Welfare Gone Awry

In the Wall Street Journal last week, Senator Marco Rubio wrote an editorial critical of SNAP recipients’ ability to purchase sugary soda and junk food using their benefit cards. Recall SNAP is an acronym for the government’s supplemental nutrition assistance program, a much less stigmatizing name for what was formerly known as “food stamps.” And like every other handout in this country, we want to make it easier and less embarrassing to suck off the government teat by sending out prepaid cards and calling it something other than what it is: public welfare. But I digress. In the letters section of the editorial page, the Journal provoked the ire of the lefties who wrote in to take offense to Senator Rubio suggesting that the government should be able to tell the poor what to eat. “Who does he think he is?” was the indignant response from one blue state-dwelling socialist. Allow me to intervene. America has the fattest poor people in the world. Anyone who suspects that giving the poor free access to a supermarket will suddenly result in healthy food choices is probably the same idiot that thought free access to Obamacare would result in a rush to preventative healthcare services and improved health outlooks. Nope. They still buy Mountain Dew to wash down their ding-dongs just as they continue to use the ER as their primary care physician. As Forrest Gump’s mother said: “stupid is as stupid does.” Access does not equate to education, people. Or in other words, throwing money at it will not solve the problem.  Witness public school expenditure, for example. So back to Rubio, and for you progressives out there, try to follow the logic. if we, the tax-paying public, are paying the tab for your food choices, and your food choices are resulting in obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other ailments that will require medical attention, we are also paying for your medical care, then shouldn’t we be responsible for managing your health?  And if you don’t like it, then please feel free to drop out of the program. Interestingly, the left wants government to be a nanny state and have its hand in every facet of your lives, but when we talk about managing your diet, suddenly it’s all about freedom, baby. Where is the nutrition guru Michelle Obama on this issue? It’s nonsense. This is a combination of simple economics and motherly advice. If you’re going to make me pay for your meal, then you eat what I tell you, because it’s good for you. And I would rather not pay for your insulin or your cardiac bypass. And you may recall when Arizona attempted some years ago at tying drug use to state benefits. Fail your toxicology screen and no check.  That proposal met with similar outrage. This makes you wonder, maybe not you on the left, but at least those of you capable of stringing a few neurons together: what is the purpose of these social programs?  Is it for the betterment of the poor, or is it to foster dependency on the government to guarantee a self-perpetuating bureaucracy?