The slippery slope - subsidies to buy fruits, veggies

It should come as no surprise that subsidies are 'naturally' going to follow the new dietary guidelines from the government. What could be more 'natural' than government subsidies?!?

You see, the federal government has again revised the listing of what is good for us and what isn't (per order from Congress) and because we're so stupid as to not obey them (because we're busy making our own choices and living with the consequences), they're going to try to bribe us into doing what they want.

From CNSNews:

"At an event on Monday to unveil the federal government’s new dietary guidelines for Americans, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said that subsidies may be used to encourage people on government assistance to eat more fruits and vegetables.

CNSNews.com asked the secretaries to explain what was meant by Vilsack’s remarks about incentives to encourage the consumption of more fruits and vegetables.

Vilsack said that a pilot program is in place in Massachusetts to allow participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – or SNAP – to get a discount for buying fruits and vegetables.

“The grocer basically gets paid full value for the fruit or vegetable that’s being purchased but it’s only credited say 70 or 80 percent on the card,” Vilsack said at the event, held at George Washington University."

Oh - so only if you're already getting handouts do you get even more. The rest of us, who are paying taxes so you can eat for free - we get nothing, except a higher bill.

The guidelines, which are required by Congress and are updated, as needed, every five years, also set a 300 milligram limit of cholesterol and encourage people to eat more chicken and fish and to avoid beef, which is defined as a “solid fat.”

Wonder what the beef industry will say to that? I also wonder if beef farmers are getting subsidies - or if they'll need them now that people are going to be reducing the amount of beef they eat?

What a tangled web of rules, regulations and government intrusion!

Here's the problem with subsidizing fruits and vegetables under the SNAP program: it's the equivalent of just giving them more money. There are guidelines and formulas in place for people on food stamps that bases the amount of assistance on earnings, number of people in the family, etc. By making them 'pay' less (because *they* don't really pay), you're giving them more money to spend. Where is the additional money coming from when it's clear our government is already broke? Nothing is really 'free' - we all know this fact. So who is paying for this 'subsidy'?

And then there is the sheer unfairness of it all. Liberals are so focused on fairness, though today it takes the form of the term 'justice.' They are constantly trying to attain equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. So in looking at this latest plan, why should dependents of the government get a product for less than what the rest of us have to pay? Why should they, alone, be subsidized simply because they've either fallen on hard times or are part of the growing class of people who are generationally dependent upon the government for sustenance?

If it's good for them, isn't it good for all of us? Or perhaps that's the plan - for the government to take over the purchasing and distribution of things that are 'good for us' so we no longer have to worry about making such decisions, especially because we don't do what the politicians and bureaucrats want us to do in the first place.

Then there is the condescending nature of the whole idea - that people who are on food stamps don't make good decisions and they only way to 'force' them to make good decisions is to pay them to do so.

Two thoughts come to mind. One is that fresh fruit and veggies are cheaper than junk food, so they shouldn't need to be subsidized; and the other is that I would be *offended* if the government tried to bribe me into making food selections that they have approved.

Why don't people on food stamps have these same thoughts? Maybe some do, but if you've got people who, for generations, have used food stamps for their groceries, they've been conditioned to not be as accountable as others because they're using *other people's money.* They don't make good decisions because the government always bails them out and fails to allow them to suffer the consequences - instead rewarding them with more money or help or assistance. So of course they don't make good decisions - they've never learned how.

Despite that being the case, you'd think they'd have a bit of independence and reject the bribery designed to force them to change their habits. But then again, perhaps not. As I said earlier - maybe they'll just use the money they save for buying more junk food.

The losers in all of this are you and me. We'll pay full price while also paying for SNAP recipients to not have to. And the politicians will use all of it as a reason we should keep electing them.

Tracking what you eat - the food stamp slippery slope

As a county commissioner, I saw first-hand the efforts to increase the number of people receiving food stamps - now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Access Program).

The problem, the government said, was that millions of eligible Americans weren't actually participating. Imagine that - people who qualified for a government hand-out weren't actually signing up for it.

Some claimed it was the stigma of the paper coupons that embarrassed people to the point that they'd go without the magnanimity of the government. So they went to Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, similar to debit cards to make it less obvious to others in a checkout lane that you were using government handouts. And they changed the name to make it sound more palatable.

Voila! Success - as the participation rate increased to roughly 66% of those eligible.

But that wasn't the only thing. Massive advertising campaigns - everything from commercials on radio and television to workers placed at food banks - encouraged more people to apply.

And then there was the eligibility rules. While the federal government sets the eligibility, states were able to do 'special' things - like automatically grant food stamps to people already enrolled in other welfare programs like TANF - Temporary Assistance to Needy Families - without checking their actual income and assets to see if they'd qualify for SNAP alone. And some areas got waivers, based upon statistical data like unemployment rates, and increased the eligibility level from 130% of poverty level up to as much as 400% of poverty level. That raised the amount of money a family could make and still get the assistance.

So it should come as no surprise that we see a record number of people now enrolled in the program - 42.9 million as of September 2010. Despite what many claim, it's clear that the increased levels of eligibility along with the massive enrollment efforts have had as much of an impact as the economy in increasing the numbers of participants.

Such programs claim to be a 'helping hand,' but I believe they're really just another method to create a dependent class who rely upon politicians for their daily needs. While that is insidious enough, there is a further danger that seems to fit so well into the current Washington discussions led by First Lady Michelle Obama - controlling what we choose to eat.

Now I know that there are many people of all political persuasions who believe that individuals in SNAP should be restricted in what they purchase. The logic is that if you're so poor that you need other people's tax dollars in order to feed your family, you shouldn't be living on TV dinners, soda pop, munchies and candy. And there is a lot of validity to that perspective.

But the new EBT cards - like frequent buyer cards - can track what you purchase. And that makes them a new tool in government control, as this article from Reason.com explains:

With its EBT system, it (U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service) can now intimately monitor and potentially influence the eating habits of more than 40 million Americans. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already floated the idea of making soda off-limits for SNAP recipients. (In 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture denied Minnesota permission to enact a similar ban.) Hank Cardello, author of Stuffed: An Insider’s Look at Who’s (Really) Making America Fat, thinks a more general form of gastronomic policing is the way to go. “Rather than create a modern-day Prohibition on specific foods or beverages, the food stamp program should be restructured to cap the total calories purchased each month,” he writes at The Atlantic.

So far the government has shown more interest in rewarding good behavior than punishing bad. In December 2011, the FNS will start testing a “healthy incentives” program in Hampden County, Massachusetts. Participants will receive a 30 percent discount on their EBT purchases of fruits and vegetables. As coercion goes, this may qualify as pretty benign stuff. You give millions of hungry Americans money for food. And then you give them even more money if they agree to eat like upscale locavores battling Big Corn Syrup.

But locavores want to decentralize the food system in an effort to reclaim control over what goes into their bodies. SNAP is moving in the opposite direction. And as its new status as a behavior modification tool grows increasingly apparent, so too does the realization that the program’s growth, commonly attributed to economic desperation, is fueled at least as much by policy imperatives. Food stamp use has hit historic highs because the government’s effort to expand the program has hit historic highs. Even more than McDonald’s, the feds have mastered the art of supersizing.

The technology exists and can be used. My Kroger card tracks what I purchase and sends me coupons in the mail for items I purchase regularly.

The bigger problem, though, is that so many who need to take advantage of the food stamp program probably don't even know about this. And, if they do, perhaps they figure it's an acceptable price to pay for the assistance. They might even justify it as a proper control, even if it's not being used ... today.

But in the future - what, exactly, will the federal government do with the information they can easily collect? As the Bard says, "Aye, there's the rub."