As indicated by my post on how to handle prisoners with AIDS, I periodically run into issues where I’m not sure about the right answer. Here’s another case. Politicians in New York have a proposal to prohibit people from using food stamps to buy sugary drinks. Part of me is irritated by paternalistic, nanny-state busybodies who want to tell other people how to live. On the other hand, maybe this proposal will make people less willing to mooch off taxpayers by accepting food stamps (though I suspect they’ll just bring two carts to the checkout line, one with things that can be purchased with food stamps, and the other filled with sodas, booze, and other items that would require cash). The ideal answer, of course, is to get rid of the federal food stamp program and let states and communities experiment with the best way of handling these issues. Here’s an excerpt from the AP report.
New Yorkers on food stamps would not be allowed to spend them on sugar-sweetened drinks under an obesity-fighting proposal being floated by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson. …If approved, it would be the first time an item would be banned from the federal program based solely on nutritional value. The idea has been suggested previously, including in 2008 in Maine, where it drew criticism from advocates for the poor who argued it unfairly singled out low-income people and risked scaring off potential needy recipients. And in 2004 the USDA rejected Minnesota’s plan to ban junk food, including soda and candy, from food stamp purchases, saying it would violate the Food Stamp Act’s definition of what is food and could create “confusion and embarrassment” at the register. The food stamp system…does not currently restrict any other foods based on nutrition. Recipients can essentially buy any food for the household, although there are some limits on hot or prepared foods. Food stamps also cannot be used to buy alcohol, cigarettes or items such as pet food, vitamins or household goods. …There still are many unhealthful products New Yorkers could purchase with food stamps, including potato chips, ice cream and candy.
[…] P.S. Ms. Finley’s column also mentioned another study that found a negative link between food stamps and diet quality. […]
[…] when he was mayor, I dinged him for his regressive views on the 2nd Amendment and his nanny-state approach to lifestyle […]
[…] can understand that people don’t like it when food stamp recipients are buying junk food. Or luxury […]
[…] (indeed, all people) should be able to eat anything they want. That being said, there’s something perverse about subsidizing and encouraging unhealthy […]
[…] admit it’s paternalistic, but if taxpayers are paying for someone else’s food, then shouldn’t they have the right to insist that recipients don’t buy junk […]
[…] I’ve previously written about his statist efforts to ban bake sales, and I’ve noted with mixed feelings his proposal to tell food stamp recipients what they’re allowed to buy. […]
[…] This poster is funny, but it also makes a serious point about whether there should be behavioral restrictions on people who want to live off taxpayers (sort of akin to the debate about whether food stamp recipients should be allowed to buy junk food). […]
[…] This poster is funny, but it also makes a serious point about whether there should be behavioral restrictions on people who want to live off taxpayers (sort of akin to the debate about whether food stamp recipients should be allowed to buy junk food). […]
[…] I guess the moral of the story is that if you outlaw butter, only outlaws will have butter. Or perhaps butter is the gateway drug leading to whole milk consumption, red meat, salt, and other dietary sins. Surely Mayor Bloomberg will want to investigate. […]
[…] I guess the moral of the story is that if you outlaw butter, only outlaws will have butter. Or perhaps butter is the gateway drug leading to whole milk consumption, red meat, salt, and other dietary sins. Surely Mayor Bloomberg will want to investigate. […]
I don’t have any trouble with bums. I worked kitchens for 20 years; any time I get panhandled I offer to walk with the panhandler to the nearest restaurant and help them get a job washing dishes. Have not been taken up on it yet, and discussing the proposition limits more profitable panhandling activities so I’m usually invited to move along.
Expect if someone in my circle needed some short term help they’d have no problem with any job I hooked them up with, while I wouldn’t lose much sleep over unintended consequences.
True. Something else that applies here is how I feel about giving money to beggars on the street.
I think of the situation like any other financial investment. You’re paying for something. Are you paying to:
a. Get a bum out of your face
b. Feel good about yourself
c. Enable the guy’s detrimental habits
d. Enable the guy to survive
e. Give the guy the opportunity to get back on his feet
Everyone wants value for money, and you don’t have to ask questions or care what happens after the transaction when you only care about a, b, or c, (though personally I couldn’t lie to myself enough to get b).
For the other scenarios, it takes a little more work, (though not always that much more, since it can become obvious what’s going on the moment you challenge the sob-story).
But it’s really no different to going to a bank to get a loan. The bank tries to determine whether you have the capacity to be involved in
Like if Dan’s house was hit by an asteroid and an error at the IRS froze all his accounts, none of his friends would likely think twice about lending him money and/or their couch while he made arrangements to get back on his feet. That’s because knowing him personally, they’re practically certain they’d get the result they’re after. In fact saying yes to Dan is a great investment, because you’ll get a,b,c,d and e.
If I’m being asked for a handout, I have a right to ask what you will spend it on. And even place some stipulations on it.
Perhaps these sorts of limitaions will discourage people from asking for foodstamps. Or more likely, the recipient will turn around and sell his/her foodstamps for cash and buy that six pack anyway.
I’m not looking to demonize but, as an underwriting taxpayer, bang for the buck is something I wish more policymakers factored into their decision making. With diabetes a major source of health care issues and hence spending, it strikes me that we may not want to pay for folks to cram their bods full of sugar and then treat them for the disease that results.
Or put the shoe on the other foot. The WIC program supplements the nutrition of pregnant and nursing women by providing them with an EBT card that can only be used to purchase foods high in calcium and other necessary nutrients. Should we amend that program to include chewing gum and diet soda to assuage our Libertarian leanings?
Damn, I didn’t address the sugary drinks specifically in my first response …
As for that, shouldn’t one want food with maximum calories? More bang for your buck? I mean if you had people buying “healthier” diet coke, that’s a tasty beverage for them, but it’s of no survival value. Just as the above mentioned Vegas slot machines are diverting entertainment – but that doesn’t make them a good investment. So wouldn’t it be better if they couldn’t buy any drinks and drink water instead? I guess I shouldn’t give Bloomberg ideas, or New York taxpayers will end up paying for expensive bottled water.
The problem here is different to the one above though. Like, how can I complain about the nanny-state when by going on welfare one is – in a manner of speaking – surrendering to it?
Thus if we grit our teeth and accept they’re in a position to dictate, the issue becomes: Does it make logical sense for the government to attempt to force people to eat healthy while they’re on welfare?
I’d argue that it wouldn’t work well even if it was, for the reason Dan points out, as well as I’d be trying to get whatever product my company was selling on the “healthy” list – even if it was a deep-fried Big Mac with butter. Which is to say, not only are government bureaucrats poorly qualified to make such decisions, for reasons of bias they’re the worst people to sign off on it.
But assuming that wasn’t the case, it’s insane to create a one-size-fits-all programme like that anyway. That means a body builder, marathon runner, or maybe a guy who works construction part time, gets insufficient calories for the same cost, because the system is adjusted to slim down fat guys who sit in front of the TV, (people like that make Michelle Obama sad).
I’m ex-Army, and I have a good idea how many calories a working soldier consumes in a day. You should see the stuff that put in ration packs. Loads of refined white sugar, meat, fat, salt, and other stuff that would give Calista Flockhart a coronary just looking at it.
I remember what my sergeant said to me my first day of training when he caught me eating a bowl of Rice Krispies for breakfast: “You can’t do a days work on that Jap s**t”. And then he made me eat eggs and bacon. He was right as it turns out, (at least about the number of calories I needed, not the origin of Rice Krispies – but it was still funny).
Not to mention the demonising of soda is for the most part irrational hippie garbage in the first place. If there was a wild fruit you could squeeze carbonated Pepsi out of, the same clowns would be telling you it was “healthy”.
My father-in-law, who worked hard and made minimum wage, went through the checkout buying groceries for his family.
The lady in front of him was trying to buy dog food with her food stamps but she was told she couldn’t. So she left and came back with a package of sirloin steak and said to my father-in-law, “looks like the dog will be eating good tonight!”
My father-in-law was buying round steak to feed his family, the food stamp recipient’s dog was eating better than they were.
In my opinion, people who rely on government welfare should be required to do volunteer work to receive benefits.
This is similar to something I ran into the other day, when they discovered welfare recipients were using debit cards, intended for survival, for gambling and holiday cruises.
The commentator was saying that they should restrict the cards so that they could only buy basic items, (bread, milk, eggs, etc.) Which is possible, and they were apparently taking steps to restrict the items which could be purchased.
On a side note: I saw something similar in the supermarket here recently. A notice that said welfare debit cards could not be used to buy cigarettes or alcohol. I asked the checkout chick what people bought with them instead, meaning: what’s the next best item it can buy that one could then easily trade or convert into cigarettes and alcohol? Or stated differently: What are all the card users suddenly buying more of?
I’m sure if anything like that were available, (say iPods), it wouldn’t take long for the local pawn shop to fill up with iPods, and the supermarket, Apple, and the people buying the iPods at a discount, (resulting from the ‘iPod to vice’ exchange rate), wouldn’t mind that much either.
As it turns out it was a new thing, so the girl didn’t seem to know.
I admit it. I’m a little pessimistic about such things.
But anyway, I have to disagree in principle about the holiday cruise thing. But in practice, I’ll concede.
The reason is that I can imagine a scenario where I end up on welfare, and would prefer to temporarily starve while I spend that money at Radio Shack on equipment to start a business or something, (especially in a high unemployment environment). If I have that option taken away it’s a little more restrictive, but as you point out, one is not shocked when welfare recipients are able to obtain some cash somewhere for anything they want bad enough. I can imagine I’d likewise find a way. It would just take me longer to get my business going than it otherwise would.
And as I said, I’m a pessimist. So I think there’s a great percentage of welfare recipients who are not so inspired. As a Libertarian I have to grit my teeth saying this, but I can’t think of one damn reason those cards should work in Vegas slot machines.
In my early 20s I worked third shift at a 24 hour grocery store. We saw our share of food stamps come through; a large percentage of those purchases were for food that was not healthy. Indeed, we use to collect particularly egregious receipts; IIRC the worst I saw was for $250 of soft drinks, candy, chips, and pastries. This grocery was in a college town, I also remember being particularly offended by students using stamps to buy expensive stuff like tins of crab and oysters, as well as an endless parade of Pop Tarts.
Those of us working the night shift were fairly annoyed with these choices. Most of us were working a close to minimum wage job rather than going on the dole; it was more than perplexing that our payroll taxes were underwriting the choices we saw made. One was particularly galling: change for a dollar of stamps or less was returned as coins; we’d often get people who came through and bought candy bars out of the checkout aisle that would total just over a dollar, receiving 90 plus cents as change. This was in the late 80’s; they’d do that another time or two and then have change enough for a pack of cigarettes or quart of beer.
Indeed, as booze and tobacco were already excluded from purchase with stamps, we always wondered why candy and such wasn’t. With UPCs and scanning technology coming on line back then, we couldn’t understand why some items were not precluded. With the technology available now it ought to be easy to amalgamate and analyze food stamp purchases. I say unleash the GAO on the issue, get some hard data, and then make public policy decisions based on hard data rather than nanny state predilections.