I am quite confused by the editors’ of the Washington Post’s most recent editorial, titled “What the SNAP fight is really about”. Ostensibly, the editorial argues in support the SNAP program (we used to call it “food stamps”) but it does a darned good job of arguing that the program is so fatally flawed it should not be sustained in its present form. Here are the opening paragraphs:
SNAP is a safety net, not a jobs program. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is supposed to keep people from going hungry in the world’s richest country. It’s not designed for stimulating the economy or propping up stores, truckers or farmers. Nor should it be a bargaining chip for ending a government shutdown.
Every reasonable person agrees that no one in the United States should starve, which is why it’s a genuine problem that SNAP funding is scheduled to lapse on Saturday, prompting stopgap measures by a bipartisan mix of governors and a lawsuit brought by Democrats to force the Trump administration to tap emergency funds.
As you can see, the self-contradictions have already begun. They become even more apparent in the succeeding paragraph:
At the same time, there are legitimate debates about the best ways to feed the needy, how many should qualify and how much they should get. In the 1970s, 1 in 50 Americans received food stamps. Now, 1 in 8 do. On average, these households get $322 a month. Are 42 million Americans really in such danger of suffering malnutrition that the federal government should spend about $100 billion every year to help them feed themselves?
What I suspect this reflects is an argument among the editors. Some of them want SNAP subsidies to be restored as quickly as possible; others recognize that the program itself is deeply troubled and needs work. They resolved the internal conflict with this editorial.
I completely support programs to aid the truly poor. Most of the truly poor either live on Native American reservations or are black people living in the rural South. According to the USDA SNAP recipients have the following demographics composition: 35% white, 25% black, 15% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 1% Native American, and 17% unknown. Of black SNAP recipients 84% live in major metropolitan areas. The truly poor don’t receive the attention they need because they don’t have enough votes.
I should add that one major reform to SNAP that should be made immediately is that SNAP benefits should not pay for the purchase of soda pop or candy as is the case at present. Every time I see a kid hawking candy and pop on a street corner I can’t help but wonder if their merchandise was purchased using SNAP benefits.
I look forward to hearing your plans for the expansion of HHS to create the Department of Dave Approved SNAP Purchasable Items. I hope there will be chainsaws involved with appropriate musk.
I don’t understand your comment. For the last several days we have been deluged with people saying that SNAP is necessary to prevent people from starving. Are pop and candy necessary to stave off starvation?
What, in your opinion, is the purpose of SNAP?
Every time I see a kid hawking candy and pop on a street corner I can’t help but wonder if their merchandise was purchased using SNAP benefits.
You ever think there’s something missing in your life if this is how you react to a kid selling candy? I’m not talking about minor things. This is like Trump-level dysfunction, a barrel in the mouth being a blessing to everyone in your life if you simply pull the trigger.
I think it is a program to provide supplemental nutrition assistance.
Do you think it should be focused on punishing poor kids by implementing more invasive regulatory burdens? I get it, those kids should have chosen better parents, amirite
Dr. Pepper is an essential nutrient, Dave. So are Snickers bars.
Lots of fruit juices have quite a bit more sugar in them than sodas, assuming sugar is your issue. Some baked goods have more sugar than candies. What about highly processed foods or those extra high in fats? I dont think they should buy soda either but OTOH who should be the food police and how should they determine what is banned, noting that most dietary “science” is pretty bad?
Steve
While we have the resident doctor defending one form of nutritional trash over the other……. completely avoiding the issue of SNAPs real purpose, I note that while in Chicago I lived basically next to Treasure Island (upscale) and across the street from the “Jungle Jewel” named due to its proximity to Cabrini Green.
Dave was being charitable in citing candy and soda. Let me tell what the overwhelming purchase with food stamps was: alcohol. But I’m sure the fresh idiots commenting and Dr Milky Way will figure out some rationalization for using SNAP benefits for that too.
Government is not serious about budget balancing anymore, I can’t predict the outcome of that but as to SNAP.
The really damaging outcome of the SNAP program is the loss of millions of people’s sense of personal responsibility to husband their assets for the good of their families, and to a great extent is responsible for the breakdown of those families. A man with children who refuses to put out the effort to feed them himself,
what good is he to the family?
What sense of purpose can he feel, what accomplishments can he take pride in?
He’s replaced by government, and the mother of his children is a Bride of the State.
There are malnourished people, mostly elderly, if alone, neglected small children of addicts and alcoholics. But this group is unlikely to benefit much from SNAP, their primary problem is physical neglect.
There are two things here and we shouldn’t conflate them. One is a benefit that won’t be met due to the shutdown. The other is the overall aims and efficacy of the program itself which sits apart from the current political spat.
The fact is that people rely on SNAP in its current form and a disruption is not ideal in the best case, especially for what is entirely a partisan political fight.
As for SNAP itself, I used to think as Dave does, that we ought to run the program paternalistically to try to ensure the people make the “right” purchasing decisions. I now think that’s a waste of time and effort. Plus, I have come to realize that our government doesn’t do paternalism well and likely never will. I trust people to make decisions for themselves more that I trust the complex sausage of paternalistic policy and I’m fine that there will be cases where individual people will make bad decisions.
Since I just got back from France, I looked up how they and other major European countries do this. None that I found have a SNAP-like program, they instead focus on general income assistance, universal school meals for children, and various forms of charity and food banks, some with state support. Is that better and would that work here? I have no idea.
Andy- The point here is that guys like Drew and Dave want big government to dictate people’s behavior without any real thought about how they are deciding what they want to dictate or if it will even make a difference. As I said, I think it would be good if people didnt use SNAP to buy soda or candy, but it’s likely that what they buy instead will be even worse. There is actually a body of literature on this, which these guys wouldn’t consider even if they were aware of it. It’s much more about doing what feels good.
So again, who do we want to designate as the food police? What criteria should they use?
Steve
steve,
I’m speaking only for myself, not Dave or Drew.
“So again, who do we want to designate as the food police? What criteria should they use? ”
You are asking the wrong person, since I am generally against government paternalism.
According to the authorizing legislation for SNAP its purpose is:
or, in other words, the law is inherently “paternalistic”. The choices would seems to be between a) ignoring the law; b) implementing the law prudently and effectively; c) amending the law to omit any reference to nutrition; or d) repealing the law entirely. My preference is b.
steve, which of those do you prefer? If a, please list all of the federal laws you want to ignore.
Dave, I’m not versed in legalese nor do I have, really, any knowledge about SNAP. I’ve never, to my knowledge, ever used or benefited from that program. In all honesty, I’m not sure anyone should listen to me. That being said, could you please list the bits of the authorizing legislation that are currently enacted imprudently and/or ineffectively?
I’m all for option b, but I want to make sure we’re on the same page.
tia, scout
B sounds good. What evidence do you have that eliminating soda and candy would be effective? After reading all of the contradictory studies how did you conclude that? It might make you feel good.
Steve