Posted on 06/25/2016 4:39:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
Maine Gov. Paul LePage is challenging the federal government over how to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. Under the guise of reforming SNAP, Maine’s Republican governor wants to monitor what poor people eat and drink. The governor wants to create a state-based “food-police” to control what Maine’s poorest citizens put in their grocery bags.
In pushing for the food ban, the governor is picking a page right out of the Democratic playbook. LePage impugns the motives of the opposition by invoking the Left’s favorite bogeyman – American businesses. The governor said that he could “think of only one reason why the federal government would refuse” his demand to ban certain foods: the feds are kowtowing to grocery store owners and food manufacturers. LePage accuses special interests—those pesky job creators—for standing in his way.
Emboldened by his political power, LePage has decided to push his idea of healthy-living by government fiat. A can of soda or sweet tea with lunch or a cupcake for dessert, if LePage thinks it is bad for you, it simply has to go. It is the latest example of a politician attempting to expand the nanny-state—a social engineering effort where the governor knows what is best for the low-income families of Maine.
Some public health advocates support food bans because they say a significant portion of low-income Americans struggle with obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, and other health issues that result from an unhealthy diet. However, low-income people are not the only ones suffering from diet-related ailments. Like all Americans, SNAP recipients drink soda, enjoy candy bars, and have chips with their sandwiches. If the precedent is set that the government, on the basis of public health, has the authority to dictate the food choices of the poor, what is to stop other states or the feds from regulating the dietary choices of all Americans? If your bad food choice leads to an increase in my health insurance premium, one could argue that we need the government food-police.
The governor’s proposal raises a whole set of red flags: How will a food ban be enforced? How much will the food-police cost the taxpayer for Maine to codify and enforce its food standards? What foods will be put on the government's "naughty list" and how will such a "naughty list" impact the free market? Will a preferred food list create a new lobbying class to keep certain foods on the government’s list and keep other foods off? The governor’s proposed food ban will not save taxpayer resources or shrink government. To the contrary, LePage will be creating a food bureaucracy that will result in a bigger, more intrusive government run amok.
States can’t regulate purchases under the federal and state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, so Maine had to ask the Obama administration for a waiver that no other state has received. In a letter sent to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack, the governor warned that if the USDA did not allow Maine to ban the purchase of certain foods – deemed by the governor to be unhealthy – he will scrap the entire program.
LePage wrote that he does not want his name attached to the SNAP program and will act “unilaterally, or cease Maine’s administration of the food stamp program altogether.” The Maine legislature rejected bills from the LePage administration that would have directed the governor to pursue waivers allowing the state to ban certain food purchases with food stamps in 2013 and 2015. Yet, the governor ignored the legislature and sought the waiver alone.
SNAP is funded at the federal level, but states manage the monthly benefits to individuals and assume some of those administrative costs. The USDA allows states flexibility over how the program is run, but LePage’s threat to “unilaterally act or end the program” is unprecedented. It’s his "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone” moment of threatening to ignore the Rule of Law. It’s another page out of the liberal playbook. If he doesn’t like the law, the governor will ignore the law.
If the governor suspends SNAP or—without legal authority—amends the program, LePage will be inviting the federal government to interfere in ways that will threaten the Constitution's federalist structure. Like the governor, President Obama, himself, has a record of acting outside the law when it has suited his political aims. LePage might force President Obama’s hand to intervene in an extra-Constitutional manner.
The trouble with the governor’s proposal is that it undermines conservative principles; ignores the Rule of law, and, damages our federalist system. Conservatives value the individual. We believe that any individual — rich or poor— has the capacity to thrive and make life better. The heart of conservatism is a profound respect for the dignity of every man and woman. Sadly, the governor’s food ban belies common-sense principles, and it creates a gateway for government intrusion onto our kitchen tables.
Whether it’s under the guise of entitlement reform or public health, some politicians may favor food monitoring and restrictions because it’s an easy way to mislead voters to think they’re being good stewards of taxpayer money. But, food restrictions in SNAP will create a food bureaucracy mimicking the complexity of other regulatory boondoggles. Bureaucrats will have to analyze and categorize the 300,000 food and beverage products on the market now and the additional 15,000 food items introduced every year. If the precedent is set that the government on the basis of public health has the authority to monitor the food choices of the poor, Governor LePage will set us down a slippery slope toward the food-police regulating and keeping watch over the diets of all Americans.
You forget: this is SNAP, i.e. food stamps. It’s the government subsidizing food purchases. Unlike what the idiot bloomberg was doing, this doesn’t affect those who want to buy their beer, soda, or salty food with their own money.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Maine has an incredibly large part of it’s population that is welfare dependent. Handouts shouldn’t be pleasant. And Gov. LePage is making those handouts less pleasant. I suspect he is also trying to scuttle the food stamp program in Maine so it either goes away, or is taken over by the Feds and they get to deal with the administrative burden.
I would agree, except this is people spending taxpayer money in the form of SNAP benefits - this is not people spending their own money.
For these programs ? The taxpayers get to decide. If they wish to subsidize junk or gourmet food for these recipients, that’s up to them. Frankly, the government needs to get out of the business of welfare altogether. So much waste and fraud.
And LePage knows poverty better than any other Governor in the United States. Folks should read up on his biography and Dickensian childhood.
This is not the same as trying to regulate what independent people eat and drink, à la New York City. On the contrary, this is telling those who use our money to buy their food that they cannot use it for junk food or luxury food. There is nothing wrong with that. If they use their own money to buy food, then they can buy whatever they want.
This is no different than telling welfare recipients they must be clean on drug tests in order to collect our money.
As far as I’m concerned, people who select to depend on the government for survival really have no right to use taxpayer money frivolously, whether it is for drugs or junk food.
In every other situation, the government puts strict controls on how money is spent. A scientist who applies for a grant based on plans to study the molecular profile of stage 3 melanoma cells had better be ready to show how he spent that grant money studying stage 3 melanoma cells. A construction company that wins a bid to build a road between Baltimore and Philadelphia had better use the money to build that road. Etc. The government can and should tie strings to government money—it is, after all, our money and we have a right to see it used wisely.
I would argue that the governor is not controlling what people eat, but rather what people buy with EBT cards.
They can still purchase food on the banned list but must do so with their own money.
This jerk tries to be the libertarian and does not get Le Page, putting words in his mouth.
Read this which is the point:
“...if the USDA did not allow Maine to ban the purchase of certain foods – deemed by the governor to be unhealthy – he will scrap the entire program.”
“LePage is anti-American.”
Really? Perhaps then you should take a look at the rules for the WIC program, which is similar to food stamps. Under that program, the food types that you can purchase are very limited. The idea being to subsidize food purchases for healthy foods for women, infants, and young children. Only food stamps allow you to buy twinkies, soda pop, and potato chips.
Oh and another thing, perhaps out west there isn’t so much fraud with SNAP/food stamps, but on the east coast it’s rife. One of the scams that is very popular in appalachia is for folks to buy soda at one store with their SNAP, and then sell it at a discount to another store and pocket the proceeds. This proposal would make that a lot more difficult as you couldn’t buy soda.
There are already similar restrictions on WIC. Why not lobby to get rid of those? There has to be SOME incentive to get off the government teat without abandoning the actual purpose of the program.
Why SHOULD I pay for an EBTer’s lobster? Is the idea of SNAP to make sure people get basic healthy food? How much more basic food could be purchased if sale of lobster on EBT cards was banned?
The trouble with SNAP is that it is a Federal program to begin with. Why should residents of my home state pay for the gimmedats in Maine?
Let Maine pay for Maine, or not. But, do not take it from me.
I do not want the government interfering in my lifestyle either. That’s why even during a hard time in which we probably could have received food stamps, we didn’t apply.
Whoever provides for your family gets a say in how you live. Don’t want government interference? Don’t take government handouts.
WIC vouchers are extremely specific, food stamps could be changed in a similar manner.
Well if I am buying their food, I have something to say about it IMO.
i don’t want to have to pay for their food and then also pay to cover medical costs from their poor eating habits.
Of course I wouldn’t like it...but I buy my own beer, soda, and salt.
Exacly
Here is my solution. Establish EBT grocery stores that are for food stamp people only. The stores will carry only staple items and no luxury items. Food stamps are no good anywhere else.
“Politicians have no business micromanaging people’s eating and drinking habits”
I disagree. They have a right to micromanage people’s eating habits when the taxpayer is paying for those eating habits.
I don’t think all food stamp recipients are leeches...when my parents were divorced my mom applied for food stamps and she had a job that paid nothing (of course we were denied in part because we are white people)...
that said i 1000% agree with disallowing the purchase of soda, potato chips and junk food with food stamps and have said this for the longest time...they should only be allowed to purchase vegetables, milk, water, bread, meat,etc..
often times I see people paying with food stamps they are severely overweight and i would imagine in poor health (not all times)...hence taxpayers are not just paying for the food stamps but major medicals costs as well.
Fox News had that report a few years ago about that guy in California buying lobsters every week with his ebt card. The guy was unemployed but didn’t even bother to look for a job because he could play the guitar or the drums.
They do if I'm paying for it.
We’ve already given up a great deal of our freedom.
You're not free to squander MY money.
Let lePage mind his own business and we’ll mind ours.
LePage is doing is job, in slashing spending and looking out for the taxpayers....a rare bird in today's politics.
And speaking of minding your own business....justify that turd-world Califorina!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.