Why did the 9 Republicans vote NO to expand families’ access to baby formula using WIC benefits?

Why did the 9 Republicans vote NO to expand families’ access to baby formula using WIC benefits?

What do you think?

12 Points
Upvote Downvote

12 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Here are quotes, where I could find them, with stated reasons;

    Gaetz:

    > [Gaetz said that passing H.R. 7791 would make the baby formula shortages “worse for most Americans.”](https://www.newsweek.com/nine-republicans-vote-baby-formula-1708062)

    and

    > “It will allow WIC to utilize a far greater portion of the baby formula market, crowding out many hard-working American families,”

    Biggs:

    > [This legislation would make baby formula shortages worse for most Americans. It will allow WIC to utilize a far greater portion of the baby formula market, crowding out many hard-working American families. The better solutions are to distribute formula currently in the hands of federal agencies and reduce regulatory barriers that would allow for the expansion of domestic formula production.](https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1527122192202354690)

    —————————————————–

    Basically, of the two people comments where obtained from, their reason was “The bill will make it harder for *babies who deserve formula* to get formula” with the unspoken message being that babies on WIC don’t deserve the same kind of access.

  2. Their logic, and I am not making this up, is that if you let poor people get formula through WIC, there will be less formula available for Real Americans whose babies actually deserve it.

    Explaining his decision, Gaetz said that passing H.R. 7791 would make the baby formula shortages “worse for most Americans.”

    “It will allow WIC to utilize a far greater portion of the baby formula market, crowding out many hard-working American families,” Gaetz tweeted.

    https://www.newsweek.com/nine-republicans-vote-baby-formula-1708062?amp=1

    Their solution instead is to “reduce regulatory barriers” meaning the government should be less picky about how much bacteria and contaminants are allowed in baby formula.

    Again; I am not making this up.

  3. Their reasoning is that poor (and in their view often non-white) people do not deserve access to baby formula in the same way that people who have the means deserve access.

    It’s just another example of their bullshit “personal responsibility” argument.

    In their view, poor people need to take responsibility by not having kids when they can’t afford them. Instead of providing universal sex ed and access to birth control or safe and legal abortions which would ultimately allow poorer Americans the ability to make better family planning choices they go the route of punishing them. They remove all of those things and then make it harder to raise children by attempting to starve them out.

    They do not care about spending money.

    They care about spending money to help people who do not vote for them.

  4. Every time I hear someone speak negatively about any politician voting no on anything it makes me think or Ron Paul. He was asked why he voted no on almost every bill. His response was “because I read them”

    Every time I have ever read a bill with a sweet sounding name it is filled with a bunch of bullshit that has no business being in a bill that has nothing to do with the name.

    Both sides should vote no on everything far more often than they do.

  5. Just from how you presented the question, that doesn’t seem to increase the supply of baby formula… It only expands a government spending program

  6. Because the method of payment does nothing to increase the supply. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve it. We have a shortage of formula, meaning it’s not available. We need to increase supply, not give money to people who won’t be able to find the formula anyway.

  7. Virtue signalling to their base, I imagine. It got bipartisan support… so they probably figured they could throw a “no” out there with virtually no consequences.

    Republicans, as a general rule, are not particularly fond of government handouts – and neither are their supporters.

  8. Based on the people who voted against it, I’m guessing this was a great bill, and it’s a good thing it passed.

    I don’t see the reasoning behind this though. Accounting for current supply shortages when expanding access to something makes sense.

    Has anyone seen what specifically is going to change, and how many families this is going to help? I’m scrolling through Google, and basically just coming up with this headline.

    That story would be much more interesting to me than “shitty politicians unsurprisingly continue to be shitty”.

  9. I used to have WIC. Just based on the articles I read about this bill, it wouldn’t actually give more people access to formula, it would just increase the amount of formula women already using WIC could get. I never had any issues with the amount of formula I was receiving. I can’t speak for every mother but I always had plenty of it for my baby. I despise most Republicans but I think the Dems went about this one the wrong way. Supply needs to be increased, not demand.

Leave a Reply