Strongly disagree @MaryBowdenMD. Food assistance is about providing basic calories to keep people alive.
So, the promise or commitment is sustainment, not cash. The writer openly states that it is “up to them how they spend their money.” That is true. When they go earn some money they can spend it on whatever they want. But, if they are spending money we paid in taxes and the intent with that money is to provide calories then they absolutely can pick from a category of items that benefits the giver. For example, they should be encouraged to buy fresh ag products because it also benefits our farmers and those food are obviously more healthy than a box of processed who-knows-what.
Another way of looking at it is to ask if a grocery store that is approved to take SNAP would begin selling framing nails then would it be ok for the users to buy framing nails with their allotment?
Of course not! Framing nails are not life-sustaining calories.
Further, the CBDC example is confusing because of the obvious control mechanism it represents but that control is over OUR DOLLARS that we’ve earned and potentially been forced to put into a digital conveyor. I don’t think a CBDC will happen in America without significant other options.
Now, the government does already have a form of SBDC in the SNAP process and because those funds are given for life-sustaining calories, I do agree that those funds should be limited to actual and real food.
Think of it this way. Congress could pass $1000 in spending for fencing for a secure building. Would it then be ok for the government division to go buy tires for government vehicles with that money? Of course not.
So, when we set up a welfare benefit for life-continuing calories, why would he allow it to be spent on garbage that happens to be package and sold as food?
