Press "Enter" to skip to content

Republicans Surprised That Their Farm Bill Doesn’t Cut Food Stamps

An eager reader waves at me Alan Guebert's column on surprises in the Farm Bill and asks what I think. I think I'd like to hear an explanation from Rep. Kristi Noem.

Guebert notes that Republicans in Congress are upset that the Farm Bill they passed a year and a half late doesn't really save the money on Food Stamps on which they had so eagerly, cold-heartedly, and class-warriorly grandstood. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack responded that states are simply working hard to make sure their citizens know and sign up for all the federal benefits for which they are eligible.

Oddly, the Republicans grilling Secretary Vilsack didn't sound upset about USDA working hard to educate corporate farmers about the Farm Bill handouts available to them:

Also on this issue, later in the hearing, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.) noted that, “In light of the education commentary that we’ve heard here today, it’s interesting to note that FSA — these are news releases from FSA which come out regularly — 'USDA reminds producers of approaching deadline on CRP general sign-up.' 'SURE disaster program deadline approaches for 2011 crops.' 'Farmers and ranchers are reminded that the sign-up period for supplemental revenue assistance payments for 2009 losses has opened.' 'Enrollment reminder for direct and countercyclical payments and other FSA programs.'

"My God, if we can be getting notices out for all of these other efforts, we sure ought to be able to get notices out and education out to our farmers about dealing with their participating in the food stamp program" ["House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture- Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request: Highlights," FarmPolicy.com, 2014.03.15].

Confronted with the conflict of their war on the poor with their handouts for the high and mighty, Iowa Republican Rep. Tom Latham exhibits contemporary conservative know-nothingness:

With the hot air in his balloons gone, Latham retreated to the safety of his own mind. “I know what I know,” he told the secretary.

Which, it seems, is not to be altered by facts, reality or reason.

Little wonder why Congress got the farm bill math wrong: it knows what it knows and everyone else can just shut up.

Try using that logic next time the boss asks why the cows aren’t fed and the corn isn’t planted [Alan Guebert, "'I Know What I Know': Hot Air Still Flying with Farm Bill," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2015.03.27].

South Dakota's clueless Congresswoman fits this pattern of constructing her own talking-point reality perfectly. She knows darn well food stamps do good. She knows darn well food stamps is essential to getting the urban majority in Congress to give a hoot about subsidizing our state's agriculture industry. So she signs on to a Farm Bill that makes it look like she's a crusading conservative but which allows states to continue drawing about as much food aid as before her and her fellow Republicans' two-year tantrum.

I know what I know: Rep. Noem didn't achieve the big ideological Farm Bill goal that she'll be out telling conservative voters she did achieve. Image over substance, imagination over reality... and talking points over practical problem solving. That's the Republican Congress that we need to change.

50 Comments

  1. Jerry 2014.03.27

    Ms. NOem has been too busy trying to kill national parks to pay attention to such things as feeding our hungry.

  2. Charlie Johnson 2014.03.27

    In all likelihood, the 2014 Farm Bill will require more spending than the previous Farm Bill not because of food stamp spending but because of subsidized federal crop insurance. The liability to the American taxpayer is extremely great since the program is open ended with no payment limits and requires RMA(USDA) to cover premium subsidies to producers, commissions to insurance companies, and coverage for indemnities when crop failures occur. Grain producers and insurance companies take on little or no risk with the program because the taxpayer always covers the front end and back end both. Also to add salt to the financial wound of taxpayers, under the new Farm Bill, shallow losses(deductible portion of the loss)are paid out to producers under new USDA programs.

  3. Jerry 2014.03.27

    Exactly Charlie Johnson, this will be an even greater burden on taxpayers. Farmers are now just like Wall Street bankers, they can say they plant things and collect if they grow or not. What a bunch of hooey.

  4. Winston 2014.03.27

    What I do not understand about the big Food Stamps debate is how so many people who try to underfund Food Stamps or are just opposed to the program are often wealthy, upper middle-income, or even middle class folks who never think twice about helping out at a local food banquet or food bank. What's the difference?

    Well, the difference is that it is not coming from your taxes, but are you not still taxed if you give away something for free? If you think that Food Stamps is an enabling social program which makes people dependent and "lazy," could you not say the same about the food banquets and the food banks too?

    Now out of fairness there are those who do neither. They have a distain for the Food Stamps program and probably don't help out at the local food banquet or food bank, but I think they are a part of a small minority. There are many folks in the Food Stamps debate who have a dubious position towards it and I believe it needs to be highlighted.

    That said, as a liberal, I do believe there should be some reforms to the Food Stamp program, however. Did you know you can buy ice cream with Food Stamps? My wife is a grocer and she says it happens legally all the time. Now, I understand the whole ramifications with the dairy lobby and Food Stamps and why this might happen, but with our technology today (Yes, G.H.W. Bush we do have scanners now in our grocery stores (1990)….) and have had for sometime, I think registers should be programed to prevent Food Stamp purchases for things like ice cream when it allows the consumer to buy the more expensive name brand in particular.

    It is recognizing situations like this and remedying them which would go far in enhancing the overall reputation of Food Stamps, while keeping costs in check without denying the recipients a sound nutritional purchase and eventual meal.

  5. lesliengland 2014.03.27

    winston, something about telling snap users what to do with it is highly debateable, and probably not desireable, even to the extent of porn and other addictive products; it is all over the net so will have to search and attach later.

  6. Joan Brown 2014.03.27

    From what I have heard there is going to be a percentage taken away from food stamp recipients over a certain number of years. I don't think the recipients should be able to use them in convenience stores, and they never used to be able to. Several years ago I had an elderly neighbor lady(one of those that think they are better than others) and she was whining to me about people shouldn't be able to buy diapers, toilet tissue, etc. with their food stamps. I had a heck of a time getting it through her head that they can't. She said but the lady ahead of me put everything that was in her cart on the counter and everything got scanned at the same time. I finally told her that the scanner itself separates the food and non-food items and she replied she didn't know that. This was back before the SNAP cards were used. Winston, are you aware that the Food stamp program is intended as a supplement to help with the regular grocery budget. Therefore, I can't see what difference it makes what a person buys with their food stamps, because when they run out of the allotment they will have to use cash to make up for it. Basically what it amounts to is the food stamps get put in the same bucket as the grocery budget. In the long run it will all come out of the food budget bucket.

  7. mike from iowa 2014.03.27

    Congressweasels should not be allowed to take advantage of government largesse. Remember at least 14 wingnuts voted subsidies for themselves while slashing foodstamps for the poor and elderly and military. Congressweasels are way overpaid for what little they actually do.

  8. John Tsitrian 2014.03.27

    I dunno, Winston, why should people have their choices taken away from them just because they're poor? I don't like the idea of the government being the arbiter of which foods are good or bad. Do we empower a government panel to sort through probably tens of thousands of food items in the market to determine what's approved and what isn't? Just seems like an impractical, if not impossible, task. Then of course there are the political considerations driven by Big Corn. Rich or poor, I just think it's an American birthright to make free choices in a free marketplace.

  9. John Tsitrian 2014.03.27

    Joan, in the inner cities, convenience stores are often the only place for poor people to buy food.

  10. MJL 2014.03.27

    I agree with John about inner cities and in some small rural communities, the closest store for miles is the gas station.

    Winston, the anti-ice cream reaction for food stamps has been talked many times. This is the USDA explanation for why there isn't an attempt to control it:
    The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.

    Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
    Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
    Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

    http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

  11. Robin Page 2014.03.27

    Gee Winston, while you are taking away the ice cream, don't let those poor kids have birthday cakes, or soda pop, or anything that might make them feel like they are just like the rich kids on the other side of town.

  12. rollin potter 2014.03.27

    Hey Winston, smarten up!!!! How much has the state of south dakota and the federal government stuck into those dairies that eventually make ice cream with the tax payers money that these same lower income people pay in sales tax!!!!!

  13. Charlie Johnson 2014.03.27

    The real big takers in the farm bill is not the SNAP recipients but rather the grain producers operating under a socialistic system with most all risk underwritten by the taxpayer. Yes, I am farmer and grain producer myself.

  14. Jerry 2014.03.27

    What is ice cream made of anyway? What does that have to do with food? Show me one thing that ice cream is made of that has to do with farming. Just one thing. Besides milk and stuff like that, show me one thing. The problem is the ice. We all know that as ice is just some recipe for water, so that is what the big complaint is, and we all know that water comes in a plastic container.

  15. Roger Cornelius 2014.03.27

    John pretty much sums up what I think about SNAP. It would also be costly to implement what food can and cannot be purchased. Personally, I don't really care what poor people eat, I'm just glad they get to eat and hopefully make healthy choices. At one time in the SNAP debates it was mentioned that the Dept. of Agricultural was planning to do more in educating users about nutrition and comparative shopping.

    I have the feeling that the real reason government doesn't control food purchases is because of lobbyist representing everybody in the ag industry to retail outlets. How much does money does Walmart earn from food stamps? Probably a number with more zeros than we can imagine.
    Of course, Walmart is just part, add other chain grocers and any group that profits from SNAP.
    Kristi Noem's fight against SNAP users is outrageous. Pardon the expression, but you don't poop where you eat, Kristi.

  16. John Tsitrian 2014.03.27

    Jerry, obviously you haven't heard about Big Ice.

  17. rollin potter 2014.03.27

    oh jerry,I feel sorry for you!!!!! you don't understand where ice cream comes from!!!!!! milk comes from farming and ice cream comes from milk!!!! It is my sympathy to you that you don't understand the complete circle!!!

  18. Jerry 2014.03.27

    You fellers are correct, poor observations on my part. I went out and bought myself an agcyclopedia so I could at least see pictures of the beasts that we are speaking of. Amazing there are few white cows but many brown ones and ones with big polka dots. I will delve further to see why milk is white and ice cream has swirls and chips and stuff in it and why it is so cold.

  19. Donald Pay 2014.03.27

    Sometimes you have to be poor to understand that things like a soda-ice cream float can be cheaper, and will last longer through a month, than milk.

    The down-the-nose glance of those who think they should control what the poor eat is often just their own ignorance of what food prices are. And, no, it's not healthy, but taxpayers don't make it easy to buy healthy food on SNAP benefits. Just in the last couple years SNAP benefits have been able to be used at some farmers' markets to buy fresh produce. Some folks look down their noses at that.

  20. Winston 2014.03.27

    Wow! Ice cream, ice cream, we all scream for ice cream!

    lesliengand, I need to have you elaborate a little more for me, please.

    Joan Brown, I think it does matter what a person buys with their Food Stamps. The Food Stamp program should promote nutrition - analogous to the movement spearheaded by our Our First Lady with the school lunch program. What people do with their own discretionary income is their business, but a Federal program which promotes nutrition should promote nutrition; and to the degree we look the other way we should be getting our "biggest bang for our buck" which enhances the buying power of the Food Stamp consumer either directly or indirectly with their discretionary funds, and you do that by requiring such consumers to buy the cheaper alternative. I never said "no" to ice cream, I questioned the willingness of the Food Stamp program to allow a consumer to buy Magnum ice cream, when generic should be good enough.

    John, the reality of poor itself destroys almost all choices. Programs like Food Stamps try to correct this and empower the poor and they should. No choice is lost if the alternative is not having a seat at the table (no pun intended). I do not have a problem with the government as an arbiter, because the government is us, and I like the FDA as an example. If the government has the capability to place nutritional labels on all foods, then why does it not have the ability to judge what are the foods which should be allowed within the Food Stamps program? They already do it with the school lunch program. As far as your libertarian argument, made within the context of a program which is itself socialistic (not that that is bad thing when it helps to feed people) I find perplexing. But to answer your libertarian concern, well I demur to the logic of our First Lady in terms of the Federal school lunch program and I believe government programs should be for the good and to promote obvious goods and not create an opportunity for bad. The intent of the Federal Food Stamps program was to promote nutrition and not choice itself, especially when it is an obviously bad choice, that should be left to ones own discretionary income, which is where your libertarian argument should and can find its appropriate place.

    MJL, I never advocated getting rid of ice cream in terms of the Food Stamp program. I just think Food Stamp consumers should be required to opt for the cheaper alternative. But if you were to prevent Food Stamp recipients from buying ice cream, would not the assessment of its true value be quite easy and easy to eliminate absence the dairy lobby's power?

    Robin, I am not taking ice cream away from poor kids, I specifically said "when it allows the consumer to buy the more expensive name brand in particular." Your comments, however, heed possibly the need to keep non nutritious ice cream on the allowable Food Stamp list; but based on Joan's comments, I guess an argument could be made that ice cream should come from ones discretionary income instead.

    Rollin, you have effectively identified the cheap food policy (Federal farm aid) which we have in this country and we all benefit from. Indirectly, I guess we are all on Food Stamps, aren't we? But was our cheap food policy intended to make ice cream cheap, if it does? You have not justified a Food Stamp policy rather you have identified a problem with our cheap food policy. I might also add, that South Dakota sales taxes do not fund Federal farm aid programs - and more importantly, if you did prevent Food Stamp customers from buying ice cream with Food Stamps how do you negatively effect State sales tax revenues? They still can buy more nutritional food with their Stamps and are Food Stamp purchases even charged a sales tax? I personally do not know the answer to that last question. Not to mention, how much does the state of South Dakota actually gain in sales tax revenues from Food Stamp purchased ice cream (if it is taxed that is)..?…. most likely very little.

    Donald, I bet most farmers' markets take debit and credit cards now days, and if not, they soon will with the help of Square technology. As far as the "soda-ice cream" concept, I am all for it, but it should be of the generic kind. Doesn't Medicare and Medicaid require generic prescription drugs whenever possible?…. Come to think of it….

    This discourse between us all is very fascinating. I actually thought someone from the Right was going to jump on me about my hypocrisy argument concerning the distinction between the Food Stamps program and food banquets and food banks, rather I was challenged by what I assume are liberals or libertarians. Some of you may be neither and demur to the practicality of my point, but I think it is practical. If a Federal government can label products from a nutritional standpoint then it should be able to assess them from a purchase standpoint as well. But that said, I think this discourse shows the emotional reaction which often dictates public policy causing policy options to be left to the spin machines of the Right and Left and any one who moves from the protection of one of their two carefully crafted talking point perspectives and sound bites wonders into a political jungle of the unknown resulting often in the lesser of two evil policy choices for us all - as opposed to a choice option which enhances the best of one of two positions, which in this case is the preservation and the maintenance of a sound and just Food Stamp program advocating its initial intent of nutrition and goes beyond the rhetoric of the Left and Right who often claim the following two mantras, "You are taking ice cream away from poor kids" versus "The poor are lazy, go get a job, they really don't need Food Stamps."

  21. Jerry 2014.03.27

    Winston, are you lactose intolerant? You sound bitter about some folks having a little ice cream. How much do you think the average food stamp purchaser purchases? That could be your next mission to place yourself in a supermarket of your choice and monitor the purchases of ice cream and whodoneit. Let us know.

  22. Roger Cornelius 2014.03.27

    The reality of what the food stamp debate comes down to is the resentment that someone is getting something for free and they are not. Never mind the fact that many of those most critical of SNAP are themselves directly or indirectly beneficiaries of government social programs (i.e. Noem).

    While Winston's lengthy post is interesting reading, it would be a stretch to get all the improvements he suggests past the Walmart lawyers and lobbyists.

    Republicans may whine and carry on about the food stamp program, but in reality it is necessary for them to support it because it enriches their donors. If there was ever a critical or close vote to eliminate SNAP, which way do you think Republicans would vote?

    Those in congress that vote consistently against SNAP do so knowing there NO vote is meaningless.

    How many of the main street mom and pop grocers across America would survive drastic cuts or elimination of SNAP? Just as food stamp users may have become accustomed to getting their monthly groceries, mom and pop are accustomed to their monthly profit. Are Republicans and food stamp haters really going to do that to them?

  23. Winston 2014.03.27

    Jerry, I am not against people having ice cream even with the help of Food Stamps, but does it have to be Magnum ice cream?

    Plus, your harping on the ice cream denial claim only further demonstrates the frenzy of my thesis in that last paragraph of my aforementioned comments.

    Ice cream is merely an empirical example. There are many other food items which could fit the brand name ice cream example.

    Why do we have Food Stamps to begin with? Because some people can't afford to buy food on their own. So why not empower them with greater buying power by placing pricing guidelines into the utilization of the Food Stamps program to begin with.

    Oh, I now, some will go off on me with a libertarian argument at about this time, but the Food Stamps program was not design to place in motion a libertarian experiment, it was established to offer nutritional food to those who cannot afford it. This is about buying power and not choice - a buying power which gives you greater nutrition. The alternative lessens your nutritional opportunities.

  24. Winston 2014.03.28

    Roger, you are right and my mention of the dairy lobby in my first comment, I think, on this blog piece acknowledges your very accurate concerns about Walmart and lobbyists.

  25. Jerry 2014.03.28

    Yeah Winston, I think you are afraid of folks having ice cream. Somehow you think that is the Mercedes Benz of foods kind of like lobster or some such thing. Whatever your definition of food is, or mine for that matter, does not matter. It falls under a product that is available to the poor and disadvantaged, simple as that. I did challenge you though to find out, just how much of this is being purchased by food stamps to raise your ire. Did you ever think that this ice cream could be for a special occasion? A young child's birthday for example or maybe, something more sinister like a tonsillectomy . You have probably never seen poverty up close. If you live in South Dakota, you do not have to go far from your own threshold to witness this. We do not tend to live high off the hog, so to speak, and most do not have the resources to splurge. If there is a purchase of ice cream, then that means that there is not a purchase of some other food item, as the money will only go so far.

    Personally, I would rather see a dairy commodity consumed, that not only helps local business folks, but also farming and ranching in general, than tobacco for an example. Stop trying to punish those less fortunate than yourself Winston. Always remember that you are but a bump on the melon away from utilizing that same safety net you disdain. It sure as hell ain't easy to make use of it either.

  26. John Tsitrian 2014.03.28

    Winston, taking poor people's choices away from them is invasive and demeaning in that it assumes that because one is poor, one can not make choices that are acceptable to you. As to Michelle Obama's failed school lunch program, school districts all over the country are dropping it. Here's a CBS piece on it from last summer: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michelle-obama-touted-federal-healthy-lunch-program-leaves-bad-taste-in-some-school-districts-mouths/ If anything, it demonstrates the limits of activist government when it comes to controlling human behavior, and makes for a poor example in support of your case. Though a personal belief, I think giving charity with strings attached degrades both the giver and the recipient, and stand by that ethos. Take the last word.

  27. Winston 2014.03.28

    Jerry, no where does my idea take ice cream from the poor or from Food Stamps recipients. You obviously did not read my pieces. I said in my first piece, "when it allows the consumer to buy the more expensive name brand in particular." I have also made the distinction between Magnum name brand and a generic brand. You, however, are defending ice cream as a dairy product, when to me it is a dairy product of immense processed sugar.

    John, there is still choice in my idea. Are you going to buy ice cream or something that is more nutritional is the choice. I do not believe the choice should be between Magnum or generic, however. Especially, If the problem to be addressed is suppose to be about nutrition to begin with. Are the failures of the First Lady's school lunch program actually failures or merely the reality of dealing with those who are dragging their feet on the problem. Obesity is a major problem for our youth today, so you are telling me that because a child or many children are too obese to do a push-up or a set-up that we should scrap the Presidential Fitness Program too? My proposal is not degrading, you can still have your ice cream, if you want. Activist government is the reason we have the Food Stamps Program to begin with. If we lived in your libertarian world there would be mass hunger in the streets except for the food banquets and food banks and the dent they would put into the problem - a concept which is just as taxing as the Food Stamp Program, but for some reason many on the Right in particular beg to differ.

  28. lesliengland 2014.03.28

    haven't had time to look too deep here but winston's initial take struck me as restrictive. apparently some la. libertarian publication in the last year said sex toys or edible pants were snap purchases, but the article has since been debunked. fwiw, standing in line judging people is not my cup of tea.

  29. Winston 2014.03.28

    Mine neither, I got win of this from a grocery employee who recently witnessed someone buy over $ 78.00 worth of ice cream with Food Stamps and no other items in their cart. I guess that employee was just judging people….

  30. Jerry 2014.03.28

    The employee can judge all he or she wants. Maybe that someone had lost his or her marbles. Remember, there are mentally ill people out there that can qualify for food stamps. What if the ice cream was a donation to a church for desert after supper? Winston, how much does a gallon of this stuff cost? How many gallons were there involved? Maybe we can get "Jeff" to beat a confession out of the dude.

  31. Winston 2014.03.28

    Jerry, you raise a good point. Now a church might be on Food Stamps, perhaps we can justify it under the Bush Administration's Faith Base Initiative (who cares about the separation doctrine…jk….). I was told it was of premium quality. As far as your mentally ill theory, well, if we had greater governance of the Food Stamp program this wouldn't happen and this given customer would still have their Food Stamps to use for other more nutritional items…..

  32. Winston 2014.03.28

    Jerry, I am not interested in making it harder to enroll in the SNAP program, nor have I ever suggested that, but I do believe we have the technology to better guide the nutritional purposes of this program.

    However, your attempt to turn this into an enrollee issue demonstrates how those opposed to my idea concerning SNAP are often taking an emotional rather than a scholastic viewpoint towards this matter. Since you are now licensing yourself to go somewhere that I have never mentioned or suggested, perhaps your previous judging allegations come from an assumptive quality found within yourself….

  33. Jerry 2014.03.28

    Eloquently stated sir. I can almost hear your soothing words telling Safeway and small town mom and pop corner stores, that they had better put in a more expensive scanner to make sure that ole Jimmy is not buying the wrong container of ice cream. You can tell the grocer that what you aim to do is make their business run more efficiently to curb ice cream fraud. You may mention that price is no object as they can simply raise their prices to offset this little dust up. Problem solved.

  34. Winston 2014.03.28

    Well, Jerry, I like I stated earlier, the lobbyist will never allow my ideas to come to fruition, don't worry about it. More expensive scanners, are you kidding me? It is just a manner of reprogramming the ones they have. Before we had scanners, the grocers were forced to separate the items between SNAP and non-SNAP items and then the SNAP purchases had to be purchased with red Food Stamp like currency and the change was then given back with such currency. We all survived that and I think we can all survive this nil problem too, if we can get beyond the lobbyists.

  35. Nick Nemec 2014.03.28

    Winston, your ice cream story sounds like an urban legend. And if it isn't, who cares? It's food, at least the person wasn't using it to buy drugs, booze or tobacco. If a system was introduced to limit purchases of various products to one per customer would you be happier?

    Why does the Right always have to pitch a fit about poor people and their use of SNAP? Would you support increasing the minimum wage so fewer people would even qualify for SNAP and those who do would qualify for less? If not stop worrying about what food items someone buys.

  36. Winston 2014.03.28

    Nick, I am no member of the Right, but I am a cheap liberal, who believes in a greater utilization of the buying power of the SNAP program for its recipients with a nutritional bent. My ice cream story is not an urban legend unless you are going to say my wife is an urban legend, who experienced it.

    As far as your minimum wage concerns, well, I agree with Senator Warren, I think the minimum wage should be much higher than the proposed $ 10.10 per hour. If we ever achieve that dream then I guess we will all have to sit back and see how that new reality would effect many of the qualifiers within our safety net and their ramifications, won't we?

    Like Jerry, you are allowing your emotions to define the debate and you should heed the last paragraph of the second major comment that I have made on this post piece concerning it.

  37. Roger Cornelius 2014.03.28

    The ice cream story may well be true, I'll take Winston at his word.
    There is a cause for alarm. One person, possibly a mentally handicapped person or someone buying ice cream for the church pays for it with $78 in food stamps. There was no mention as to whether the alleged ice cream was generic or a popular brand.
    Now, because this ice cream purchase is deemed outlandish, wasting our tax dollars, and the guy doesn't know how to shop, so we now need to revamp the SNAP program so poor people can only buy cheap food and food the Food Stamps Cops say is appropriate.

  38. Jerry 2014.03.28

    Here is what will make the ice cream story irrelevant. http://ctmirror.org/ct-senate-raises-state-minimum-wage-to-10-10-by-2017/

    South Dakota needs to step up as well, it is long past time. Raise the wage and take people off the food stamps and give them hope and pride for all the hard work they do. Let us be grateful for them and show them their efforts mean something.

  39. Winston 2014.03.28

    No, I mentioned that it was of a premium quality, and your right, it is merely an empirical example, and perhaps this story is an example where I have become emotional rather than scholastic in my argument.

    However, I do believe we can do a better job of utilizing the SNAP program without denying people access, without denying people nutrition, and without denying them ice cream if that is what they want… as long as it is generic.

    The Farm Bill debate recently, in terms of the SNAP provisions, I thought was a very disingenuous debate because the Left allowed the Right to debate this issue in the aggregate sense in terms of the amount of dollars to be allocated towards it. Rather the Left should have been more innovated with ideas like what I am suggesting through greater policing of the purchases, which could conceivably enhance the buying power of the recipients and or reduce the cost of the program without denying anyone access to the program who currently has access to it or could in the future, because it could have called out the phoniness of the Rights true attitude towards the SNAP program, which I allege is to kill or significantly reduce the SNAP program and not to improve it; but fortunately the Left allowed the debate to exist upon tradition talking points and sound bites. As I mentioned earlier, maybe that is all we can expect from any political debate today, which further explains the debate I have had with many of you on this manner; which is very unfortunate if we are ever going to think out of the box and make government even more efficient, which was the intent of my initial comments….Except I still want to have that debate with someone from the Right about Food Stamps versus food banquets and food banks….Oh well.

    By the way, do these Food Stamp cops have Segways?… It could be a movie.

  40. Winston 2014.03.28

    Jerry, you are definitely right, but it should be even more than $ 10.10 per hour.

  41. Jerry 2014.03.28

    You must crawl before you can walk. We need a start and the should be 10.10 now! not phased in, now.

  42. Roger Cornelius 2014.03.28

    As an excellent shopper and a cook, I wanted to also comment on Winston's push for generic food products.

    I've found that you really have to experiment with them, the problem with them they aren't consistent, some items are good to okay, while others are a complete waste of money. There is a reason they are called generic.

    For instance, some pasta products are good, while others cook up gummy not what you do them. Canned goods can often have twigs and more juice than product.

    Generic products may save you money at the check out, but cost you when they ruin a dish. There have been several times I wished I had spent the .13 cents more for a better product.

  43. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.03.29

    Winston, I understand what you are saying. I'm pretty sure the biggest problem with more restrictions on SNAP, like generics only for example, comes at the checkout. Scanners are programmed to separate SNAP-eligible foods from others, but I think sorting it all according to brands would be a huge mess.

    It's not always easy to find generics for some foods either. I shop at Rainbow Foods. I know that the store brand there is Roundy's. But there is no generic ground beef. On the other hand, there is a brand named Clear Choice which is almost always the cheapest. It's also highest in salt, sugar and fat.

    If I went to the HyVee in Sioux Falls, I'd know nothing about brands that weren't national.

    I grew up on a farm where we always had big vegetable gardens, plus our own beef, pork and chicken. I can cook just about anything beginning with a few raw ingredients. I know how to turn a bag of hard, red beans into a soft, edible protein. I can bake just about anything if I have flour, eggs, sugar, salt and baking powder. I know how to roast a chicken or a big chunk of beef, roast or lamb so that it's tender, moist and tasty.

    I gave those examples, not to boast, but to contrast. When I grew up, every female knew that stuff. We grew up at home with a mother who was at home. We cooked with her. We learned how to sift flour, measure brown sugar, beat egg whites to peaks, etc.

    People of later generations didn't have a similar upbringing. Maybe mom worked and so brought a pizza home so she could rest her aching feet. Kids have different schedules, parents have less time.

    Declining income levels include minimal kitchen equipment. No functioning oven is common. No crock-pot, one or two odd-sized pots without lids, a lousy knife or two, etc. But they have a microwave. You can get those for $60, less for used.

    It's not necessarily that values are screwed up, people don't care, etc. Many times their skills are quite limited, and their experience and knowledge pool is too shallow.

  44. lesliengland 2014.03.29

    capitalism doesn't work very well does it?

    it is silly to tip my toe into this debate however i feel jerry's sentiments are the correct liberal view while winston seems to have perhaps a union represented grocery store employee/wife that has a big view of how SNAP works in the real world.

    her grocer employer is going to make the biggest profit regardless so it sells the cheapest, most non-nutritional but addictive (nearly) food for the highest price (sweets in all forms), while the government is charged to feed the poor but ebt cards, food stamps, or other welfare vehicles involve free choice of the user so in someone's eyes (without having the whole story) luxurious or ill informed or inefficient choices could corrupt the system, costing the taxpayer too much money!

    so what? the poor are greedy and lazy and when one of them is injured they hire a contingent fee lawyer. and there are too many tort lawyers for the right. better regulate capitalism. too many voting booths too. whenever one special interest group has more power than its opposition, it tries to change the law for its own benefit. too many lobbyists, we on the left say. Noem's ag subsidized constituents complain about the poors' purchases with food stamps from their all-encompassing check-out line vantage points.

    remove cards or stamps or currency and we know how awful the commodities programs were/are. vendors' entrepreneurial spirit kills users with delivery of substandard products of poor nutritional quality.

    this is a mean spirited issue the right has dug itself into, is incapable (for whatever reason) of seeing the other (left) side, and without the expertise of a nutritionist, economist, grocer, and welfare advocate, anecdotal evidence is an ineffective metric.

    so what does the right do? SPIN. call "welfare" an "entitlement". that's all it takes to get winston's wife all tied up in a knot. south dakota's famed (infamous) work ethic takes over from there.

    obama has said inequality is the preeminent issue of his term. this blog shows he is likely correct. democrats need to row in the same direction! (sorry winston-no personal shot intended)

  45. Roger Cornelius 2014.03.29

    Equality is also an issue here.

    Since food stamps are a part of the farm bill this a fair comparison.

    When a farmer receives a farm subsidy of $125,000 and is need of a new vehicle, should he be limited on his purchase? You know, he has to buy a Chevy Impala and not a Cadillac. If he wants to buy a Ford product, should he be restricted to buying a Ford Focus and not a Lincoln?

    Do farmers have to account for any part of their government welfare and scrutinized as food stamp users are?

  46. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.03.29

    Excellent comparison Roger.

  47. Winston 2014.03.29

    Roger, you are absolutely right. The SNAP program is only an example. All Federal programs should be under greater scrutiny, but this blog piece only dealt with the SNAP program and so did I.

    Speaking of the Farm Bill, however, every time I witness Rep. Noem being interviewed from her very nice and stately ranch home, I cannot help but think about the $ 3 million in Federal farm subsidies which her farm/ranch has received over the years.

    lesliengland, no "personal shot" taken. I appreciate your comments, but regardless of the Federal program, efficiency and effectiveness should be at the heart of its goal. When you say "democrats need to row in the same direction" I would agree, but if the Democratic leadership allows the Republicans to define the debate over SNAP in the financial aggregate, then it is the Republicans and not the Democrats who are doing the real rowing in the issue. My call for greater efficiency in SNAP or any Federal program by the Democrats can effectively call the bluff on the Republicans' true views towards many Federal programs like SNAP and place the Democrats in the real leadership role of this or any Federal program. I might add one caveat to my agreement with you on this issue, however, and that is that too often, as I mentioned much earlier in this blog piece discourse, both Democrats and Republicans or the Left and Right are too often the foot soldiers of a rigorous talking points/sound bite debate that results in a marginal effective policy in the end, and unless one within a given Party or philosophy is willing to think out side of the box then we will be continually enslaved to a less efficient government and a less ensuing honest debate surrounding that given public policy concern.

    As far as my wife, believe it or not, she is not any thing as political as I am. She sees everyday how SNAP feeds people in need and together we are aware of two individuals in our extended family that have directly benefited from its existence, but she found the ice cream event, she personally experienced, to be odd. After I told her she was gaining notoriety on a blog site over that experience and how many were not sympathetic to her concern, she then reminded me that she had also personally witnessed a customer brag to her that she was using her SNAP money to fund the food for a bachelorette party; but I guess the libertarians on this site would say so what to that, and some would say that was just one of the customers meals for the day, and frankly, how could you ever police any such act if the food is on the "list" and nutritional? And I suppose I have just lighten-up the board once again by recanting this story as well and maybe I have done a disservice to the SNAP program itself in so doing, which I do apologize for, but I do believe the best friend of the SNAP program is the one who wants to preserve it with the utmost efficiency and credibility and who knows best how to call the Republican/Rights' bluff on this issue…. and that is the efficient Democrat or person of the Left who does not shy from a greater solvency of its challenges both in meant implementation and public favor.

  48. lesliengland 2014.04.10

    CORRINA-am no authority in this area but rachel had a thoughtful piece about interelatedness of snap, minimum wage, social security, religion and immigration courtesy the sec. of ag.

    sorry there is not a quicker link, but if you go there and you care about sdsmt/mammoth site and fossils and creationism like don kopp might, watch the funny law south carolina passed declaring mammoths as beasts created on the sixth day.

    See RACHEL MADDOW 04/09/14
    Why the GOP should back a minimum wage hike
    Tom Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, talks with Rachel Maddow about why raising the minimum wage would also serve the goal of reducing the need for food stamps, and also discusses the importance of immigration reform to American farmers. i suppose christie doesn't listen to the sec. much.

    See Anti-science verses taint state fossil law
    RACHEL MADDOW - 04/09/14

Comments are closed.