You can just feel the pressure building inside the teapot. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has requested that the USDA permit his city to engage in a two year experimental program whereby recipients of food stamps – issued by the USDA- would be banned from using the government food assistance program for the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages.
The test program, which would apply to 1.7 million of NYC’s 8 million residents, would seek to discover whether the denial of these unhealthy substances will have a measurable effect on skyrocketing obesity rates, particularly among the nation’s poor.
Not surprisingly, those who warn of big government sticking its nose into every facet of our lives are going crazy.
If bureaucrats can tell a segment of the population that they can’t drink soft drinks, what’s next? Is it only a matter of time until the government prohibits us from eating hamburgers and hot dogs? Will apple pie, a favorite desert loaded with unhealthy sugars, cease to be the symbol of good, old fashioned American values once the government puts pies and cakes on its hit list?
While it is not difficult to see the point made by those in opposition to this sort of government interference and restriction, it would be wise for everyone to take a deep breath and gain a better understanding of what we are talking about before blowing our collective stacks.
There is no question but that sugary soft drinks play a substantial role in our growing obesity problem, particularly among children. There is also little disagreement that obesity leads to increased cases of type II diabetes, heart disease and any number of illnesses that present as obese children grow into adulthood.
We also know that for some of these children and adults, the medical treatment they will require to deal with these illnesses throughout their lives will be provided courtesy of state and federal safety net programs paid for with taxpayer money.
That means that you and I will be paying not only for the care and treatment of the illnesses brought on by these poor nutritional habits for years to come, but are already paying for the very nutritional practices that bring on the disease in the first place.
What we have here is one big exercise in enabling – and it simply doesn’t make sense.
Still, there are those vigorously arguing that imposing this sort of restriction means that rich people are free to destroy their bodies however they choose while the poor would be denied the same right to do the same.
I don’t think this is true.
For starters, New York City would not be telling food stamp recipients that they are prohibited from enjoying a Coke and a smile. Rather, the city would be temporarily requiring that those receiving aid, at the pleasure and expense of the American taxpayer, pay for that Coke out of their own pocket rather than with the food stamps we provide them.
There is a huge difference between telling Americans what they may eat and drink when they are spending their own money versus telling citizens they are free to destroy their health with their food choices when the taxpayer is picking up the tab for the menu. This is particularly true when beneficiaries of the government programs make nutritional choices that virtually guarantee that they will be repaying the favor by forcing the taxpayers to pick up even larger bills down the road for the expensive health problems their choices are likely to cause.
However, such logic will not stop some from continuing to argue that if an American wants to drink paint and suffer the consequences, such behavior is both their prerogative and their right in a free country.
Maybe. But while I can appreciate that one who chooses to buy a Twinkie with their hard earned cash doesn’t need me to put in my two cents as to the intelligence of such a decision, when that individual elects to accept food stamps, paid for and provided by the American taxpayer, a different sort of bargain is struck.
It is no longer a matter of our sticking our nose into that individual’s business. It becomes a matter of our protecting our collective investment so that the money we have available to help out those in need can reach more people with similar needs.
It is simply not reasonable for food stamp recipients to ignore the fact that allowing expenditures of the people’s money on food that we know is likely to create or contribute to expensive, lifelong illnesses- illnesses the public may well be responsible to pay for – takes away from our collective ability to help others in need. It’s selfish and it’s wrong.
Shouldn’t these beneficiaries have the same concern for others who find themselves in a difficult economic situation that the rest of us express by providing our tax dollars to help them out in tough times?
When people fail to behave in a mature and reasonable manner, reflective of the reality of their circumstances, is it really so wrong for the government to step in and require them to do so in order to protect the rest of the public who will suffer from the behavior of those who should know better?
I don’t think so. And to all those whose immediate reaction is to cry foul, shouldn’t you consider the government’s obligation to protect our taxpayer money so that we get the biggest bang for each of our bucks?
Government has a legitimate interest and obligation to protect our tax dollars. Further, taxpayers cannot shout about ‘big government’ wasting our money from one side of their collective mouth and then shout from the other when the government attempts to rein in behavior that does waste our money or, at least, fails to put it to its best use.
A decent society has an obligation to do what it can for the least fortunate among us just as the least fortunate among us have an obligation to use good and mature judgment when accepting our contributions to their welfare. Government’s willingness to require the beneficiaries of our assistance to use those benefits in a way that will not contribute to even greater taxpayer expense only makes sense.
Those on the right should not allow ideology to get in the way of allowing the government to do the smart thing.
As for those on the left, we would do well to recall the old saying about not biting the hand that feeds you. It is fundamentally wrong for those accepting the help of the American public to pay it forward and back by ignoring proper nutrition, thereby causing the public that helps them to assume even larger expenses down the road.
This is not a matter of of human dignity, respect or rights. It is a matter of a basic level of maturity that we have a right to expect.