One more wonderful example of nanny-state idiocy ignoring reality came during the recent debate over the Agriculture Department budget.  This particular part of the government includes the appropriation for the food stamp program.  An editorial during this time came to my notice, titled "Congress should ease restrictions on food stamps" (KC Star, 14 May 07).  In the body of this editorial, it was proposed that the income limit be raised so that more people could qualify for food stamps, increase benefits for those who have to pay for child care (as if that has ANYTHING to do with Agriculture), and increase benefits  to "cover the costs of a nutritious diet".

Raising the income limit so that more people could get food stamps sounds like a good idea, but then reality sets in.  More people on food stamps means a higher appropriation for next year in Agriculture...and the year after that...and the year after that...and the year after that, ad infinitum.  This would also means more people depending on government handouts, rather than getting a better job (or a second job) to cover the cost of food (never mind the other essentials like housing, utilities, paper products, etc.).  Socialist nanny-staters LOVE the idea of dependency on Big Government to take care of the "little people"...never mind that the "little people" are the vast majority in this country, and they are the ones that make America the best nation in the world.

Raising benefits to deflect the cost of child care is a completely off-subject concept; this should be dealt with in the budget for Health and Human Services, not Agriculture.

Raising benefits to cover "the costs of a nutritious diet" will only serve to give more food stamp money to those who DO NOT CARE about "a nutritious diet".  For every purchase on food stamps that I see in my convenience store that actually contains healthy food like milk or bread, I see SIX purchases that are composed completely of pop, chips, and candy.  Nutrition education in the schools is treated as a joke, and nobody pays attention to it once they get out in the adult world.  Giving more money to people to buy more junk food (and they will) defeats the stated purpose of a healthier diet, and will contribute to the "obesity epidemic" that the nanny-staters are crying about all the time.  (The blatant dichotomy of reality versus the perfect world of the socialist is very apparent here.)

If the nanny-staters were serious about promoting a healthy diet in the food stamp program, they would limit the types of food that could be purchased under that program.  Currently, "hot, ready-to-eat" foods are disallowed on food stamps, which prevents recipients from eating every meal at fast-food restaurants.  Since this restriction is in place ostensibly to promote a healthy diet, it only follows logically that the rules can be changed to eliminate any food that lists sugar as the first or second ingredient by weight in the product.  Soda pop would be eliminated, as sugar is second in the ingredients list behind water, and candy would be eliminated as well, as sugar is the primary ingredient in nearly all candies on the market.

The only drawback to this idea in the view of the nanny-staters is their blind adherence to "freedom of expression", which would take the form of allowing food stamp recipients to buy anything they want to with their benefits.  Limiting their choice in any way would be anathema to the fans of big government, and that is why the above proposal will never see the light of day.

The Cold Hard Fact is that food stamps, like any other welfare program, should be considered a short-term assist rather than a permanent way of life.  Nanny-staters and bureaucrats WANT people to be dependent on the government for their own job security, not for any health or personal benefits of those receiving benefits.  Simply put, if a person has received welfare or food stamps for more than ten years (and multi-generational assistance DOES exist), they have given up on the American Dream of improving their own life and that of their childrens' lives.  As such, I do NOT believe that it is the responsibility of the taxpayers to support such people.  Want a better life?  EARN IT, and quit depending on government handouts like food stamps to keep you alive.