“Unsustainable” is an attractive word, especially when used in government and politics. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “unsustainable” means that something cannot be continued or supported.
However, in government matters, that definition may change. It doesn’t mean that something can’t really continue, but often means that the person using this word simply doesn’t want that “something” to move forward.
Understanding this difference will help you better analyze politicians’ statements. Here’s a real-world example that illustrates this difference.
Back in December, Gov. Kim Reynolds ended Iowa’s participation in a summer food program for low-income families with school-age children. The governor made the decision even though most of the cost would be paid by the federal government.
Approximately 240,000 children from poor families in Iowa will be affected by her decision. Their parents would receive $40 a month during the summer for each child eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. The purpose of this program was to help poor families feed their children during the summer when classes are closed and children do not receive meals at school.
The federal government provided $29 million in food assistance to Iowa this summer. The state government would have been responsible for covering $2 million in administrative costs.
But in making the decision to withdraw Iowa from the program, the governor said that “federal cash transfer programs in the age of coronavirus are not sustainable and do not provide long-term solutions to problems affecting children and families.” I explained the rationale. She also said the program “does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity is so prevalent.”
Last week, the governor announced details of a new state grant program to feed needy Iowa children over the summer. Competitive grants totaling $900,000 are being offered to communities to expand the reach of his two existing summer meal programs, which provide meals every weekday through schools, churches, libraries and community organizations.
It is clear that $900,000 in state aid cannot support as many children as $29 million in federal summer aid. Subsidy funding also comes from the federal government.
State Rep. Chuck Eisenhart, a Dubuque Democrat, said the state Meals on Wheels program, which Reynolds is expanding, spent about $5.8 million last year and fed about 20,000 children. Reynolds’ grant will allow him to feed an additional 1,800 children, he estimated.
State Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, a West Des Moines Democrat, said in a statement last week that “competitive grant programs are trash for Iowa’s children. She could have accepted the $29 million in federal food aid that came her way. The $900,000 state program she announced was a pittance by comparison, and Iowa communities received a much smaller piece of the pie. We’re being forced to scramble. There’s not enough to meet the real needs facing our state.”
Dining venues have unique challenges that summer meal benefit cards don’t have. During the summer, families must shuttle their children to and from the meal location every day, which is difficult for most working parents. Eisenhart then reminded lawmakers that last summer, 12 counties had no dining venues and 21 other counties had only one summer dining venue.
This summer’s food program operates much like SNAP, the program formerly known as food stamps, but amid the coronavirus pandemic, parents are facing reduced work hours or layoffs. It was established at a time when many families’ incomes had decreased due to being unemployed or losing their jobs. Now, the pandemic is not the economic hindrance it once was, but many households’ incomes have not kept pace with inflation.
That’s why the federal government is making summer food programs permanent, while giving states the option to cancel them. Iowa joins 12 other states in opting out of the program. Nebraska also initially said it would withdraw, but Republican Gov. Jim Pillen ultimately bowed to public pressure and said Nebraska would remain in the federal program.
Returning to Reynolds’ concerns that federal summer food benefits are unsustainable.
The $2.2 million in administrative costs that Iowa must incur to participate in the federal food program will cost Reynolds the ability to deploy Iowa State Patrol troopers and the Iowa National Guard to the Texas-Mexico border this spring. less than the cost.
And the $29 million for the Summer Food Stipend Program is significantly higher than the $128 million the Iowa government is paying this year for tuition vouchers for students attending private K-12 schools. cheap. Two years from now, when the voucher program is fully implemented, we estimate that vouchers will cost the Treasury $345 million annually.
Therefore, whether something is unsustainable or not ultimately depends on whether government officials support or oppose what is considered unsustainable.
