Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Rep. Oliver Olsen, R-Jamaica. Olsen serves on the House Ways and Means Committee. Contact him at: www.oliverolsen.com.
A local grocer recently shared with me the story of a customer who purchased a 12-pack of soda, a 2-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, there is an opportunity to 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 SNAP/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 SNAP/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 straight forward — if Vermont’s food stamp program limited purchases to nutritious staples, such as milk, meat, grains, fresh fruit and vegetables, we would encourage healthier choices, while reducing long-term-healthcare costs that we, the taxpayers, end up paying for. This 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 you and me — the taxpayers who pick up the tab for Medicaid.
Some people argue that this proposal represents the heavy hand of government — that this is just one more embellishment adding to Vermont’s “nanny state” image. But I would argue that anyone who signs up for government assistance should expect to find strings 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 is conditioned upon the participant working towards goals designed to improve their lives.
Are these unreasonable expectations of a “nanny state”? Or should we just cut a blank check? Of course not — we want to ensure that public expenditures yield a positive social outcome. So why treat food stamps any differently?
Contrast this approach 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 healthcare costs. But the approach is flawed, since, under federal law, states cannot impose sales or excise taxes on food stamp purchases. In other words, this tax would apply to everyone except those purchasing their soda with food stamps; yet, at the same time, we would continue to use federal tax dollars to subsidize the purchase of the very items some seek to discourage through state tax policy.
This begs the question: If 86 percent of food stamp recipients receive healthcare 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 healthcare 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 the expenditure of public money, particularly if choices associated with those expenditures have an impact on future taxpayer obligations.
With the changes to the food stamp program, Vermont would have an opportunity to improve the health of thousands of Vermonters, and bend the curve on escalating Medicaid costs, which we all pay for.
