Summary: On Monday, February 12th, the Trump administration announced that the participants Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which aids low-income Americans, would receive a Harvest Box. The Harvest Box would include food pre-selected for "nutritional value and economic benefit". The proposal was to cut off $21 billion from the federal deficit over the next ten years. While this seems like a great plan, it seems to be that the proposal would not be implemented anytime soon. There are tons of negative feedback from officials, such as saying it's not a serious proposal or is meant to be a distraction.
Questions:
Are you in favor of the Harvest Box? Why or why not?
If you are in favor, what are some ways this proposal can be made more "serious" for it to be implemented?
Link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/harvest-box-snap-food-stamps.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
8 comments:
Yes I am in favor of Harvest Box, feeding low income families seems like a great idea. But if it isn't serious, then it doesn't make sense to get people's hopes up. I think this proposal can be made more serous if it becomes more popular on news stations, and the goals and policies are made clear to the public.
On paper, this might seem like a good proposal, considering how many families would be assisted and it would be beneficial to the economy of the U.S. However, like some of Trump's other proposals, I think that this "plan" will fall through and won't actually amount to anything. I agree with Alex, in the idea that if the proposal became more popular among the voters, or if interest groups backed it up to try and get the ball rolling on legislation, it might be seen as more serious, but I don't think that is likely to happen.
Like a NY Times opinion article I read suggested, I feel as if the Harvest Box system completely disregards the already "limited control" people of low-income backgrounds have. Although Trump ensures that food will be pre-selected for "nutritional value and economic benefit," they're not given as much choice as they could have under this Harvest Box system. Yes, it's an efficient system that could potentially reduce fraud, but it's not the most feasible option and I could see a lot of problems arising with overall food quality. Additionally, this proposal isn't written with low-income Americans in mind - it's written from the point of view of the American government, which seems to be seeking economic efficiency in this case.
To reaffirm what Kamille said, I believe the harvest box somewhat limits these families' freedom of choice. As the article mentions, food "products would now be selected by the federal government, not by the people actually eating it." It also seems like a generally negatively perceived plan. For example, big food retailers dislike it as the decrease in SNAP business causes them billions of dollars of losses. Additionally, the notion that this may be a distraction from the budget plan to cut SNAP's by about 30% is worrying. Again, many people just don't think this bill is even serious, but meant only to anger other political parties or as was aforementioned create distractions.
Since the Harvest Box idea seems like radical change from the current system that, according to the article, could have initially been intended as a distraction in order to divert attention away from the bigger SNAP issue at hand, I don't think it is a good idea to implement this system. To me, this seems like a small proposal that was blown out of proportion before it could be completely thought out.
I do not think that the Harvest Box idea is a good idea, just due to the fact that the government is deciding what these low income families are eating. This situation is similar to when Michelle Obama began the healthy food implementation in American schools. Now instead of getting food that actually fill us up, we get, in my opinion overly expensive food that fails to do its primary job, which is give us enough energy to last the day. I believe that this will happen with Harvest Box if implemented.
I'm not in favor of this program; for someone who grew up on food stamps, I'd prefer the freedom of choice over the practicality of the box. It's nice that more families will be getting more nutritious foods and save money, but what about the intolerances or allergies? People get that ability to choose with stamps and cutting money away from that heavily used public assistance will cause problems. While the delivery aspect of this idea will generate more jobs, it will also major cuts in time. I'm glad that it is not being implemented.
I disagree with the idea of the harvest box, as it is unrealistic to box people into a uniform dietary plan for the reasons already stated by Maria. At the same time, I do think it might be feasible to place some restrictions on what can be purchased with food stamps (i.e. soda, chips, etc.), as it seems to me that the purpose of the program is to make sure that everyone in our country is able to eat, and restricting certain types of junk foods would not impede that outcome. Already liquor and cigarettes are ineligible items due to their health risks, and it seems to me that with heart disease being the leading cause of death in the US (obesity greatly increases risk for cardiovascular disease), it isn't unreasonable to place a limit on how much of these items people with SNAP can buy. Currently the largest single category of food stamps spending is soft drinks, at around 5.4% (NYT), and the soft drink industry has heavily lobbied Congress not to restrict what people can buy with SNAPS (as soft drink purchases through SNAPS act as a subsidy to the industry). Overall, I disagree with Trump's plan, but there are still flaws in the food stamps system. People claim that there shouldn't be any restrictions on freedom of choice, but when taxpayers' money is being spent on certain items that have no nutritional value (and therefore do not serve the purpose of the program, and even contribute to Medicaid expenses later on to treat diet-related disease), I would say that the freedom of choice to some degree lies with the taxpayer.
Post a Comment