Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

[ken_sylvania]

Somehow it's hard for me to believe the government would actually deliver high quality healthy foods in these parcels. There would be tremendous pressure from trade groups, etc. trying to shape the makeup of these parcels.

The phrase "100 Percent American" food somehow makes me think of Burger King and McDonalds.

[mike]

It is CNN.com's lead story this morning.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/12/news/ec ... index.html

Some of the pros listed in the article:

- Provides states flexibility in administering the program, and is responsible to the taxpayers

- The proposal would save nearly $130 billion over 10 years, as well as improve the nutritional value of the program and reduce the potential for fraud, according to the administration.

Cons:

- Consumer advocates, however, questioned whether the federal government could save that much money by purchasing and distributing food on its own.

- Also, they were concerned that families would not know what food they would get in advance nor have any choice regarding what they receive.

- Plus, it could be difficult for families to pick up the box, especially if they don't have a car.

- "It's a risky scheme that threatens families' ability to put food on the table"

Obviously there are some partisan objections from people who might likely welcome the idea if it came from a different administration. Also there are some understandable objections from retailers who stand to lose SNAP business. And there are objections from those who don't think the government is capable of managing anything well.

[mike]

Somehow it's hard for me to believe the government would actually deliver high quality healthy foods in these parcels. There would be tremendous pressure from trade groups, etc. trying to shape the makeup of these parcels.

The phrase "100 Percent American" food somehow makes me think of Burger King and McDonalds.

The proposal is for items like "shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, canned meat, poultry or fish, and canned fruits and vegetables."

But yes, if this would end up being administered by the federal government, there would be a federal bidding process for the ingredients just like for any other procurement by the government. There would also be competition for the delivery and so forth. There is the possibility for corruption in any government program with lots of money at stake, and for industry or other groups to pressure the government to act in various ways. Just like there would be industry pressure to keep the government from disallowing SNAP benefits to be used for soda or candy. I have often wondered why that doesn't happen. I'm sure there's a reason.

[Wayne in Maine]

It seems so odd that this seems to come from those who oppose big government control in favor of a free market. It clearly is the opposite. I would make this a supplement for those who choose it, not a reduction in the program. Having less for seeds and fresh fruits and vegetables does not seem a healthy approach.

Ask Valerie how often she sees people buy fresh fruit and seeds with their SNAP benefits.

[temporal1]

A portion of SNAP benefits would be direct delivery of a parcel of staple food products. It would be a novel way to exert a degree of control over the food choices of SNAP beneficiaries.

So, the government is going to expand its activity and "exert a degree of control over" individuals' choices? "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." It's remarkable how the statists are winning the argument with the libertarians in the Republican party. It's swiftly ceasing to be the party of small government and individual liberty (to the degree that it was). (I know this example is a relatively minor thing, but still.)

And speaking of elitism...

for the sake of balance, were there any forum discussions on the unpopular changes made in school lunch programs across the country? there was lots in the news, i don’t recall the topic on forum.

however, as mike is saying, these programs exist. lots of money is spent, lots of waste.
to refuse accountability is to guarantee waste, if not worse.

i speculate, the junk food industry would be in greatest objection!
the addictive nature of junk food is no accident.
big money is invested in finding ways to make these products appeal to all human senses.
their lobbies will not quietly stand by if profits are threatened.

there may be an elitist factor, sure. the obamas+pals are definitely elitists. true enough.
but, that’s not the whole story.

[mike]

It seems so odd that this seems to come from those who oppose big government control in favor of a free market. It clearly is the opposite. I would make this a supplement for those who choose it, not a reduction in the program. Having less for seeds and fresh fruits and vegetables does not seem a healthy approach.

Ask Valerie how often she sees people buy fresh fruit and seeds with their SNAP benefits.

If anybody is interested, I can post snapshots of the receipts of everything purchased with SNAP yesterday in my store. I don't remember the last time I looked that up, but that data is interesting.

[Bootstrap]

I think the arguments on both sides make sense, but it's easy for me to see this working really well or going badly wrong. A lot depends on how it's administered, and I agree with Ken that it's really important to build in protections so that the program really does get poor people the food they need and will actually eat.

I really wish the federal government would try this kind of thing as an experiment in one part of the country and see how it works out before replacing what we have entirely. Yes, I know this is a fantasy, neither party ever suggests this approach, but it's precisely the kind of thing we would have done in private industry back when I was involved in private industry. If it goes badly wrong, that will hurt a lot of people. If it's successful, it could help a lot of people.

[Bootstrap]

If anybody is interested, I can post snapshots of the receipts of everything purchased with SNAP yesterday in my store. I don't remember the last time I looked that up, but that data is interesting.

I would be very interested.

[Heirbyadoption]

It seems so odd that this seems to come from those who oppose big government control in favor of a free market. It clearly is the opposite. I would make this a supplement for those who choose it, not a reduction in the program. Having less for seeds and fresh fruits and vegetables does not seem a healthy approach.

Ask Valerie how often she sees people buy fresh fruit and seeds with their SNAP benefits.

I'll speak up as one who has been laid off a couple times and used SNAP, as well as knowing several other families who have as well. I am opposed to the plan, noble as it is. For one, navigating SNAP applications/paperwork/changes is a pain as is; this change will only make it worse (if you doubt me, please cite me to a few government program changes in the last several years that made things simpler and more user friendly). Additionally the federal bidding chaos and the nightmare that delivery can become are real possibilities. If you haven't navigated government aid systems much, then you may continue to loftily deny this probability, but I'm telling you, food deliveries will be botched, food will be wasted, etc. There is a real benefit to leaving the current system alone, which provides recipients with a card, a limited amount of specific funds, and sends them to already existent stores for the goods in question. This is an attempt to rebuild the wheel.

And since this has come up a couple times, I mean this respectfully, but if you think the integration of this program will slow the intake of junk food you're kidding yourself. People spend money on what they want, and there will always be people abusing the system. The question is whether this change will benefit those legitimately in need, and whether it will truly benefit our economic system and government.

[temporal1]

It seems so odd that this seems to come from those who oppose big government control in favor of a free market. It clearly is the opposite. I would make this a supplement for those who choose it, not a reduction in the program. Having less for seeds and fresh fruits and vegetables does not seem a healthy approach.

Ask Valerie how often she sees people buy fresh fruit and seeds with their SNAP benefits.

i never notice how people are paying for their items.
but, in my lib-Illinois state, i sure read of complaints about abuse of SNAP.
i barely know what it is. i’m not sure why i don’t qualify. my budget is tight.
i read about young, strong, healthy, able people having these benefits.

i’m not sure how that happens. but, i’m convinced it happens.

i believe there is room for improvement. i see no fault in increased accountability for expenditures of taxpayer dollars. isn’t that just common sense?

i often wonder how grocers can keep the beautiful fresh produce sections open, as they do?
i do not see a lot of it sold.