For Maine and the Nation, a Better Option on Junk Food
Maine’s governor Paul LePage is trying again to force low-income families to eat healthier. Since early last year, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services has been asking its federal partners for permission to deny supplemental nutrition assistance payments (“SNAP” benefits, or what we used to call food stamps) for purchases of junk food and soda. This isn’t just a Republican idea; New York sought the same policy in 2010 under then-Governor David Paterson. But the fact that it’s bipartisan doesn’t make it a good plan. There’s a germ of a good idea here, but there’s a much better way to implement it. If states are serious about helping families to eat healthier, they should try to empower household shoppers to make the best decisions for themselves.
The worst part of LePage’s plan is that it looks not just paternalistic, but outright condescending to the poor. Why should it be only those who need the state’s help who are subject to its idea of a healthy diet? It seems to send a message that SNAP recipients don’t know enough to know what’s good for their families.
On the other hand, there’s also something misguided about lending government dollars to products that hurt consumers and undermine other government policies. It’s foolish that we subsidize the oil and gas industry at the same time that we give tax credits for wind and solar. Some commentators think federal subsidies for corn growers help to contribute to the obesity epidemic we’re fighting against.
SNAP recipients know perfectly well that junk food isn’t usually the right option. A great deal of research now shows us, though, that few of us, rich or poor, consistently have the willpower to make the right choices all the time. Instead, we recruit others to help us construct “commitment devices” to resist temptation. For instance, many workers allow their employers to over-withhold income tax payments, so that they can then take advantage of the big tax refund to make major purchases.
The SNAP program could be designed to give families this kind of power over their shopping choices. In my academic writing, I propose a “self-directed” SNAP debit card–a term I borrow from Angie Littwin of the University of Texas.
The self-directed SNAP card would allow shoppers to place categories of food and beverages on a “banned” list. The card could not be used to pay for items that the card holder had placed on the list. Card holders could remove items from the list at any time, but to reduce the danger of giving in to a tempting store display, there would be a one-hour delay for removal. Card holders could change the length of this delay, as well.
Families could access their options in a few ways. An app or web site would serve for those with smart phone or internet access. Others could use a customer-service call line or even mail in their choices to the state.
Similar programs have already been attempted and have proven very popular with users. For example, several pilot projects have enrolled low-income households in a program in which tax refund recipients voluntarily set aside an amount of their choosing into a special savings account from which it is more difficult to make withdrawals. Participating families saved more, and an overwhelming majority favored continuing and expanding the program.
Implementing a self-directed SNAP program would have some up-front costs, but it could well pay for itself. By some estimates, 20% of all U.S. health-care costs are related to obesity.
In sum, self-directed SNAP benefits represent the possible future of good bipartisan policy: making people’s lives better, and spending taxpayer dollars more carefully, by relying on and empowering smart market choices. What do you say, Governor? I know you’re reading…
