Food Stamps and Junk Food

To what extent should the distribution and management of welfare programs be regulated? I am no expert on the economics of such things, but I feel equipped to take a moral stance on these questions. I’m not making this a long post, but I do want to quickly consider three cases.

1. Unemployment checks are routinely distributed to individuals who are seeking and failing to find employment. Recently, a conservative movement in Florida attempted to mandate a law stating that anyone who received these checks must undergo a drug test. The justification was that if these recipients would accept public money, they should at least be clean of drugs. It seems most liberals criticized this move, though for different reasons.

Part of this makes sense to me: if you are going to burden society by receiving public money, then it becomes your duty to do your best to make it worthwhile. If the recipient is not seeking employment, or is engaging in activity that makes employment more difficult, then the recipient is unjustly receiving these payments. So, at least in part, I agree with the conservative’s motivation.

But from the financial reports I read, this seemed silly. First of all, the cost to administer the tests was very high, and cost the state far more than they saved. So the economic motivation was completely unfounded when taking the long view. Second, something like 1.8% of recipient testees were found to be taking drugs, which is less than the state’s average. The idea that recipients of unemployment were doing drugs turned out to be an unfounded, dangerous prejudice. Third, the rule seems to be applied inconsistently. There are many recipients of public funding that do not need to undergo similar tests, and there are many other measures of deservedness than doing drugs. In short, the rule was too broad by one dimension (testing something that it wasn’t worth testing) and too narrow by two dimensions (doesn’t apply to others whom it should apply to for the same fundamental motivations, and doesn’t measure all the things it should to know whether the recipient was deserving).

2. Republican State Senator Ronda Storms of Florida recently advocated a law that says food stamps cannot be used to buy junk food. According to Mark Bittman, liberals criticized the move because it attacked the poor, perhaps for related motivations as above. And conservatives attacked her for engaging in the same sort of “nanny-statism” that Michelle Obama engages in.

But in this case, I support the action. For the same principle that I advocated for above–that if one accept public funds, one must use those funds responsibly, in a way that is honest to the taxpayers who provided those funds. Mark Bittman made a longer and more complete defense of this point than I do, but my ultimate point is that this sort of governmental action is not a restriction on liberties: it is a mandate on how government assistance can be used.

3. This is not yet an issue that has been discussed, but I can only imagine it will be an consequence of universal health care, or any sort of publicly funded health care. If health care is provided by the government, then any use of that health care is a burden on public funds. An individual’s choice on their diet and exercise clearly affects, if only probabilistically and not deterministically–  how much health care a person requires. If something like universal health care is adopted, then to be consistent, would I have to support a law that requires people to exercise if accepting health care? Should there be a penalty for people who don’t stay reasonably fit if it’s within their power? Would I be opposed to such a mandate?

I am not justifying all mandates on government assistance, of course. I support the Obama administration’s move to require institutions to distribute contraceptives, while against pulling funding from abortions, Planned Parenthood counseling, and other things that I don’t have time to get into this morning.

Of course, the next question I need to ask myself is, “What is the principle that permits some mandates to be just, while others are unjust?”

Other questions come up: for every restriction placed on food or consumption, some food business is going to send lobbyists to Washington to fight against these restrictions: not because the restrictions are immoral, but because it cuts into profit. I’m a pragmatist, and believe this is important for the sake of jobs and economic stability. Higher unemployment and economic instability breed all sorts of other problems, including fear or resentment toward other factions within one’s own society, which in turn slows positive social change.

Questions for another day, or a better mind.