The views expressed in Guest Opinions represent only those of the author and are in no way endorsed by Richmond BizSense or any BizSense staff member.
New York is a trend setter. But the logic of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to prevent food stamp recipients from using them to buy sweetened carbonated beverages is emblematic of the kind of thinking that pervades our government and our society. To sum it up: “There oughta be a law against [name your pet peeve].” Unfortunately, we already gotta lotta laws that impose the beliefs and preferences of (mostly) well intentioned public servants on those whom they are elected to serve.
Of course, at first blush, it seems logical, even fair, that if someone receives government funds (in this case food stamps), the government should have something to say about how those funds are used. I would not want to see food stamps used to purchase liquor or tobacco, for example. No doubt, Bloomberg can cite statistics on obesity, diabetes, the associated increased public health-care costs, etc., to justify his position. From a strictly economic point of view, he might have a point.
But when the government gets into the business of deciding that soda pop is “bad food” while non-carbonated drinks with equal or higher sugar content are “good food” and then restricting the consumer choices of our least fortunate citizens, it goes too far. Where does it stop? On the same theory, should we charge motorcyclists more for their gas because they suffer more disabling accidents? Or should they get a break, because, statistically, their life expectancy is shorter and they will not require government support once they’re dead? Walking can be shown to be more dangerous than driving – should we have a pedestrian surcharge on Reeboks or Nikes? And if we someday have subsidized universal health care, will that justify the government in imposing a “2.5 baby quota” or an “excess baby tax”? Maybe cap and trade will solve that – we’ll have a market for “birth credits.”
The larger point is the hypocrisy and the foolishness of using tax and expenditure policy to control individual choices at such a basic and personal level. Food stamps exist to feed people, principally children – not to educate and direct their choices according to the latest conventional wisdom. The government has plenty of other ways to convey its dietary dogma without impinging on individual choices and stigmatizing children born into less fortunate socioeconomic circumstances.
And it’s not as if food stamps are the only example of government expenditures that benefit some of us at the expense of others. Take for example, the billions of state and local funds spent on sports stadiums, even while some athletes and coaches make more to suit up for one game than the average wage earner makes in a decade. In what sense are those lofty salaries not supported, if not directly subsidized, by public money, some of it coming from wage earners in the lowest tax brackets? And to the extent that they are, would Bloomberg seriously contemplate telling Derek Jeter how much salt to put on his pizza? When you think about it, it’s hard to name anyone who is not the beneficiary of some government decision to subsidize something they enjoy. Take housing: Homeowners get a tax break while renters don’t. Should the IRS therefore have the power to tell homeowners what color to paint their houses? It’s easy to say “Oh, come on, we’re talking about making people healthier by preventing them from eating bad stuff — it’s totally different.” But it is really?
Maybe it’s because the people on food stamps are so vulnerable that our high-minded elite technocrats find them such an easy target. Maybe they get votes for showing how tough and right-minded they are when it comes to making other people’s dietary choices. Maybe they should revisit the Golden Rule and once in a while whisper to themselves, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
The views expressed in Guest Opinions represent only those of the author and are in no way endorsed by Richmond BizSense or any BizSense staff member.
New York is a trend setter. But the logic of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to prevent food stamp recipients from using them to buy sweetened carbonated beverages is emblematic of the kind of thinking that pervades our government and our society. To sum it up: “There oughta be a law against [name your pet peeve].” Unfortunately, we already gotta lotta laws that impose the beliefs and preferences of (mostly) well intentioned public servants on those whom they are elected to serve.
Of course, at first blush, it seems logical, even fair, that if someone receives government funds (in this case food stamps), the government should have something to say about how those funds are used. I would not want to see food stamps used to purchase liquor or tobacco, for example. No doubt, Bloomberg can cite statistics on obesity, diabetes, the associated increased public health-care costs, etc., to justify his position. From a strictly economic point of view, he might have a point.
But when the government gets into the business of deciding that soda pop is “bad food” while non-carbonated drinks with equal or higher sugar content are “good food” and then restricting the consumer choices of our least fortunate citizens, it goes too far. Where does it stop? On the same theory, should we charge motorcyclists more for their gas because they suffer more disabling accidents? Or should they get a break, because, statistically, their life expectancy is shorter and they will not require government support once they’re dead? Walking can be shown to be more dangerous than driving – should we have a pedestrian surcharge on Reeboks or Nikes? And if we someday have subsidized universal health care, will that justify the government in imposing a “2.5 baby quota” or an “excess baby tax”? Maybe cap and trade will solve that – we’ll have a market for “birth credits.”
The larger point is the hypocrisy and the foolishness of using tax and expenditure policy to control individual choices at such a basic and personal level. Food stamps exist to feed people, principally children – not to educate and direct their choices according to the latest conventional wisdom. The government has plenty of other ways to convey its dietary dogma without impinging on individual choices and stigmatizing children born into less fortunate socioeconomic circumstances.
And it’s not as if food stamps are the only example of government expenditures that benefit some of us at the expense of others. Take for example, the billions of state and local funds spent on sports stadiums, even while some athletes and coaches make more to suit up for one game than the average wage earner makes in a decade. In what sense are those lofty salaries not supported, if not directly subsidized, by public money, some of it coming from wage earners in the lowest tax brackets? And to the extent that they are, would Bloomberg seriously contemplate telling Derek Jeter how much salt to put on his pizza? When you think about it, it’s hard to name anyone who is not the beneficiary of some government decision to subsidize something they enjoy. Take housing: Homeowners get a tax break while renters don’t. Should the IRS therefore have the power to tell homeowners what color to paint their houses? It’s easy to say “Oh, come on, we’re talking about making people healthier by preventing them from eating bad stuff — it’s totally different.” But it is really?
Maybe it’s because the people on food stamps are so vulnerable that our high-minded elite technocrats find them such an easy target. Maybe they get votes for showing how tough and right-minded they are when it comes to making other people’s dietary choices. Maybe they should revisit the Golden Rule and once in a while whisper to themselves, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
If you are receiving Government assistance, then you should be bound by the rules associated with that assistance. Go to Wal-Mart at Midnight on the day that the cards are activated and see what kinds of food are bought and you might change your thinking on whether or not there should be restrictions. It would be an eye-opening experience and if it caught the media’s attention, there would be well needed changes in how we dole out tax-payer’s money.
Chris – Agreed – rules are rules. My objection is to a proposed rule. I’m sure I would be shocked at what some people buy with food stamps, and I am no fan of soda, per se. My point is that Mayor Bloomberg (Of whom I’m a fan, generally) should have better things to do with his time. Has he been so successful that this kind of thing is at the top of his to-do list? My issue is with the use of government programs for “social engineering” agendas. And it’s not as if the rule necessarily makes a difference.… Read more »
Just another useless law for the books. Americans have been drinking less and less soda per capita every year since bottled water became all the rage in the mid nineties, and we still aren’t getting any thinner. Weight loss requires a great degree of self discipline which is why replacing government intervention with personal responsibility will not make poor New Yorkers any healthier. Additionally even if the government were to go so far as restricting food stamps to only staples people could still bake all the cookies and cakes they wanted, as well as adding as much sugar as the… Read more »
It was mentioned in the article that the author does make a concession on this issue when it comes to tobacco and alcohol. Why, I wonder. I have a difficult time imagining an important difference between alcohol and sugary soft drinks. Alcohol and tobacco are prohibited presumably because they are very harmful in addition to not providing enough nutritionally redeeming qualities. The bad outweighs the good by a mile. Why then should sugar soft drinks be allowed, if the exact same issue apples to soda.
Alexander – You are right – it may just be that I draw the line at tobacco and alcohol whereas Bloomberg would draw the line at coke and pepsi. But there would not be an issue if we did not use “food stamps” as opposed to plain old money. The very notion of a “food stamp” is condescending (at least as to adults) because it presumes that the recipient is not capable of making good decisions. But what is to stop someone from selling their stamps to buy drugs? Do they actually use stamps anymore, or just EBT cards? I… Read more »
I was giving this an even assessment until I read this line:
“Maybe it’s because the people on food stamps are so vulnerable that our high-minded elite technocrats find them such an easy target.”
That’s when I realized this was simply another hypocritical screed. Tom, answer me this: Who exactly is considerred an elite?
Maybe an attorney who charges well over $350/hr (and bills in 6 minute increments) and has three degrees from Ivy league schools? ie: Thomas L Bowden, Sr., Esq.
Another example of the elite using faux class warfare to obfuscate real issues.
Wow Jeff! You can call me whatever you want, I guess, as long as you’re honest. If you want to generalize based on my profession and my education, I can’t stop you. We’re all entitled to our own opinion, regardless of whether we think we or the other guy is “elitist.” My beef is with those who profess to tell others how to live their lives, and put the force of law behind their “suggestions.” I guess I’d have to say an “Elite” is one who looks down on others and thinks they can make better choices for them than… Read more »
Gee Whiz Jeff, I’m not sure that Tom’s elite status makes him incapable of making a sensible and relevant argument in this matter, though one with which I disagree. I also fail to see the obfuscation here. It was readily apparent, at least to me, that Tom was merely expressing concerns about a possibly inappropriate and disproportionate distribution of personal agency based on socioeconomic status. Plain and simple. This is a fascinating exploration of the frontier of government encroachment. I’m going to post more later.
Thanks Tom, for your response. I was merely commenting on your gratuitous use of the hackneyed term “elitists”. The rest of the argument made decent sense to me. You just lost credibility by using a cliched trope without definition. Your definition of elite may suit your purpose, but as an attorney, I am sure you are aware that loaded language like that is not useful in making a considered argument, but serves to bring the existing biases of the reader to the forefront. Especially when the term is used over and over in the recent “town square” by folks intending… Read more »
Meant to put this as a link for you, to see that how the term is so loaded by overuse by politicians.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102202873.html
Many years ago I was a letter carrier with the USPS. I delivered mail in the very wealthiest and very poorest of neighborhoods in the Richmond area, so I delivered quite a few food stamps during that time (this was before EBT). Sometimes, but not always, I would deliver mail to a residence that received both food stamps and a cable television bill. You can imagine how I felt about that, probably the same way you are feeling as you read this. Food stamps exist to provide food to those who truly need it and I think we are better… Read more »
Jeff, no hard feelings. Thanks for the comment. You’re right it is a loaded word.and your comment points out just how easily principled discussion can break down if a party is too casual in their choice of words. You certainly made me stop and think. Kind of bizarre, really, when a conservative free market advocate like me, comes across as elitist for advocating the rights of others in a way that might more typically be associated with, dare I say “liberal” ideology. Brings it full circle in a way. Chris, I don’t disagree that receipt of government support can and… Read more »
I meant “flour” not “flower”
Tom – I think the point that is being missed is that food stamps have an inherent purpose, which is to meet one of the basic needs – food- of those that need assistance. Basic dietary needs, not anything that can be ingested. I believe those advocating for this are more in favor of seeing foods purchased that are the ‘highest and best’ in accomplishing those dietary needs, e.g. fruits and vegetables instead of alcohol, soft drinks, candy bars (Herseys or Twix), etc. The difference in your last example is this – each government program is designed to encourage a… Read more »
There’s a HUGE distinction between tobacco/liquor and soda. Tobacco directly causes hundreds of thousands of deaths a year and is a medical cost drain (nightmare) on every system that exists that pays for healthcare. Alcohol directly contributes to the deaths and debilitation of a lot (don’t know the right order of magnitude here) of people. Both tobacco and alcohol are highly addictive. None of that can be said about soda (although it’s not healthy, it doesn’t contribute to wholesale death and disability like tobacco and alcohol – not by a long shot). On a separate note, every time the words… Read more »
Mike – I appreciate the way you distinguish between elite and elitist. You are absolutely right. Perhaps my point would have been less grating if I had said “elitist” All your distinctions (Tobacco & Alcohol v Soda and Candy) are hard to dispute, but I would question whether you can say that the first two are addictive and the others are not. Technically and clinically you are correct, but we clearly have a sugar consumption problem. In response to all of these well stated and thoughtful comments, I will go back to the drawing board to look for a better… Read more »
Just for the record Tom, my points were tangential to the main conversation. I’m actually in complete agreement with you on the main topic. Thanks for the great article.
Here’s my rule of thumb for elite vs. elitist… “elite” should always be used as a compliment (unless intended sarcastically) and “elitist” is nearly always for criticism.
My understanding is that individual freedom and the free market is valued not in virtue of itself, but rather because in the long run it maximally benefits society at large. There are thousands of examples of this country restricting individual rights and/or the market if doing so provides a sufficient advance on the results of the naked market. Hell, we even consistently do this when there clearly isn’t an advance on the free market. I see no reason to balk at the thought of making these restrictions in light of the myriad other ways in which limit freedoms and the… Read more »
Hi Tom,
Rather than food stamps, which we both agree are charity and therefore have justifiable strings attached, perhaps your argument would have resonated more had it been focused on NYC banning artificial trans fats from restaurants? Below is a link from the NYC government detailing the policy implemented over the past few years.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-transfat.shtml
I think that would ring truer than food stamps, which are distributed to serve a very concrete purpose and are by necessity regulated to avoid as much deviance from that purpose as practical.
Yes Chris, trans fats would have made a more appealing argument but unfortunately, the trans fat ban is already the law in NYC, so the point is moot. 😉
Seriously though – I agree, it would have been a much better analogy, but the trans fat ban is not tied directly to any government assistance program, unless you count condescending government limitations on basic human freedom as an assistance program.
Truth is, there are millions of examples of officious meddling by do-gooders who want to use their elected offices or their positions of influence to tell us how to live.
The Trans fats ban is an effort to protect the consumer. Like my first post I must insist that you gentlemen are placing arbitrary lines all over the place. I see no important difference between NYC banning trans fats and the FDA banning various other man made food additives. Is the FDA condescending when they prohibit the purchase of Mexican viagra, or some Russian blood thinner that nobody has ever heard of? No, of course they’re not, these chemicals can be dangerous, and because we are not chemists or biologists we all need someone to tell us what is safe… Read more »
For once I agree with you Tom. While I agree that obesity is a problem in America, putting a tax on soft drinks, banning trans-fats, not letting food stamp users use food stamps to buy soda is idiotic. If you want to REALLY fight obesity consider this. For the past 20-30 years wages in this country have stagnated while prices go up. Furthermore most Americans are working longer hours. Fast food is cheap and easy, while buying nutritious food is more expensive. Also there’s the fact that our meat producers inject all sorts of additives and hormones in our meat… Read more »
Alexander – I admit to drawing arbitrary lines all over the place. The point is – it’s a free country, and people should be allowed to draw their own lines to the greatest extent possible, judging what is best for them. What we have, in ever increasing amounts, is governments who want to draw lines for us, based on statistics, politics, theories, whatever. Once again, I’ll be clear – I do not advocate buying soda with food stamps or forcing people to eat transfats. I advocate giving people information (which government can do – and some would argue, do it… Read more »
here’s another example of your tax dollars at work, making the world safe for pizza.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40045686/from/RSS/