They’re talking about letting the states administer the program, so there will be 50 different ways it’s done. That seems great.Bootstrap wrote: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.
In addition, if cash payments are so important, states can do that on their own.