Meeting Public Comments

Jackie Smith []

The SNAP program should not be difficult for people to obtain or use. Many do not have good transportation and need to be able to verify who they are and their need easily. They also need the value of the program to be adequate for food costs. The farm to market or fresh vegetable program should be continued also. People and children need food for their bodies and MINDS to work. Be kind to Iowans. Look at our lines at the Food Bank in subzero weather. Think of others as you have meals everyday and some do not. If IOWA FEED THE WORLD why can you not feed Iowans?????

Stephany Hoffelt []

This is absurd. How does it make sense to penalize people for being frugal and saving money, which let's be honest is such a struggle in this economy that it seems unlikely that this restriction will impact many people? I am more alarmed about that fact that in a state where very few places (really none) have reliable public transportation, you are thinking of enacting a law that would make it that so that a family with two wage earners would be at risk of losing their eligibility for SNAP if they own a car for each person to drive to work? It is quite simply unacceptable that you would consider enacting legislature that makes it more difficult for the working poor to manage living in a state where the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and so few workers are paid a living wage. If you don't want people to apply for SNAP assistance, consider requiring that employers pay people more.

Nicholas Theisen []

Legislators are constantly talking about the need for people to get a job and lift themselves out of poverty, and now they seem determined to smack down those who actually manage to save something for the difficult times we all live in. The cruelty of punishing people who are getting back on their feet right at the moment when they might be able to stabilize theirs and their family's lives is simply beyond the pale. There is no purpose in imposing such incredibly restrictive limits on SNAP beneficiaries beyond punishing people simply because they are poor. I am ardently imposed to this change and any other whose intent is clearly to make it so that those who need our help the most are denied access to it.

Harold Page-Jamison []

When there is a choice between not helping people in genuine need because of blunt instrument rules which will exclude some honest people, versus allowing a very small number of people to possibly take advantage of a system designed to help people quickly, my preference as a citizen and taxpayer is that we act from kindness not from fear. Please make it easy to get help when people need help, not harder. If you are worried about fraud, there are things you can do after the fact to address that. Dont withhold vital help on the front end out of fear of fraud, all that does is replace an uncertain evil with a certain one.

Jane Broughton []

I agree with all of the comments, especially the one about being kind to Iowans. We are a part of the world that we are feeding.

Kyle Burke []

There are many good reasons why the vast majority of states do not use the asset test for SNAP, but two directly speak to cost savings: (1) Counterintuitively, using asset tests can actually increase the number of SNAP users over time. (2) Asset tests increase administrative burden on states with little change in savings. Adding them together, if your goal is to reduce the cost of SNAP for Iowa well into the future, then HSB 508 will not get you there. There is no need to repeat the asset test experiment here; the general consensus is that won't produce the desired results. The worldrenowned, nonpartisan Pew Charitable Trust gave this wellresearched summary:"Asset limits AKA asset tests return no advantage to the states that use them and expend resources to administer them." Please stop this unproductive bill from moving forward.

Bethany Jackson []

According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, as of 2015, 43% of Iowas population lives in rural areas. These areas do not have the population density to maintain public transportation, making car ownership necessary. How are we going to encourage young families to stay in Iowa if we make them choose between car ownership and SNAP eligibility?

Amanda Heeren, LISW []

The restriction of families to one vehicle as a means test for eligibility for SNAP benefits is misfeasance at best. Families with more than one eligible driver may need multiple vehicles due to competing needs for transportation. Consider this very common situation: a high school student getting to school and a guardian getting to work at (gasp!) the same time. What will we do if the family must get rid of a vehicle to become eligible for SNAP benefits? What if that family cannot get adequate nutrition because their transportation needs must outweight their nutrition needs? It is common in families of lower socioeconomic status to have multiple vehicles that are of varying degrees of functional status. Sometimes a family vehicle is reliable but does not drive well in the snow, so a supplimental vehicle is purchased (often a cheaper, less reliable vehicle) to get them around when there are seasonal road conditions. Limitations to one vehicle is absurd. The absurd idea is representative of the complete lack of knowledge of the circumstances experienced by many of the constitutents who need SNAP. This policy is uniformed by the needs of the voters who it impacts. The authors of the policy change must assess the needs and circumstances of the individuals who will be impacted by this policy change. It is irresponsible to do anything else. Iowans deserve better.Amanda Heeren, LISWIowa City, IA

Laura Widman []

There is absolutely no reason to make SNAP any more unattainable than it is. Assets that poor Iowans have are almost exclusively necessities, and restricting individuals from being able to access food based off of their need for transportation, housing, etc. is unnecessarily restrictive and cruel.

Amy Current [ELCA Southeastern Iowa Synod]

Let us be a state that provides every opportunity for individuals and families to have food to eat. Let us be a state that creates opportunities for individuals and families to have access to nutrition easily rather than stacking up barriers and hurdles in addition to daily needs. Let us be a state that celebrates individuals and families, who receive SNAP, and grow in assets and independence rather than using assets as a barrier to SNAP. Let us be a state that assists, welcomes, supports, and advocates for those who are hungry to have food to eat, safe water to drink, adequate shelter, and the means to build toward meaningful work which in many areas of our state requires a vehicle. Please do not vote in favor of asset test to determine eligibility for SNAP in the state of Iowa (HSB 508). Bishop Amy Current, Southeastern Iowa Synod, ELCA

Emma Bateman []

Nobody should have to liquidate their assets to feed their families. Can't we help people out without asking them to sell their car and wipe out their savings first?As a taxpayer I like my taxes going towards putting food on tables. I don't want nutrition assistance cut back. If anything, let's expand benefits.

Amanda Malaski []

Who benefits from making food harder to come by? How will this make Iowa healthier? How will this attract residents to the state? This looks like a solution in want of a problem, and a waste of time and resources. Let people eat.

Justin Comer []

A family should not be excluded from benefits because they have two vehicles. A car is a requirement to hold a steady job in most of this state, and few families can live on a single income. And anyone who has had to rely on a used car can tell you they are not a sign of wealth.

Cheryl Herr []

I'm writing to oppose HSB 508. This bill would exclude hungry people from SNAP benefits and harm children in particular. Many couples need more than 1 vehicle to get to jobs or apply for jobs in Iowa, which has many areas without public transport.

Aislinn Williams []

Im writing to oppose HSB 508. I came from a poor family who absolutely needed cars to get to jobs. Those cars often do not have much financial value but they are essential for getting to work. Having a backup car enables people to get to work if one car has a battery die or a flat tire. These backup systems are ESSENTIAL to a familys economic stability as they work to get out of poverty. This bill would inevitably take food assistance from people who need all the support they can find. This will also disproportionately affect children. This bill is not only unnecessarily cruel but it is also short sighted.