Friday, October 4, 2013

U.S. Food Stamp Program

Many people are complaining that the Food Stamp program is being cut back and hurting many people who need food. There are Americans who are hungry, and the majority are the innocent children. They are going hungry largely due to irresponsible parents. The Food Stamp program was established to help those who are truly needy. I would daresay the largest percentage of adults on Food Stamps also smoke tobacco and drink alcohol. Not all, but a large percentage. Why should taxpayers give adults $200.00 in monthly food stamps while they spend $250.00 on cigarretes and alcohol? If one has money to smoke and drink, then we should not be paying for their habits. The U.S. government could save millions of dollars in the food stamp program if they had people sign statements at the beginning that if they buy tobacco or alcohol products they forfeit their food stamps. Then if there is any evidence they did buy tobacco or alcohol they should be prosecuted for filing a fraudulent statement to obtain U.S. government services and their food stamps should stop.

This seems like an easy and practical solution, but of course common sense makes little or no difference to politicians. Dave Gaubatz

1 comment:

  1. I love to read Walter E. Williams work. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. Mr. Williams wrote and excellent Forward to the “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat, it can be found online. http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_TheLaw.pdf
    This is a few quotes for some of his articles. “Here's my question: Were the nation's founders, and some of their successors, callous and indifferent to human tragedy? Or, were they stupid and couldn't find the passages in the Constitution that authorized spending "on the objects of benevolence"?
    Some people might say, "Aha! They forgot about the Constitution's general welfare clause!" Here's what James Madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
    Thomas Jefferson explained, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
    In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"

    ReplyDelete