Letters: Expect a cliff effect with SNAP legislation

Expect a cliff effect with SNAP legislation

As a volunteer with Save the Children Action Network, I can’t stay silent about House File 3 and Senate Study Bill 1105, bills that drastically impact eligibility for SNAP and other public benefits.

I firmly believe that the definitions of "assets" within these bills including but not limited to: the value of a second vehicle and other personal property is going to create a giant cliff effect for working families like we have seen in the past with eligibility for child care assistance. Not only would we be making SNAP benefits less accessible to those in need, we would also be discouraging those who do need the assistance from pursuing things like saving for emergencies and improving their quality of life. 286,100 Iowa residents, or 9% of the state population benefits from this program; 42% of those are children. Looking at the risk of this major cliff effect, we must also consider the amount of children that will face food insecurity and continue living in poverty as they will no longer qualify for these benefits. We must keep our children in mind with decisions at the capitol. Let’s ensure their health and well-being stay a priority.

— Jessi Balk, West Des Moines

Sobering reminder of water quality

After reading the water-quality essay in the Jan. 30 Register, I was reminded of a trip about 10 years ago my husband and I took with our children and grandchildren to Yucatan. We'd rented a house on the Gulf of Mexico and had a good time.

An unsettling observation, however, was watching two or three men who would fill wheelbarrows with the sludge along the shore and take it across the street to dump in a field. This was their job all day.

Knowing much of that sludge goes down the Mississippi from chemicals put on our Iowa fields today, I can't imagine how bad it has gotten since then.

— Anne Webber, West Des Moines

Food Bank of Iowa should be more flexible

It has been disheartening and frustrating to see the protracted dispute between the Food Bank of Iowa and Des Moines Area Religious Council disrupting the mission to feed as many needy people as possible.

To better understand the impasse, I contacted both agencies and also Feeding America, the national network of food banks of which Food Bank of Iowa is a member. A crux of the dispute is a new contractual requirement by the Food Bank that each pantry must provide a minimum three-day supply of food monthly. An employee at Feeding America said this policy is not required by its organization nor any governmental regulations.

It may seem reasonable for the Food Bank to require each of its partner pantries to follow this “best practice.” However, the situation with DMARC is unique. A Food Bank representative acknowledged that DMARC is different from all other pantries because it is a not a single pantry but a network of pantries. DMARC has 15 pantries all located in close proximity within the Des Moines metro area, making it easier for people to obtain a three-day supply of food from more than one of its pantries each month.

Conceivably, DMARC would have to provide a three-day supply of food to any individuals who visited more than one (up to 15) of its pantries within a month. DMARC has a valid concern the Food Bank requirement is not sustainable and would impede its ability to serve as many people (20,000 or more unique individuals per month).

Other Food Bank partner pantries around Iowa are individually operated and scattered farther apart, thus making it far less likely for individuals to use multiple partner pantries each month. In addition, DMARC’s network of pantries have been successfully feeding needy for decades and their experience and knowledge “on the ground” deserve consideration. The Food Bank of Iowa should show more flexibility in trying to reach a resolution with DMARC.

— Ruth Cooperrider, Urbandale

Private schools are exclusive, public schools aren’t

I’m having a hard time wrapping my Christ-centered mind and heart around a private “Christian” school that does not accept all children, regardless of mental, physical, or social challenges. This does not match up with the Jesus I know. I’m also having a hard time wrapping my patriotic mind and heart around a private school that does not accept all children and yet receives public funds. This does not match up with the Declaration of Independence I memorized as a public school student that reads that all men (humanity) are created equal. This pill would be easier to swallow if there was a requirement that all private schools must accept all children in order to receive any public funding.

— The Rev. Denny Coon, Ankeny

Public should have a voice in schools spending their money

Recently a retired friend spoke with joy about the new school in her neighborhood. Her children and grandchildren now live elsewhere, but she takes pride in “her” neighborhood school. As a citizen, she has ownership and responsibility for her public school. A responsibility she takes seriously when she votes. A responsibility fulfilled in part by investments made through her taxes. My friend knows strong schools build strong communities.

My friend has no voice in private schools. Is it fair for her to be asked to make the same investments in private schools she makes to her public school? Wouldn't it be better if all citizens had a voice in how education tax dollars are invested rather than directing dollars for private use?

I asked these questions of Brad Zaun, my state senator, who responded by asking if all citizens should have a voice in public housing, nutrition assistance, and more. Yes, Senator Zaun, all citizens should have a voice in education and all of government.

The best way to serve the community is to invest public dollars in public schools where all citizens have a voice for public accountability.

— Michelle Breach, Urbandale

Feenstra, Naig sidestep many truths

Before we think about "feeding the world," maybe we should think about feeding the hungry in our own state? Maybe some of those millions of pounds of corporate pork we're shipping to China could be put on the tables of food-insecure Iowa families, or in the strapped food banks and pantries so many of them now depend on? Oh, I forgot, the Republicans in our Legislature proposed banning food stamps for buying meat.

When Rep. Randy Feenstra and Secretary Mike Naig say the "new farm bill must protect Iowa agricultural productivity," what they really mean is that is must protect Big Ag, meaning the corporate interests that now dominate virtually every part of Iowa agriculture (except for doing the actual work). Like Sen. Chuck Grassley, they give lip service to "the need for fairness and transparency in the cattle market." Don't hold your breath on that one.

They talk about protecting multi-generational family farms and communities that depend on Iowa agriculture, but the numbers tell the story. In the 1974 USDA agricultural census there were over 126,000 Iowa farms. In the last census that had dropped to 84,900, and in the upcoming 2023 census, you can expect that number to drop even more. Driving across rural Iowa you see the abandoned farmsteads and declining small towns. Use your eyes, folks.

They say we "need strong protections for biofuels" (which columnist Jonah Goldberg recently called "government moonshine") to help "protect the environment." If you've noticed every available acre near you going under the plow in the last few years, feel free to laugh out loud here. And that Nutrient Reduction Strategy? The Iowa Environmental Council directors ("Why aren't our waters cleaner?" Jan. 29) pretty much pinned the ethanol tail on that bipartisan donkeyphant.

Finally, they deride Mexico for moving to ban our "biotech corn" (read GMO) exports. Shouldn't Mexico have the right to protect its people and farmers as they see fit? You both represent a Republican Party that makes a great fuss over "national sovereignty." Applies to other countries too, guys.

— Jim Walters, Iowa City

‘Choice’ critics miss the big picture

So, just to make sure I follow, since a third-grader who identifies as transgender maybe, possibly, hypothetically won’t be able to change schools, the other over half a million Iowa public school students shouldn’t have school choice? Makes perfect sense to me. To quote my favorite Vulcan, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

— David Campbell, Pleasant Hill

Public schools offer unique educational settings

“Some kids may have ambitions and abilities that require a unique educational setting,” said Gov. Kim Reynolds as she signed Iowa’s school voucher law.

As a high school student at Des Moines Lincoln back in the day (1970s) I remember being amazed at the “unique educational setting” this large south-side school made available to every student in the building. There were science choices with well supported labs (and staff), there was music (some of the best in the state at the time), art, drama, sports, community involvement opportunities. I remember as an active member of that school community being amazed at what a “unique education setting” every student who came through this public-school door had available to them. What happened to investing in that uniqueness for every Iowa student?

Early in my family’s education decisions my parents chose our local parochial school system. My parents knew there were unique educational opportunities at the local public school but our religious practices at the time were important enough for my parents to choose, and self-pay for, a private school education. Kim Reynolds voucher law changes that as well. Now, every Iowa taxpayer helps pay for the private education of a small percentage of Iowa students. Unique indeed!

— Matt Tapscott, Decorah

Why the discrepancy on income limits?

Iowa’s Republican legislators seem to be overly concerned about eligibility for public assistance for food stamps, which is funded with federal funds. However, they are willing to give public assistance of over $7,600 with no income limits to parents who decide to send a child to a private school. Yet they claim to be fiscally responsible.

— Brenda Schumann, Des Moines

Medicine counsels supporting children, contrary to GOP bills

I am dismayed by the bills in the Iowa Legislature targeting gay and transgender children. As a retired pediatrician, I recognize that these laws go against medical recommendations for supporting children and families working through these issues. I would be curious to know where these legislators got their medical and psychological training. As simply a citizen of the state, I would caution any businesses presently here or considering coming that this state may be hostile to many of their valuable employees.

— William Howard, Des Moines

Aren’t education savings accounts wasteful?

“When we are talking about public assistance programs, we think it’s important to remember that we’re dealing with finite taxpayer dollars.” This is a quote from a lobbyist for Americans for Prosperity about using taxpayer money for the SNAP program, a program that helps those beneath the poverty level get enough to eat. It seems strange that they would seek to keep people from receiving money for a basic need such as food but had nothing to say about taxpayer money being used to go towards expensive private schools when decent public schooling is available to all.

— Barbara Persoon, Pleasantville

Librarians could help avoid classification snarls

I am writing to offer a suggestion to the United States government. All classified documents should be cataloged and available for check out using a system just like a library. Then when the documents are checked out, who has the documents and when they need to be returned would be on record. Then before any government official leaves office, the classified documents personnel go to each official with a list of what documents they have and get them back.

Setting this up will take time and money, but it would be well worth it. If government officials are not familiar with how to set up a catalog and check out system, they could walk down the street to the Library of Congress. Or if that seems too intimidating, they could call any small or large town library. Any of the approximately 86,000 librarians in the United States would be glad to help.

— Sheila Adamson, Ankeny

Iowans in Congress should vote to raise debt limit

Iowa’s four Republican congressional representatives have a singular opportunity to demonstrate whether their loyalty lies with the radical members of their caucus, or with the people of Iowa. Feckless Republican representatives are determined to take our economy to the brink of disaster and, perhaps, over the brink, by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, unless the Democrats agree to spending cuts.

Raising the debt ceiling does not involve new spending, but simply authorizes the government to pay bills already incurred. If we default, the current economic recovery will screech to halt, and we could easily plunge into a severe recession, with rising interest rates on business and personal loans, the closing of main street businesses, and massive layoffs, with their attendant human suffering.

For decades, raising the debt ceiling was usually a routine, bipartisan process. Republicans are suddenly concerned about the national debt, despite increasing the ceiling four times under Donald Trump. They made no serious attempts to reduce or slow spending; instead, they decreased revenue with huge tax cuts that primarily benefited corporations and the very wealthy. Now, in exchange for doing what responsible public servants should do anyway, they demand to have Social Security and Medicare laid on the chopping block.

If only five Republicans combine with Democrats, the House could raise the debt ceiling, and address other business. Iowa’s House delegation could, and should, be the first four Republicans to renounce economic brinksmanship, and declare that they are not part of the extremist clique that dominates the Republican House caucus.

— Jim Whalen, Des Moines

Republicans’ actions inconsistent

I need help understanding the unifying policy underlying three recent moves by Iowa Republican officials.

Our governor joined a lawsuit against relieving $10,000 of college debt for students in families with household income below $250,000. Ashley Hinson tweeted her support, “Electricians, farmers, & truck drivers shouldn’t be on the hook for someone else’s degree.”

But this week the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill giving parents at all income levels $7,600 per student per year IF they send the student to private (most of which are religious) schools. Isn’t this school voucher bill putting you, me, and “electricians, farmers and truck drivers” on the hook for someone else’s degree? Isn’t a high school diploma a degree? Isn’t sending your children to private school a voluntary choice, just as Kim Reynolds insisted going to college is.

If private-school parents spend less than $7,600 on tuition, they can buy things such as “textbooks, tutoring, standardized testing fees,” a bonus unavailable to public-school parents.

Now, Republicans wants to ask the federal government (which totally funds SNAP) to restrict Iowan recipients’ food choices in addition to restricting eligibility for the program. States share only the administrative cost of SNAP; for Iowa the annual is about $22 million. To save that amount, Republicans will sacrifice an estimated $141 million in benefits and treat SNAP recipients as if they have no dignity.

I am puzzled. Of these three, only the school voucher bill will directly cost Iowans a significant amount and yet it’s the only spending the Republicans support. Furthermore, they have no qualms about it being a budget-buster. What is going on?

— Sue Ravenscroft, Ames

USPS needs money and better managers

I read the Jan. 31 story "Resident complains of mail maladies." I have worked for the Milford, Iowa, Post Office for three years after retiring from the Department of Defense. I am a part-time employee, identified as a Rural Carrier Associate (RCA).

It was quite a shock for me coming from DOD to the postal service. The difference in funding and management is completely different. The vehicles we drive, called LLVs (Long Life Vehicles), are way past their useful life. These vehicles have seen over 30 years of service, tough service, six days a week, stopping and going more than 300 times per day. The work is hard; delivering mail and packages and trying to drive an overused vehicle in bad weather can strain any employee.

Yet there are thousands of dedicated postal workers every day delivering your mail. The Post Office needs more funding and better management. We advertise constantly for new employees, and if anyone applies and is accepted, they last about two weeks before they realize what the USPS requires of them. It is time for the public to realize their postal service is in dire need of attention.

— Brad Shell, Milford

Gadsden flag license plate unhelpful

The state of Iowa is considering offering license plates with the Gadsden flag slogan. I had always assumed that slogans approved by the state of Iowa and endorsed by our state would speak to qualities that we are most proud of when we display them on our license plates.

The Gadsden “DON’T TREAD ON ME” flag with it’s coiled rattle snake is at worst threatening and at best a warning. The original meaning in 1775 was a call for a revolution. As an example of what this flag means in today’s world, this flag was used prominently in the Capitol insurrection. These powerful words are just as meaningful today as Jan. 6.

Why would responsible leaders even consider making such a move at a time when our country is so polarized? Is this how we want our state represented as we travel around the country? What ever happened to (to quote our governor) Iowa nice?

— Nancy Prizant, Des Moines

Now the DNR wants to do enforcement?

Talk about a toothless tiger. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources keeps getting refused access to the Marengo shingles reclamation plant after a fire that “maybe, might, could possibly“ pollute nearby drinking water sources.

Why worry now? This same department hardly if ever denies new livestock feed lots, imposes light fines for manure spills and keeps pretending our lakes and rivers aren’t in serious trouble.

— Mark Mahoney, Urbandale

Liberals' intolerance poisons democratic debate

I'm old enough to remember when being a liberal meant that, while one might disagree, we all would fight to defend the right of any individual to hold and to freely express a differing opinion. After all, we are Americans. Those days are now gone as politics can no longer be discussed in polite company.

Free expression of competing ideas without fear is vital to preserving a civil society.

Sadly, a large majority of today’s Democrats have turned their backs on the party of Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern and even Bill Clinton, embracing the anti-freedom tactics of the radical Left.

I remember fondly late night discussions in the dorm and barracks on a wide range of issues, both puny and cosmic. Vastly differing viewpoints were freely expressed, and minds were actually changed in some of those exchanges. No matter which side of the issue advocated, the intensity of the discussion or the eventual outcome, we were still friends after all, right?

Come home, liberals, and help us make America great again.

— Jon Johnson, Grimes

Do Iowans really want 'school choice'?

To all the Government students I taught from 1977 to 1991, my apologies!

While teaching the concept of "separation of church and state," I mistakenly told you that public funds could be used for private schools (I was teaching at Kuemper Catholic at the time), as long as those funds did not include instruction. I told them tax money could be used for transportation and other essential needs the private school could not or did not offer, as long as it was not curriculum related.

I realize times have changed. Now it's all about "choice." I'm all for choice as well; let's put it to a vote "of the People", and just see how many Iowans really want public funds used for private education.

I think you'll be surprised; some old concepts taught years ago may or should still ring true.

— William Henkenius, Urbandale

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Letters: Expect a cliff effect with SNAP legislation