Megan McArdle's War on the Poor

Just in case you thought something had changed. Her thoughts (if we can dignify them by that term) on why including increases in food stamps benefits to the stimulus package is senseless:

1) The poor don't need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don't have an address), food insufficiency is not.

2) Food stamps only imperfectly translate into increased cash income, meaning that the poor will spend . . . more money on food.

That's just her first two points, and if you know anything about food stamp programs and nutrition, you can already see that she's full of the brown stinky.

Food that is high in fats and starches is cheaper than food that isn't. Trust me -- the only place I like to shop is grocery stores, and if you take a look at the cost of meat or chicken -- even the cheapest cuts -- they are much more expensive per serving than something like peanut butter (which, depending on the brand, can still be relatively healthy, but the most popular brands are heavy on sugar and added oil; the low-fat varieties are even worse). The cheapest bread is also the least nutritious. Fresh vegetables are not cheap, and even frozen or canned can run into money. Fruit is even more so. If you want to live on rice and pasta, that's cheap -- but also loaded with starches.

I don't know about other states, the the food stamp program in Illinois basically gives you cash to buy food, and it's tax-free (even though our sales tax on groceries is only 2%). How this "translates imperfectly into increased cash income" is beyond me -- it is increased cash income.

And, of course, while McArdle is moaning about the "distorted food sector" she seems to miss the point that this is an economic stimulus program -- the point is to get people to spend more money. If you're giving people money that they can only spend on food, that's going to stimulate something. (She might at least acknowledge that the distortions in the food sector are largely a result of government subsidies to Big Ag.)

News flash for the brain-dead Republican "libertarians" -- major corporations do not drive the economy. Consumer spending drives the economy. Tax breaks for business aren't going to help anything but Republican campaign coffers. Food stamps will put money into the economy pretty damned effectively and even have the side benefit of helping poor kids get enough to eat.

I feel sort of embarrassed for her.

Thanks to hilzoy, whose take-down is delicious.