Oh snap!

  Was listening to this economist expressing his concern for the absence of snap benefits or the possibility they may be a lesser amount. His big concern was that the lower income folks that have been receiving these benefits may begin to "scrutinize" there spending habits. It could have a negative impact on the economy. Shop owners  may be affected, online shopping may be affected, and even grocery stores could be affected. If those folks aren't spending every dime of those benefits, that could be very bad. I heard all that as, we can't be having the poor folks concerned with fiscal responsibility! They should be able to spend as though they are millionaires. That's only fair. Just because you aren't earning that money doesn't mean you shouldn't be spending that money on everything and anything you want. Doesn't the constitution guarantee you that? I'm sure it is in there somewhere.

  Snap is a federal program, formally called food stamps, to provide groceries. That is the stated intent of the program. EBT is the method now used to deliver those benefits. An electronic bank transfer from the federal government directly to your card. You will see the signs proclaiming ebt accepted here. The list of places that will accept that is quite long and expanding every day. Much more than groceries is being purchased with those cards and everyone knows it. But, we mustn't say anything about that, we have to protect the "dignity" of the recipients. Now the recipients themselves have no such concern, they pull out that card faster than a six gun at the OK corral. They make demands about it as well, you can't tell me I can't buy those T-bone steaks and lobster tails! This is my money. The truth is, it is "my" money being spent.

 Does the taxpayer have a right to control spending? I certainly think we do. Remember those in congress, and it is congress that controls the purse, work for us. When it comes to legislated charity I believe I have an absolute right to restrict what can or can not be purchased with my money. I agree that if I give you a gift, charity, I have no right to tell you what to do with that gift. It's a gift. Snap isn't a gift. Snap is legislated charity and subject to the rules imposed upon its' usage. It's no different than ration stamps from WW2 or food stamps that you had to produce for certain authorized items. It is not a gift! It's a benefit extended on the behalf of the taxpayers. As such, the taxpayers have the right to limit that.

  I did grow up with this adage; beggars can't be choosers. It isn't an entitlement, it is a benefit afforded to you by the taxpayers. It's no different than borrowing a tool from your neighbor, you can't demand a power saw when all they offer is a hand saw. I offer this as an example of how I feel. I was driving to work on a very cold, snowy, wind blown morning. A man was hitchhiking and I stopped to pick him up. He gets in my truck and we continue down the road. I light a cigarette and he immediately asks me if I would mind not smoking. I stopped my truck and asked him, would you mind walking! When being extended a kindness, a gift or whatever ne should accept that with humility. That's how I feel about that. the how or why of your need doesn't concern me at all, I'm not much on sob stories. 

  Snap costs the taxpayers over 100 billion dollars last year. About 70% of that figure went to snap recipients. The remainder went to state administration costs and other expenses associated with the program. So 30 billion dollars went to those actually handing out the money. Not bad, I get thirty cents of every dollar I give away. Of course I'm giving away your money, the taxpayers money, and some of that is mine. I have a good job though, state benefits and entitlements, so it is in my best interest to keep this plan rolling. If we don't need snap, I don't have a job. Depending on which state or territory you live a family of three will qualify for snap if there income is 33,566 annually or less. That equates to making about $16.00 an hour for the average work year. Might just be a good idea if the government were fiscally responsible, you know reducing expenses a bit. Might be a good idea if those on welfare programs did the same. Oh snap! 

                                                                         

                                                  Drawn on the federal reserve bank.