@HRSMom So should we eliminate the restrictions on alcohol for SNAP?
FWIW I have never understood the point of “slippery slope” arguments.
I don’t see it as an issue relating to “control.” It’s not like the general population should be deciding this. It is a matter of a government program meeting it’s intended goals and stated purpose – which I believe is assisting the low income population in meeting general nutritional requirements.
We have the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the FDA, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the USDA all of which spend tons of our taxpayer dollars researching what constitutes good nutrition. Shouldn’t our own government food assistance programs adhere to the guidelines coming out of those agencies? Perhaps only a certain percentage of government assistance dollars should be allocated toward food with no nutritional value. Those foods seem to fly in the face of the stated purpose of the program.
Those items don’t find their way into my own shopping cart, so although I personally don’t have any say in what SNAP covers, if I did I would minimize soda and other food with no nutritional value. That’s not what the program is for.
That may be true, but the info above isn’t of much help for those whose finances are such they can afford neither option which was the case with many locals I’ve met/encountered in the NE Ohio college town where I attended undergrad.
Life is hard enough. Do I want them to buy pop? No. I wish I’d stop buying pop!
It’s not a slippery slope. It’s a control issue. I’m not sure why people feel a need to control this any more than where other tax $ are spent. Pop is allowed. The govt says yes.
Yes, it’s bad for you. But these people are not children, and I’m not going to treat them as dependent children just bc they get a few of my tax $ every year.
But no, I don’t really care what they use it for. if they really want to, they can sell the benefit and buy alcohol with it.
^Sorry…soda:)
So do you not think that a government program should strive to meet it’s stated goals?
The government, yes, individual taxpayers, no…
Umm… it is true. And it’s very good help for the vast majority of people that are struggling to make ends meet. Here’s some more: parts for burners are dirt cheap at salvage yards. Strike up a friendship with someone that never minded getting their hands greasy or look on youtube for instructions.
(That there’s bound to be someone in W. Nowhere, known to your or me, without a salvage yard in a days drive, doesn’t diminish the value of the advice, btw.)
Right, I said that in my #201. But when you look at the government research and then consider that there is no restraint on these items, you have to conclude that the government is doing a pretty crappy job in administering the program. Allowing unrestricted dollars towards purchasing this type of food contradicts the purpose of the program…
@HRSMom I think it would be irresponsible for our government to not update the SNAP program based on current medical data, and that data shows that soda consumption is linked to obesity and diabetes.
^oh absolutely @HarvestMoon1. Nowadays food can be delivered by Amazon. So it should be easier to get everyone food anywhere they are. Whether it is crackers or carrots! We can do much better than this.
@khmama I suppose the Libertarian in me just doesn’t want to tell other adults what to do, even if it is bad for them, just because the government pays the bill.
I have no issue with telling the government to administer programs responsibly.
@HRSMom I guess we will just agree to disagree on this point:)
The fact is that the cost of administration of the SNAP program would increase sustantially if there is more regulation as to what qualifies as nutritious food. Also, small retailers may not be interested in being involved with the program if they have to quibble with customers over what is allowed.
The SNAP program does have an educational component:
(From SNAP website) "SNAP-Ed is an evidence-based program that helps people lead healthier lives. SNAP-Ed teaches people using or eligible for SNAP about good nutrition and how to make their food dollars stretch further. SNAP-Ed participants also learn to be physically active.
SNAP-Ed works by building partnerships with all types of community organizations. Communities have social marketing campaigns, hold nutrition education classes, and improve their policies, systems, and the environment of the community. SNAP-Ed even addresses local issues like lead poisoning."
To me, it appears to include nutritional information that is available to all Americans. You know who I mean - SNAP recipients and those who don’t receive SNAP benefits. The food buying habits of both groups are very similar. If you don’t support our government restricting all Americans from making poor food choices, I cannot understand how you can advocate for the government to tell SNAP recipients what specific foods they are permitted to purchase. Allowing personal choice is not advocating for a poor choice, it is allowing the individual to decide for themselves what to purchase.
Off my “parent of a SNAP program analyst” soapbox now.
The main difference I see between college funding and social services is that unless you’re attending your state university, the aid you’re getting is truly other people’s money. We got free lunches for awhile when my dad lost his job, but he and my mother had been in the workforce – and paying into the system – for a combined total of 60 years. It wasn’t “your” money they were spending; it was theirs. My mother worked an additional ~15 years after that as a professional dietitian, so I’m betting they paid more into the system than they took out of it.
It’s a nutrition program - one that costs our nation $75 billion per year . I think those kinds of dollars should be administered responsibly – that means targeting the funds towards things that achieve the stated purposes of the program. If the dollars are spent on nutritionally void food then why bother with a program that is aimed toward meeting nutritional requirements? At the very least put a cap on what is spent on soda and similar items.
The real issue of course is that the beverage industry has powerful lobbies in DC – they would go ballistic if any restraints were attempted.
Benefits are never “your” money, tho paid with all our taxes, including those of the folks who use the benefits sometimes. Not sure if that was meant for me, I never said they spend my money…
And I am in the camp that believes a tax exempt endowment is a 35% tax benefit. So…
And why is restricting soda functionally any different than restricting prepared foods or alcohol both of which are not covered items???
You can purchase Red Bull under SNAP!!
NYTimes really dropped the ball (or, less charitably, engaged in propaganda) with this one:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html?_r=0
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/food-stamps-snap-welfare-soda-new-york-times/