JAMAICA — A local grocer recently shared with me the story of a customer who purchased a 12-pack of soda, a two-liter bottle of soda, and four candy bars with a food stamp card.
There was not a single item of nutritional value in this customer's shopping cart, yet it was all perfectly legal to purchase with food stamps.
Clearly, we must promote better nutrition with our food stamp program.
The food stamp program, known as the Supplementary Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) under federal law, is administered by the states, with federal funding. A key objective of SNAP (known as 3SquaresVT in Vermont) is to alleviate hunger and malnutrition. The program provides financial assistance and nutritional education to help meet this objective.
While the state has some control over the administration of 3SquaresVT, federal law governs what can be purchased under the program, which includes just about anything fit for human consumption (the exceptions being alcohol and cigarettes).
Last year, one pharmacy chain in Vermont even promoted food stamps as a means of purchasing Halloween candy. So for all the nutritional education that the 3SquaresVT program offers, the state has no control over what is ultimately purchased. All too often, those limited food stamp dollars are spent on foods of limited nutritional value.
A tri-partisan group of 18 lawmakers, including myself, recently introduced a resolution (JRH13) in the Vermont House, which calls on the federal government to allow Vermont to have more control over the list of items that are eligible for purchase with food stamps.
The objective of this resolution is straightforward - if Vermont's food stamp program limited purchases to nutritious staples, such as milk, meat, grains, fresh fruit and vegetables, it would encourage healthier choices, while reducing long-term-health care costs that we, the taxpayers, end up paying for.
This resolution, if passed, would also bring more money into our local food system, which would benefit the agricultural sector of our local economy.
Let's face it. We all could (and should) make healthier food purchases - whether we are using food stamps or our own money. The argument is not whether food stamp recipients are using their benefits in a way this is any more irresponsible than those of us who buy junk food with our own money. The real question is whether it is appropriate to spend public money on foods that have limited nutritional value, including items that contribute to long-term health problems.
More to the point, the state's Medicaid program provides health care to 86 percent of food stamp recipients, so the real costs come back to taxpayers.
Some people argue that our proposal represents the heavy hand of government; that it is just adding to Vermont's “nanny state” image.
But I would argue that anyone who signs up for government assistance should expect to find strings to be attached to the benefits they receive.
Think about it - when someone applies for unemployment benefits, that person must demonstrate that he or she is available for, and actively seeking, work. Assistance under the state's Reach Up program (what used to be known as welfare) is conditioned upon the participant working towards goals designed to improve their lives.
Are these the unreasonable expectations of a “nanny state?” Or should we just cut a blank check? We want to ensure that public expenditures yield a positive social outcome. Why treat food stamps any differently than any other program?
Compare our resolution to the recently proposed soda tax, which would impose a 1-cent per ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages as a means of discouraging soda consumption.
The goal is the same: to encourage healthier eating habits while reducing long-term health-care costs. But the approach is flawed, because under federal law, states cannot impose sales or excise taxes on food stamp purchases.
In other words, the soda tax would apply to everyone except those purchasing soda with food stamps. Yet, at the same time, we continue to use federal tax dollars to subsidize the very items that some seek to discourage through state tax policy.
This situation begs the question: If 86 percent of food-stamp recipients receive health-care benefits from the state's Medicaid program, why would we try to change the behavior of everyone but those who make use of the state's taxpayer-funded health care program?
It is not the role of government to tell people how to spend their own money. If you want to buy a soda with your hard-earned money, you should be free to make that decision without government interference.
But it is reasonable - and fiscally prudent - for the state to have some control over public money, particularly if choices associated with those expenditures have an impact on future taxpayer obligations.