Posted on 09/09/2021 5:15:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
Back in January, resident Biden issued an order asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to “consider” updating food stamp benefits to reflect “the true cost of a basic healthy diet.”
When your boss asks you to consider doing something, most employees—at least those interested in keeping their jobs—know this isn’t really a request at all. Fast-forward to August 16. Not surprisingly, the USDA responded to Biden’s “request” by increasing food stamp benefits by an astounding 25 percent.
That’s a massive expansion of welfare—and it’s harmful, misguided, and illegal.
If the administration were being honest in its stated claims of trying to improve the health of Americans who use food stamps, it could have worked with policy experts and representatives in Congress to come up with an effective solution. Instead, it made the misguided decision to bypass Congress and simply throw money at the situation with no strings attached.
This will not single-handedly solve the health concerns millions of Americans face and, in the process, the Biden administration is harming families by deepening their dependence on the government. Coupled with unemployment bonuses, the child tax credit, and other welfare benefits, this administration is working overtime to deprive families of the opportunity for freedom, joy, and self-sufficiency that comes with a path forward off welfare and into the workforce.
At a time when there are more than10 million open jobs in our country, this sudden increase in food stamps reeks of political maneuvering. It’s also against the law.
To pass legal muster, the policy must meet certain expectations set out by existing regulations. And that has not happened.
USDA defends its massive expansion by pointing to a provision in the 2018 Farm Bill that requires more regular re-evaluations of the Thrifty Food Plan based on “current food prices, food composition data, consumption patterns and dietary guidance.”
But Congress’s direction to reevaluate food stamp benefits doesn’t negate USDA’s other procedural obligations. For example, USDA didn’t provide notice of the planned change or an opportunity for comments under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law designed to prevent this kind of unreasoned, politically motivated executive action.
Under the APA, as part of the rule making process, federal agencies are required to open a proposed new rule, such as the change at issue here, for comments in support or opposition before making anything final. During this time, Congress, organizations, and other individuals are afforded the opportunity to make their feelings known and share their evidence. Yet they were denied this opportunity with this food stamp increase.
USDA’s new sweeping change also means it has abandoned its cost-neutral policy, a policy that has been in place for 45 years. This policy required USDA to adjust the value of food stamp benefits periodically based on inflation while requiring that the total value of the benefits be kept in line with what they were back in 1975, again, adjusted for inflation. To do otherwise would mean that the President would decide how much is spent on food stamps rather than Congress. The abandonment of this decades-old policy without a sufficient explanation, by itself, is significant enough to also trigger APA’s requirements for notice and comments. It also means that when this policy is challenged legally, it will fail the“arbitrary and capricious”standard applied by courts—a standard courts apply when determining whether a federal agency has followed the requirements of the APA in creating its new rule.
In case the violation of two federal laws is not enough, add into the mix that USDA is increasing benefit allotments beyond what Congress has appropriated and you’ve got a clear non-starter. As a matter of statutory law, if USDA raises the dollar amount of food stamps to a level that exceeds what Congress has appropriated, federal law explicitly requires that the amount be reduced.
Political convenience is not a legal defense for ignoring the law while blindly throwing money at a problem not to solve it, but rather to buy approval ratings. State governors and attorneys general wishing to preserve our Constitution, stop the endless cycle of government dependency, and ensure the Biden administration follows the law have the grounds to challenge this illegal action under the APA and other authority—and they must.
the Law (only applicable for the little People)
is whatever Malta tells Epstein-Roberts it is.
Rarest wife and I are diligent with our diet. We eat as clean as we possibly can without direct regard for the ballooning grocery bills. We’re spending over $100/week per person to maintain this, and the bulk of our shopping occurs on the periphery of the store. Bottom line: eating healthy is EXPENSIVE.
Any attempts to make it “affordable” to eat healthy means they either increase production of healthy foods (not gonna happen) or they increase the amount of money flowing to those “impoverished” households. But then who is monitoring what they buy? More welfare money means more junk food. No one’s going to change their diet, only the volume of shit they put down their gullet.
and yet obesity is rampant among food stamp users. Maybe LESS food is what they need
It may mean they can have lobster 2 times a week rather than one. Meanwhile, hubby and I have it once a year. (New Years Day.)
Standard SOP for the Socialist Democrat Party! *SPIT*
Big Fat Mommas with nice "weaves".
The USA is the only country where poor people die of obesity.
And I know it’s VERY mean of me to say this, and I’ll most likely be picked up in a few minutes and taken to the Reeducation Camp, but, whatever happened to:
‘You don’t work, you don’t eat!’ ?
That’s the way I was raised. Even if it was just helping to pick a few vegetables from the garden as a little kid, or peeling potatoes!
It’s only illegal if it results in punishment.
More lobster!!
While I agree with your assessment that eating healthy is EXPENSIVE, the expense is somewhat mitigated by the reduced volume of what you buy.
Those who let this happen within our governing framework are the ones who need to be punished. That means pres. Biden on down. I should think that a large increase in one portion of welfare benefits like that one would necessitate a corresponding decrease in another area. We are ALL feeling the effects of inflation. Seems to me that it was much more under control when Mr. Trump was our president instead of this total loser we have now. Of course, there is also the question of who is actually pulling HIS strings?
I've always said that the U.S. has the richest poor people in the world.
Not arguing with you.
Don't know where you live or what you buy, but I live very well on $50 a week, not counting hunting and the garden.
My wife and I typically keep our food costs for two under $100 weekly, so not too different that you.
We actually avoid the Wal-Mart/Sam's Club scene because the volume packaging tends to encourage over eating to make space in the fridge or freezer, not to mention the extra time and stress required with crowd jostling.
We also have a good relationship with our local Giant Eagle store (Kroger affiliate) where the shoppers pick better stuff for curbside pickup than we would find ourselves. They are happier and remember you if you consistently give them good on-line reviews.
I would probably spend more if I had access to fresh seafood.
No chips (more expensive than a t bone!), pop, cookies, cake, processed food or other junk.
.
I agree that eating ‘healthy’ is cheaper. You look for digital coupons from the large stores. Buy the on sale seasonal fruits and vegs. 77 cent peaches now. Squash is under $1.00 per lb. Beans, rice, bulk stuff. Chicken can be a real bargain when on sale, last week it was $1.17 lb for leg quarters. I rarely buy anything in the interior of the store, except for good crackers. It can be done, you just have to put in some effort.
Eating healthy is vastly more expensive than not. You could shop solely in the middle aisles of a grocery store, fill up on breads, crackers, cereals, canned foods, and leave with a bounty that would feed a family of 4 under $200. Produce, meats, and dairy balloon that bill substantially, but they represent the far healthier options than the aforementioned list.
Payoff the Biden supporters with reckless spending policies.
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.