Even though Governor Jared Polis “is a self-proclaimed libertarian, and the Republican administration preaches against government meddling in people’s lives,” Polis and the Trump administration agree that soda purchases should be barred through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), “making sure that poor kids don’t buy soda with food benefits.” So opined Kyle Clark in a recent 9News segment.
Two of Clark’s claims are dubious—Polis doesn’t really claim to be a consistent libertarian, and the Trump administration is in many respects explicitly pro-meddling. Beyond that, Clark’s suggestion that the libertarian position on SNAP benefits is to not regulate them is just bonkers. The libertarian position on SNAP benefits is that they should not exist, and people in need instead should rely on voluntary charity and food banks.
Yes, I’m talking about the “classic” libertarian position of people such as Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand (if you consider her a libertarian, a link she denied). I’d still call this the “official” libertarian position given that the Libertarian Party, although itself not very libertarian these days, “calls for the phasing out of the welfare system and a shift toward private charity.” Yes, there are some “welfare-state libertarians” out there, some of whom even advocate a “universal basic income,” although “classic” libertarians regard “welfare-state libertarianism” as an oxymoron.
So Clark’s “gotcha” doesn’t work as well as he imagines. The view that SNAP benefits should be completely unregulated on grounds of personal freedom ignores the fact that government forces others to finance the program. What about their freedom of choice? The taxpayer often is forgotten.
Benefits already regulated
SNAP benefits always have been tightly regulated. The Colorado Department of Human Services notes, “Colorado does not allow hot and prepared food items for immediate consumption to be purchased with SNAP benefits.” Those rules also are changing, as the Colorado Sun reports. But other restrictions remain in place. CDHS refers readers to a USDA page that lists what recipients can and cannot buy with the funds. In: fruits, vegetables, meat, breads, etc. Out: beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes, etc.
So precluding soda, flavored sugar water, isn’t such a stretch. Smoking causes maybe a half-million deaths per year, and obesity causes a comparable number of deaths. Drinking a lot of soda is one of the worst things you can do for your health. Government refraining from forcing people to subsidize others’ sugar-water addiction hardly is unreasonable. At least a stout beer offers some nutritional value, whereas soda does not, yet I don’t hear anyone clamoring to allow alcohol sales through SNAP.
Alternatives to SNAP benefits
We should at least think about alternatives to the status quo and to the libertarian position.
If we really care about the recipient’s freedom of choice, and dismiss the concerns of the taxpayers funding the program, we might just say that government should give people straight cash. That approach not only maximizes the ability of recipients to spend the funds on what most matters to them, it minimizes the bureaucracy needed to implement the program.
The downside to a straight-cash program is that some recipients would indeed spend the funds on things like vodka and cigarettes and slot machines, hardly a great use of taxpayers’ dollars.
A peculiar article for the Aurora Sentinel reports that various vape shops in the area sold a suspiciously large amount of “groceries.” Treavor Vaughn, Aurora’s manager of licensing and finance, “reported the suspected fraud to federal food benefit officials.” Could it be that some people actually are spending their SNAP benefits on verboten items?
Another alternative is for government to fund food banks rather than SNAP benefits. Theoretically, at least, government could spend tax dollars only on healthy foods. I can’t imagine theft would be much of a problem with food banks, as it is with SNAP benefits. The problem is such spending immediately would become political (as SNAP already is), with special interests clamoring to be included. Also, specialized food banks might be harder for some people to access, and their use might come with a certain amount of stigma. Still, this is not obviously a worse approach than SNAP benefits.
Taxpayers plenty generous
Years ago, activists tried to show that SNAP benefits were not adequate by encouraging people to try to live on average benefits. The problem: government figures that most households can spend some of their own money on food, so the more-relevant number is the maximum benefits offered, not average benefits.
Now, as then, benefits look fairly generous. For a one-person household, maximum SNAP benefits currently are $292 per month. For a three-person household, the figure is $768; for a four-person household, $975. If you don’t think you can eat well for that kind of money, send me your itemized grocery list and I’ll explain what you should cut or substitute.
Common ground
Every decent person agrees that we don’t want people going hungry in our communities or, indeed, anywhere. We should promote gratitude for the capitalist systems that have created food abundance and largely made widespread starvation a thing of humanity’s past, whatever problems remain.
We also can donate funds to Food Bank of the Rockies and other nonprofits that help to feed people. No need to wait for politicians to act! The libertarians are right, at least, that you can assume personal responsibility to help alleviate the problem of hunger.
Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.
