One Missouri state Representative, Rick Brattin, recently drafted a bill that would restrict what food stamp recipients in the state could buy with their SNAP benefits. Besides the fact that imposing new limitations is against Federal law, there are many problems with this.
The specific restrictions the bill would illegally impose include prohibiting the purchase of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak." Brattin complains that he has seen people buying products like lobster and fillet mignon with their food stamps, and evidently he takes offense at this. In fact, he takes so much offense at this that he is willing to challenge Federal law by passing an illegal state law to prevent this.
The real problems with this bill are not related to Federal law at all, however. There are health implications as well as a question of discrimination. Besides that, expensive foods that are sometimes regarded as extravagant can easily be part of a very frugal diet.
"Seafood" is a huge category of foods, and nutritionists currently recommend eating at least two servings of fatty fish per week. Many recommend twice that, but since fatty fish are typically the more expensive types (salmon, for example), and many Americans cannot afford to eat it more often than that, they say twice a week is enough for a reasonably healthy diet. This bill would defeat the purpose of the SNAP program. The acronym stands for "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program." If seafood is prohibited, it might as well be renamed SCAP (Supplemental Calorie Assistance Program), because a significant part of the "nutrition" part is being thrown out over whether poor people should be allowed to eat traditional rich person food.
This brings up the next problem. This is very blatant discrimination against the poor. This Representative seems to believe that poor people should not be allowed to eat traditional rich person food. He is acting like some kind of elitist foodie who cannot stand to see the rabble eating his precious steak and lobster. Now, I understand why energy drinks would be prohibited, as they are more like medication than food. Likewise, soft drinks are barely food (let's ban water too). Chips actually provide a decent amount of calories (at a very low cost per calorie), and with the recent discovery that diets high in plant oils are very beneficial, chips can be part of a very healthy diet (in moderation). Prohibiting cookies is absurd, as they typically contain a lot of healthy components, despite their higher than average sugar content. The steak restriction is even more absurd. Yes, people on SNAP probably should not be eating fillet mignon every night for dinner. If they are, then it is the state's fault for giving them far more SNAP money than they need. Real SNAP recipients do not eat steak and lobster dinners on SNAP regularly (because they cannot afford it). If Brattin did not actually see how those buying these products on SNAP used them, then he has no business judging them.
Let me share my personal experience with this matter. My family is on food stamps, and while we have never bought fillet mignon on food stamps, we have bought cheaper steaks and we buy about two lobsters each year. For our New Years dinner, we have also been known to buy a few crab legs. When we do this, we carefully budget our food stamp money so we can afford it. Would Brattin deny us this opportunity to learn good financial skills? (Actually, we are not poor due to poor financial skills. For the most part, we manage our money quite well, but apply this to the many people on food stamps who do benefit from the experience.) The steak is almost never cooked as whole steaks. Once in a while, I make an oriental beef and broccoli dish, which calls for one pound of thinly sliced steak. At $5.99 a pound (and we rarely buy it without a dollar or two discount), with $1 worth of broccoli and maybe $1 worth of rice, all seven of us eat a fairly nice (and healthy) meal at a cost of $8 or less. That comes out to about $1.15 per person. Most Americans spend two to three times that on a meal. Obviously, we could use chicken instead to get it under $1 per person, but would Brattin really be so petty as to deny us quality in our meal for a few cents, even though we already spend far less than the average? Evidently he would.
Now, the lobster is usually for special occasions, like anniversaries. Even we consider it a bit extravagant, which is why it is a once a year thing. Like I mentioned, we carefully budget for this. It seems rather absurd that the state would interfere in our food buying choices, when we are already being so careful not to abuse the system. Now, I recognize that others may choose to abuse the system, but punishing us for it is just plain wrong. Further though, lobster is actually not that expensive. On sale, where we live (Idaho, so not close enough to the ocean to make it seriously cheap), it is $4.00 for a medium sized lobster tail (we don't buy whole; the price is higher while the meat to shell ratio is lower). Not on sale it costs more like $5.99 a tail, though in the winter it sometimes gets up to $7.99. We don't buy it when it is not on sale. Now, we could probably eat lobster once a week without extravagant spending. Consider this: I can make a lobster sauce with one $4 lobster tail that is enough for the whole family (did I mention, we have 5 kids, so that is 7 people). Over rice (about $1 worth; I would actually use pasta, which might come out to $1.50 or $2.00 total), the entire meal could be $5, with maybe another $1.50 for some kind of canned or frozen vegetables. At $6.50 for the whole meal that is 93¢ per person (the flour, milk, and spices used in the sauce are almost negligible in cost). That is a meal with lobster that costs less than $1 per person. With pasta instead of rice, it would come out closer to $1.08 per person. We could eat that every day and not spend all of our SNAP money!
The point here is that even the most expensive foods can be part of a very fugal and healthy meal. Unless Brattin can prove that this is not how those people are using their purchases, then he is totally out of line condemning them for extravagant use of SNAP benefits. Even expensive fillet mignon or crab legs can be integrated into a meal that costs far less than what the typical American spends. In fact, even caviar could be used this way, though I have a hard time believing anyone would actually do this with caviar (I am not going to judge though). Anyhow, judging people based on what foods they are buying is stupid. Instead judge them on how they use the food that they buy, and if you don't know how they are using it, withhold your judgment!
What this really comes down to is freedom. The U.S. is becoming less and less free as time goes by, with the government frequently thinking that it can make our decisions better than we can. If we are not allowed to decide for ourselves, how can the government ever expect us to get better at decision making? The first time some family buys enough steak and lobster on SNAP for every dinner for a week, they will quickly discover that their SNAP benefits won't feed them enough if they spend that way (unless they are doing what I suggested above). Maybe they will start shopping sales. They will probably budget more carefully the next month. Most importantly though, they will learn from their own experience. Maybe they will keep eating a lot of steak and lobster, but they will shop sales and add coupons to that, and if they are willing to do that much extra work to eat steak and lobster frequently, they deserve it just as much as the CEO who does an equal amount of work running his company (seriously, sale shopping and couponing is a lot of work). Some people like bacon gravy for breakfast regularly (a meal that I have heard is often considered a poor man's meal in the south, but which I consider to be gourmet food). It is reasonable to say that the guy who likes bacon gravy is more deserving of eating what he likes than the guy who likes steak and eggs, just because the prices are different? This is an elitist attitude. I don't think Brattin is actually bothered that SNAP recipients are spending some of their benefits on food that is expensive. I think he is bothered that poor people are eating his elitist gourmet food!
(Thankfully, Brattin is the only one actually interested in the bill. He has no co-sponsors, and the state legislature is not actually even considering the bill.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/missouri-food-stamps_n_7026704.html
Showing posts with label benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label benefits. Show all posts
09 April 2015
27 January 2015
Hobby Lobby and Mandatory Benefits
The Hobby Lobby case was an extravagant law suit. Of course religious freedom should have won. There should never have been any question. The problem was not with Hobby Lobby, and it was certainly not about human rights. The problem is with who carries the obligation to enforce those rights.
Consider how this would play out: The government decides to enforce the right to own property by putting businesses in charge of it. Now, businesses are legally required to handle things like evictions and property deeds for their employees. If an employee is robbed, the employer is required to investigate and bring the thief to justice. Oh yeah, and this only applies to full time employees.
Now, considering the following: The government and the majority of Americans establish that adequate medical care is a fundamental human right. The government comes up with a list of medical care related things that every person should have free access to. Now, to enforce this the government does two things. First, it puts enforcement in the charge of for-profit businesses. Businesses are now required to provide their employees with the list of things that every person should have free access to. Now, we cannot forget though, this only applies to full time employees. The second thing the government does is to mandate that anyone who is not a full time employee must pay, out of their own pockets, for insurance. This is great. Now, the government says that adequate medical care is a fundamental human right, so we are forced to enforce this right ourselves on an individual basis. That makes perfect sense. Imagine if this was applied to freedom of speech. If the government tries to shut us up, our only recourse is to fight the government as an individual. Appealing to the law would not be an option, because it is our own problem, not the government's. This applies equally to medical care. The government is pretending to provide what has been established as a fundamental human right by saying that for-profit businesses and individuals have to enforce this right.
The Hobby Lobby case should not have been about religious freedom. That should have been a given. The Hobby Lobby case should have been about responsibility. If the government is not responsible for enforcing human rights, then no one is. Enforcing rights is the purpose of the government. The reason health care has become a problem in the first place is that the existing system, including mandatory benefits and health insurance, is entirely inadequate. Forcing people to subscribe to the current system can hardly be considered enforcing a fundamental human right to adequate medical care. In fact, it is little more than another way for the government to control us and subject us.
The big problem with requiring businesses to enforce human rights is that it forces people to work for them. This is a rather foul case of discrimination against freelancers and business owners. Human rights do not just apply to those who work for someone else. If something is a right, then, by definition, it applies to everybody. Further, allowing businesses to get out of this obligation for part time employees is even worse discrimination against the poor. Clearly, the American lower class does not have the right to adequate health care, based on the precedents set by the law. This also gives businesses far too much power. A business can decide who has the right to adequate medical care merely by setting schedules and employee classification. If my employer does not like my religion, my political ideology, my race, or even my hair color, a simple reduction in hours can change my classification to part time, exempting me from the right to adequate medical care. Even worse, now I am legally required to go buy insurance (which, just for the record, does not provide adequate medical care), even though my pay check just got substantially reduced. Choosing who human rights apply to is not the responsibility of for-profit businesses. In fact, even governments have no business discriminating in this area.
Enforcement of human rights is the job of the government. It is not the job of businesses, and it certainly is not the job of the individual. If individuals have to enforce their own fundamental rights, then the government is obsolete. A government that puts the burden of enforcing human rights on businesses and individuals is lazy and corrupt. If adequate health care is truly a fundamental human right, the government needs to get off of its lazy butt and take care of the problem. This is the government's job. It is not the job of businesses or individuals. Further, if adequate heath care is a human right, it should apply to everyone, not just those who work full time and not just those who are willing and can afford to buy into the system.
Hobby Lobby should never have needed to defend its religious rights. The government never had any business placing the burden of providing a fundamental human right on the business in the first place. There are certainly cases where religious freedom must be balanced with other human rights, but it was entirely wrong of the government to place Hobby Lobby, or any other business, in this position in the first place. Not only could this pitting of religious freedom against the right to adequate health care have easily been avoided, it should have. If the government had done the right thing in the first place, this issue would never have arisen.
Consider how this would play out: The government decides to enforce the right to own property by putting businesses in charge of it. Now, businesses are legally required to handle things like evictions and property deeds for their employees. If an employee is robbed, the employer is required to investigate and bring the thief to justice. Oh yeah, and this only applies to full time employees.
Now, considering the following: The government and the majority of Americans establish that adequate medical care is a fundamental human right. The government comes up with a list of medical care related things that every person should have free access to. Now, to enforce this the government does two things. First, it puts enforcement in the charge of for-profit businesses. Businesses are now required to provide their employees with the list of things that every person should have free access to. Now, we cannot forget though, this only applies to full time employees. The second thing the government does is to mandate that anyone who is not a full time employee must pay, out of their own pockets, for insurance. This is great. Now, the government says that adequate medical care is a fundamental human right, so we are forced to enforce this right ourselves on an individual basis. That makes perfect sense. Imagine if this was applied to freedom of speech. If the government tries to shut us up, our only recourse is to fight the government as an individual. Appealing to the law would not be an option, because it is our own problem, not the government's. This applies equally to medical care. The government is pretending to provide what has been established as a fundamental human right by saying that for-profit businesses and individuals have to enforce this right.
The Hobby Lobby case should not have been about religious freedom. That should have been a given. The Hobby Lobby case should have been about responsibility. If the government is not responsible for enforcing human rights, then no one is. Enforcing rights is the purpose of the government. The reason health care has become a problem in the first place is that the existing system, including mandatory benefits and health insurance, is entirely inadequate. Forcing people to subscribe to the current system can hardly be considered enforcing a fundamental human right to adequate medical care. In fact, it is little more than another way for the government to control us and subject us.
The big problem with requiring businesses to enforce human rights is that it forces people to work for them. This is a rather foul case of discrimination against freelancers and business owners. Human rights do not just apply to those who work for someone else. If something is a right, then, by definition, it applies to everybody. Further, allowing businesses to get out of this obligation for part time employees is even worse discrimination against the poor. Clearly, the American lower class does not have the right to adequate health care, based on the precedents set by the law. This also gives businesses far too much power. A business can decide who has the right to adequate medical care merely by setting schedules and employee classification. If my employer does not like my religion, my political ideology, my race, or even my hair color, a simple reduction in hours can change my classification to part time, exempting me from the right to adequate medical care. Even worse, now I am legally required to go buy insurance (which, just for the record, does not provide adequate medical care), even though my pay check just got substantially reduced. Choosing who human rights apply to is not the responsibility of for-profit businesses. In fact, even governments have no business discriminating in this area.
Enforcement of human rights is the job of the government. It is not the job of businesses, and it certainly is not the job of the individual. If individuals have to enforce their own fundamental rights, then the government is obsolete. A government that puts the burden of enforcing human rights on businesses and individuals is lazy and corrupt. If adequate health care is truly a fundamental human right, the government needs to get off of its lazy butt and take care of the problem. This is the government's job. It is not the job of businesses or individuals. Further, if adequate heath care is a human right, it should apply to everyone, not just those who work full time and not just those who are willing and can afford to buy into the system.
Hobby Lobby should never have needed to defend its religious rights. The government never had any business placing the burden of providing a fundamental human right on the business in the first place. There are certainly cases where religious freedom must be balanced with other human rights, but it was entirely wrong of the government to place Hobby Lobby, or any other business, in this position in the first place. Not only could this pitting of religious freedom against the right to adequate health care have easily been avoided, it should have. If the government had done the right thing in the first place, this issue would never have arisen.
29 December 2014
Mandatory Benefits Enforce Slavery
Freelance work is becoming a big deal in the U.S. for several reasons. One reason is that the currently very poor economy (yeah, they claim it is improving, but really it is only getting better for the wealthy but no one else) is still making it extremely difficult to find decent work. Right, you heard on TV that unemployment is decreasing, but did they bother to mention that most of the new jobs are low paying jobs? Did they even point out that wages are staying stagnant while inflation is still increasing? A lot of Americans are finding that freelance work is easier to get than permanent employment. That is not the big driver of freelancing though. Over half of freelancers are doing it entirely voluntarily. They have chosen freelance work over long term full-time work because they like being their own boss. They like setting their own hours. They like the ability to choose what work they will do and what work they will leave to someone else. Many even like the fact that they do not have to work a full 40 hours a week to get by. Freelancing comes with a cost though: No benefits.
Aside from social pressure, wage slavery is primarily driven by mandatory benefits. I know many people who would like to start their own businesses, but they cannot, because they cannot afford private health insurance. Other benefits are a problem as well, but health insurance is, by far, the biggest problem. I even know a few people who have their own businesses and work a regular job for the health insurance. Businesses, like Lowe's, that offer these benefits even to part-time employees are a great blessing to business owners who cannot afford private health insurance. (Years ago I worked at a Lowe's store, and at least two other employees there owned their own businesses, but worked 10 hours a week at Lowe's for the health insurance package.) This is a problem, because it discourages freelance work and the creation of new businesses. For the most part, only independently wealthy people can really even afford to start their own business, and I am not just talking about businesses with really expensive startup costs. I have several computers, I have access to all of the tools I needed, I have all of the necessary knowledge and training, but I still cannot afford to start a software company, because I am stuck spending nearly all of my time working for someone else. Even most middle class employees are stuck in this situation.
What is the solution? Get rid of mandatory benefits. In fact, ideally, all non-monetary compensation should be prohibited. Someone still has to take responsibility for health insurance, because costs are still too high. Obamacare made health insurance mandatory, but it did not solve the underlying problem, which is that it just plain costs too much. At this point, a single payer system seems like the best option, and the retirement of Medicare and Medicaid would go a very long way in funding it (actually, if you add all the costs of the multiple Obamacare failures, it might make up the difference). Further though, if there was still a deficit, another side effect of this would cover that and then a whole lot more. The single most abused benefit is stock options. Eliminate those and tax revenues (especially from CEOs and such) would increase dramatically.
Taking the burden of health insurance off of employment would release millions of Americans from wage slavery. Of course, they still have to work to survive, but they would have much more control over that work. Without employer provided health insurance, more people would be motivated to start new businesses, and more people would be willing to work for those businesses. More people would be able to go the freelance route. In addition, one more awesome benefit of this is that more people would feel free to choose part-time work instead of feeling compelled to work full-time, making more jobs available for others. More Americans would be free to choose their own paths than ever before.
Now, I am sure you are aware that I endorse a basic income in addition to this, and a basic income would free Americans to a degree never before seen in all of human history (accepted history, anyhow). Even without a basic income though, eliminating all non-monetary benefits would go a long way to increasing freedom in the U.S.. Of course, if stock options were eliminated, the increase in tax revenue would likely cover a large chunk of the costs of the basic income. I just wanted to point that out.
Aside from social pressure, wage slavery is primarily driven by mandatory benefits. I know many people who would like to start their own businesses, but they cannot, because they cannot afford private health insurance. Other benefits are a problem as well, but health insurance is, by far, the biggest problem. I even know a few people who have their own businesses and work a regular job for the health insurance. Businesses, like Lowe's, that offer these benefits even to part-time employees are a great blessing to business owners who cannot afford private health insurance. (Years ago I worked at a Lowe's store, and at least two other employees there owned their own businesses, but worked 10 hours a week at Lowe's for the health insurance package.) This is a problem, because it discourages freelance work and the creation of new businesses. For the most part, only independently wealthy people can really even afford to start their own business, and I am not just talking about businesses with really expensive startup costs. I have several computers, I have access to all of the tools I needed, I have all of the necessary knowledge and training, but I still cannot afford to start a software company, because I am stuck spending nearly all of my time working for someone else. Even most middle class employees are stuck in this situation.
What is the solution? Get rid of mandatory benefits. In fact, ideally, all non-monetary compensation should be prohibited. Someone still has to take responsibility for health insurance, because costs are still too high. Obamacare made health insurance mandatory, but it did not solve the underlying problem, which is that it just plain costs too much. At this point, a single payer system seems like the best option, and the retirement of Medicare and Medicaid would go a very long way in funding it (actually, if you add all the costs of the multiple Obamacare failures, it might make up the difference). Further though, if there was still a deficit, another side effect of this would cover that and then a whole lot more. The single most abused benefit is stock options. Eliminate those and tax revenues (especially from CEOs and such) would increase dramatically.
Taking the burden of health insurance off of employment would release millions of Americans from wage slavery. Of course, they still have to work to survive, but they would have much more control over that work. Without employer provided health insurance, more people would be motivated to start new businesses, and more people would be willing to work for those businesses. More people would be able to go the freelance route. In addition, one more awesome benefit of this is that more people would feel free to choose part-time work instead of feeling compelled to work full-time, making more jobs available for others. More Americans would be free to choose their own paths than ever before.
Now, I am sure you are aware that I endorse a basic income in addition to this, and a basic income would free Americans to a degree never before seen in all of human history (accepted history, anyhow). Even without a basic income though, eliminating all non-monetary benefits would go a long way to increasing freedom in the U.S.. Of course, if stock options were eliminated, the increase in tax revenue would likely cover a large chunk of the costs of the basic income. I just wanted to point that out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)