Palm Springs moves to pay transgender, non-binary residents: Jason Rantz

close

Video

Palm Springs launches financial support program exclusively for transgender and non-binary people

Radio show host Jason Rantz breaks down the story on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

Seattle radio host Jason Rantz denounced a movement in Palm Springs, California to develop a guaranteed income program that would pay transgender and non-binary residents up to $900 a month, Monday on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

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.

 The street pedestrian crossing is painted in rainbow colors as viewed on March 7, 2022 in Palm Springs, California. Palm Springs is a city of nearly 50,000 that has become an important tourist destination for the LGBTQ community. (Photo by George Rose/Getty Images) (George Rose/Getty Images)

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."

Jason Rantz is a Seattle-based talk show host on KTTH Radio. (Fox News Digital)

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."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

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."