SNAP Restrictions Just Another Flawed Government 'Solution'
This article was originally featured on Newsmax and can be found on their website here.
Former President Ronald Reagan famously said “I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.”
Americans and our elected officials ought to remember these salient words as renewed proposals emerge to restrict items that are eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
His is not a new idea and has wisely been walked away from in the past — even by President Trump himself. Despite this, as well as the program’s clear success in lifting millions of families and their children out of poverty, members of Congress and some states are aiming to impose additional restrictions on how SNAP dollars can be spent.
Proponents of these changes argue that they are promoting healthier eating habits and preventing misuse of taxpayer funds. But for the 41 million Americans who rely on SNAP, additional restrictions will make life more difficult.
History has proven that prohibitions and bans do not work — prohibiting certain food purchases using SNAP dollars is exactly that and would ultimately result in recipients purchasing these items using their already scarce personal income.
It’s worth highlighting that SNAP recipients shop much like any other American family, purchasing a mix of fresh produce, proteins, grains, and, yes, occasional treats. In fact, the top 10 purchase categories for SNAP and non-SNAP recipients were identical. Rather than punishing low-income consumers, policymakers should focus on making nutritious food more accessible and affordable for everyone.
In addition to harming low-income working families, SNAP restrictions would wreak havoc on the retail and grocery industries. Small retailers already face significant challenges in navigating complex regulations, and additional restrictions on SNAP will result in tens of thousands of dollars in compliance costs.
Under the proposed changes, store owners would have to carefully track which products qualify for SNAP and which do not, while simultaneously implementing any tax changes. This would require costly software updates, employee training, and potentially even store redesigns to separate eligible and ineligible products.
For large supermarket chains with dedicated compliance departments, these changes might be manageable, yet costly. But for small, family-run stores, the burden of compliance could be devastating.
Perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of these proposed restrictions is forcing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) into the role of deciding which food and beverage products are “acceptable” for SNAP purchases. This would create an enormous and costly bureaucratic challenge, requiring the government to classify hundreds of thousands of products and regularly update those lists as new items enter the market.
More importantly, it would create a system in which the federal government is effectively picking winners and losers in the food industry. Major food manufacturers with lobbying power would likely have an advantage in ensuring their products remain SNAP-eligible, while smaller food businesses could struggle to get their products approved. I believe in commerce with a conscience, but I also believe in consumer choice and fair markets.
No one disagrees that America needs to be healthier - nearly half of us are obese. But we must ask ourselves: Is cutting off access to processed foods for low-income families the most effective and efficient solution? As Ronald Reagan said, little good happens when the government inserts itself to help solve a problem like this.