Gov. Kevin Stitt has ignited a firestorm of controversy with a decision to opt out of a federal program designed to alleviate childhood hunger this summer.
The USDA’s Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children program provides families $40 per child per month when school’s out. Families that earn up to 185% of the federal poverty line are eligible. Children who qualify typically could receive free or reduced price lunches during the school year.
The benefits are covered fully by the federal government. States are responsible for paying half of the administrative costs. Stitt said he doesn’t know how much the program would cost Oklahoma taxpayers.
The USDA reports 403,000 children would be eligible for the stipend if Oklahoma joined.
But Stitt has doubled down on his refusal to participate.
As reporter Carmen Forman wrote, Stitt “philosophically disagrees with people who think the government should take care of everybody and more welfare programs are the answer.”
He insists that it’s “not reasonable to think that kids are going to go hungry” in Oklahoma this summer because the state isn’t opting into a “brand-new Biden administration federal program.”
Here’s a news flash — Oklahomans are already going hungry and struggling to afford food.
The state has one of the worst childhood hunger rates in the country and has an obscenely high number of people who struggle with food insecurity.
According to Hunger Free Oklahoma, only five states have a food insecurity rate greater than 14.5%. Oklahoma is one.
Over 1 in 5 — or 208,110 — children aren’t getting the nutrition they need, the group reports.
There’s been an understandable swell of outrage over Stitt’s refusal to participate. Many Oklahomans are struggling to fathom how participating in a federal program designed to fill children’s stomachs could be a bad thing.
Oklahoma is not the only state that has decided to opt out. Over a dozen other states aren’t participating either, according to the USDA’s list.
But Stitt’s comments are also particularly outrageous in light of the fact that he and other Republican lawmakers apparently have no qualms about spending public money to craft a welfare-esque program that caters to Oklahomans — including the wealthy — who want to send their children to private schools.
We’re paying $150 million for that program without blinking an eye, but now we apparently have qualms about paying our share of a program’s administrative costs to reduce childhood hunger. It’s a new program, and federal officials believe in it so much that they’re willing to pay the lion’s share.
Stitt argues that there are other federal programs that feed low-income children in the summer months. He cites the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, and the Summer Food Service Program, which covers the cost of operators who provide healthy food and snacks to youth.
Advocates though contend that existing summer programs aren’t particularly effective in rural areas.
Think about it: Children need transportation to access feeding sites operated through the Summer Food Service Program. Such transportation is probably cost-prohibitive for many families with low incomes who’d have to drive long distances for food.
An extra $40 to spend at the grocery store isn’t a lot, but it might ensure that there’s food in the fridge for a few more days each month.
In addition, most low-income Oklahoma families probably already receive SNAP, yet our hunger disparities remain, and our needs grow.
We’re lucky that three Oklahoma tribes — the Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations — have stepped up and enrolled in the USDA’s program. We’re even more fortunate that they’re willing to feed any eligible child living within their reservation boundaries, regardless of whether they’re Indigenous.
Their participation should help fill the bellies of tens of thousands of children. It also demonstrates that they’re willing to be good partners with their local schools and communities.
But what about youth who live elsewhere?
Now is probably not the time to weaponize childhood hunger in what a cynic might argue appears to be an effort to score political points against a Democratic administration in Washington D.C.
Perhaps it’s time for Stitt to put partisanship aside and examine all federal programs for the value they bring versus what party created and is administering them.
And, if we’re so worried about being asked to cover half of the administrative fees of a federal program designed to alleviate suffering, maybe we need to take a deeper look at our overall values and priorities.
Do we want programs that continue to bolster the lives of our wealthiest residents or ones that help improve the lives of the least among us?
