Palm Springs Wants to Give Transgender, Non-Binary Residents Up to $900 Per Month in Guaranteed Income (WATCH)

‘Palm Springs Receives an Influx of Transgender, Non-Binary Migrants.’

That could be a headline for tomorrow after the woke city moved to divvy $900 per month to individuals claiming to be transgender or non-binary.

How many suddenly ‘new’ transgender, non-binary residents will Palm Springs have with this policy decision?

Palm Springs is going to give $900 per month to mythical non-binary people and those pretending to be the other sex.

No other qualification needed. This is going to work out great.https://t.co/evckmOR8gv

— Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@BillboardChris) April 5, 2022

Seattle radio show host Jason Rantz called the initiative “the country’s ‘wokest’ guaranteed income scheme’ to date.

WATCH:

Fox News reported:

The Palm Springs city council unanimously passed a bill last month to provide $200,000 to DAP Health and Queer Works to design the program and apply for state funding. The initiative, which is led by the city’s first transgender Mayor Lisa Middleton, is part of a broader effort to spend millions of dollars in state funding to help LGBTQ residents in collaboration with local non-profit organizations.

Rantz said the plan was “the country’s ‘wokest’ guaranteed income scheme” to date.

“The plan is effectively meant to prevent homelessness by giving 20 residents somewhere between $600 and $900 per month for nearly two years and they can spend the money however they want. No strings attached,” Rantz explained. “The only rule at this point is that the recipients have to be transgender or genderless.”

Rantz said that instead of primarily using the funding to address poverty, “There’s been this focus on paying for what’s called gender-affirming healthcare…which includes elective surgeries and hormone treatment.”

He continued, “Much like the people it’s supposed to help in Palm Springs, guaranteed income presents as a good idea, it’s not actually a good one and all the data seems to point out it doesn’t quite get us to the point of defeating poverty in a way that’s efficient with the use of funding. It’s just too expensive.”