403
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] autotldr 7 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


(AP) — Nebraska’s Republican governor on Friday reiterated his rejection of $18 million in federal funding to help feed children who might otherwise go hungry while school is out.

That statement came as advocates for children and low-income families held a news conference outside the Governor’s Mansion in Lincoln to call on Pillen to change his mind before the Jan. 1 deadline to sign up for the program.

The program — part of federal assistance made available during the COVID-19 pandemic — would provide pre-loaded EBT cards to families whose children are eligible for free and reduced-price lunches at school.

Kim Reynolds announcing that decision last week and saying, “An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic.”

Pillen insisted Friday that the state would continue to help food-insecure children through the Summer Food Service Program, which provides meals and snacks at various sites when school is not in session.

Preston Love Jr,, a longtime community advocate in Omaha, on Friday questioned whether Pillen was bowing to political pressure in rejecting the federal funding.


The original article contains 675 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
403 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18883 readers
6049 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS