Comment by rootusrootus
2 days ago
I don't really see the point, as a practical matter. Money being the fungible thing that it is, the only way this policy actually restricts anything is if the only money SNAP recipients ever spend on food is their SNAP benefit.
It feels much more like spite politics: We can tell these people whose morals are so bad that they need our money to survive that they cannot spend it on what we think of as junk food. That is a luxury only us hard working folk are permitted. When you are poor, you cannot suffer alone, you need to know that we are making sure you feel extra pain. Please be motivated to be better.
Given that money is fungible, SNAP could in theory be replaced by a direct cash payment with no strings attached. This would also have the benefit of reducing overhead costs.
No argument from me. Anything we can do to reduce unnecessary overhead and either save the money or (better) use it to improve outcomes would be welcome.