|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
As I understand it, there used to be more restrictions on what food stamps can be spent on, but they were relaxed due to arguments just like what is being said about subsidizing Pepsi.
The argument went that the gov't NOT subsidizing Pepsi, while subsidizing plenty of other choices in the supermarket was the gov't playing favorites with businesses.
(no references, just going off of memory)
I don't have any references either, but my memory is slightly different. I recall arguments about "human dignity" and how it is wrong to pass judgement on another person's choices. If a person is hungry, and needs help, we should give them that help (food stamps). However, we would be wrong to insult that person by restricting their choices and giving them different rights just because they are poor.
And as usual, when we say "poor" we mean "black". So there really wasn't much debate to be had, since any opposition could be denounced and invalidated as "racist". If a white person can buy lobster and rib-eye, then so can a black person. The government decided it didn't matter who pays for it.
To me, the food stamp problem could be solved pretty easily by having a simple "allowance" for every category of purchase.
The government already tracks CPI and tons of other related measures, they know what a dozen eggs should cost. Let's say it's $1.80. Then that's all food stamps should cover. If you are a food stamps recipient and you prefer the convenience of buying your eggs at the corner store, where they are $2.50, then you are free to kick in the extra 70 cents yourself. The government should provide you with eggs. Not eggs + a convenient lifestyle.
Then you could easily adjust how much food stamps will pay for any given purchase. It could be cost based, or time-based. Like "we'll pay for soda, but you only get X ounces per week, after that, buy your own". Or "we'll pay $6/lb for seafood because some white flaky fish or a filet of salmon is part of a healthy diet. If you wanna get shrimp and lobsters, you can kick in the extra $8/lb yourself"
This way, the taxpayers are only subsidizing the need. Not the needs, and conveniences, and indulgences.
Furthermore, this would DESTROY the rampant black market for food stamps. I wish I had numbers on this one because there is a massive population of drug addicts out there who sell their food stamps at a heavy discount for cash.
In other words, a person might buy $100 in food stamps from an addict for $50. Then he goes to the store and buys $100 worth of rib-eyes for himself, and it only cost him $50. If the food stamps themselves were rigged to only buy $X worth of rib-eyes....then there is no incentive to engage in this activity.
|