A local government official in Iowa is voicing concerns over state lawmakers’ decision to prevent cities and counties from exploring direct cash payments as a means to alleviate poverty. Mandi Remington, a Democratic supervisor in Johnson County, has expressed disappointment at the state-level restrictions, which she perceives as a hindrance to local autonomy.
Remington aimed to implement a trial program to assess the feasibility of providing cash to low-income residents as a measure to combat poverty. However, state actions halted this initiative before it could commence. Remington emphasized the disparity between Iowa’s status as a home rule state and the practical limitations imposed by state regulations. She lamented the challenges faced by areas with differing political ideologies, where proposals that don’t align with the broader state agenda are often met with resistance.
She recently wrote an op-ed, arguing for the value of guaranteed income programs in helping everyday Iowans. Johnson County’s Board of Supervisors, led by Supervisor V Fixmer-Oraiz, had championed the idea. The concept drew inspiration from similar pilots, such as the UpLift trial in central Iowa, which offered 110 families monthly payments of $500 over two years.
Remington argued that such policies have shown success in other regions.
However, plans were disrupted when Iowa Republicans enacted legislation that bans local governments from establishing guaranteed income programs. Republican Governor Kim Reynolds signed House File 2319 into law on May 1, 2024. Supporters of the ban, including GOP lawmakers, argue that cash handouts could undermine the American work ethic, subsidize low wages, and foster dependency.
Remington criticized the lack of openness to research and evidence around the benefits of such programs. She noted her experiences testifying at legislative hearings, where discussions around universal income met with dismissive attitudes due to ideological biases.
In her published letter, Remington criticized the restriction of local control, asserting that it harms working families and represents obstructionism devoid of empirical evidence. She highlighted that a number of Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in opposing the ban.
Despite her efforts, the governor’s office did not provide a response. The issue of guaranteed income has incited debate beyond Iowa, with Republicans nationwide expressing legal, fiscal, and philosophical concerns about cash handout initiatives.
For instance, in Michigan, Republicans questioned how taxpayer funds were utilized in a cash assistance program for new mothers. The program faced scrutiny over its operations and effectiveness. Similarly, in Texas, a lawsuit led by Attorney General Ken Paxton resulted in the Texas Supreme Court halting a guaranteed income trial in Harris County.
Advocacy groups such as the Economic Security Project (ESP), which promotes direct cash transfers, argue against these restrictions. Adriane Brown from ESP defended the trials, emphasizing the role of guaranteed income in providing stability during tough transitions.
ESP has facilitated over 100 guaranteed income pilots across the U.S. Brown stressed that lawmakers should acknowledge these initiatives if their true goal is ensuring family security.
As federal pandemic relief funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dwindle, many cash-transfer programs face a funding crisis. Local leaders are searching for alternative funding options. Cook County, Illinois, set up municipal funding to sustain its guaranteed income efforts, but most regions struggle without philanthropy or federal support.
Remington highlighted the financial challenges faced across government agencies and private entities, expressing concern over sustaining such programs without external funding.