch students miss when school is not in session.
First Kim claims she is rejecting the funds because it is not a long term solution. So just what is her solution? Couldn't she accept the funds while she works on a long term plan? Reminds me of Trump and his "I will have a beautiful health care reform in just 2 weeks. "
Then she said she rejected funding because of childhood obesity. So- $2 more per day will make kids fat??
She touts parents' rights and that they know what is best for their children, but somehow does not trust parents to spend that $2 a day more responsibly.
She also said local groups are better set up to handle hunger issues than the state is. Open your eyes, Kim! Iowa is full of small, rural towns -37% of our population! Rural area often have no food banks, and no churches large enough to fund/operate such a program.
She is despicable.