Weekdays at 12noon on 770 AM: The Truth
 Michael Medved
Most popular
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.

The Crushing Cost of "Free" Food

April 24, 2012 @ 5:06 pm (Updated: 9:28 am - 4/25/12 )

A recent report shows nearly one in six Americans depend on federal money through the food stamps program, while costs of the giveaway more than doubled in the last four years. In part, that's because the Obama administration loosened restrictions and boosted benefits as part of its so-called "stimulus" package.

It's illogical to think subsidized meals stimulate economic growth, and even more illogical to suggest hungry families must rely on far-away Washington instead of local or state programs, not to mention private charities. Moreover, current costs for the food stamps program--$72 billion a year-exceed the most optimistic estimates of all new funds the president seeks by hiking taxes on the rich.

Inevitably, the middle class must help pay the bills, with higher taxes or deepening debt, for their neighbors' food entitlements-which now include fast food like pizza, hot dogs and French fries!

More Michael Medved

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (54)


  • Add A Comment

  • Drool wrote...
    Meanwhile...
    April 24, 2012 4:36 pm
    The oil industry which is doing quite well is on the government teat.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Yes...and it's Bush's fault, Drool.
    April 24, 2012 4:42 pm
    Or haven't you heard?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    What About Romeny's Entitlement?
    April 24, 2012 4:37 pm
    That 14% tax rate. I don't know about you Michael but I'd sure like that rate.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jhosford4 wrote...
    not his problem
    April 25, 2012 2:31 pm
    Romney is a supporter of a flater tax rate even on investment income. Would you pay more taxes then you had to even if you believed the system needed fixed?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sportfisher wrote...
    Drool,
    April 25, 2012 5:48 pm
    If you want a 14% rate, then give away a ton of money to charity. But, in order to obtain that money, go out and earn it. My guess is, you did not work hard enough in school to prepare yourself for the challenges in private business. Some folks are just head and shoulders above everyone else in business. Romney and Trump are just more well known. Did you whine this much over the Kennedy money? Why does Rockefeller get a pass? Why does Gore get a pass? He owns a ton of Occidental Petroleum stock from way back.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • irony wrote...
    that 14% is mandated by dem tax loopholes for all rich
    May 4, 2012 11:06 am
    the dems didn't want their taxes raised by clintons tax the rich so they wrote loopholes. so that's why everyone had thier taxes increased by clintons tax the rich. don't get fooled again by zerobama's tax the rich scheme, it will raise everyone's taxes and leave rich dem supporters like buffet and sores free and clear billionairs
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Indeed. But anyone not totally reliant on gov't is considered an enemy...
    April 24, 2012 4:41 pm
    ...by the Dimocratic Party.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    I must have misread the story
    April 24, 2012 7:56 pm
    I thought it was about the pros and cons of food stamps. Can't see the word 'oil' anywhere.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    that's a great point, ron...
    April 25, 2012 6:37 am
    while reading all the left bashing comments, i totally forgot what the article was actually about! check that, didn't forget... just stopped caring.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Anton wrote...
    Actually Michael..
    April 25, 2012 8:06 am
    Food stamps have a better stimulative effect than tax breaks...about $1.74 return on every $1.00 spent.

    You see, when a middle-class or poor person is "subsidized" with a necessity (like food), he takes the money he normally would have used for it and spends it on other items that they do not already possess.... this is what's called a "marginal concept".

    I've know just dumbfounded the conservatives reading this post because they have no idea what that marginal utility means but I'll try to type slowly so they can understand.

    Money (food stamps) goes to poor / middle class person

    Poor / Middle class person buys object that they can now afford that they couldn't afford previously

    Object(s) bought by person increase in demand; new orders are placed for object(s)

    People who make / sell object(s) have job security; if enough objects are demanded then more people are hired to accommodate demand; (by the way, the business owners who provide / manufacture the objects make out like bandits as well...and they should!)

    Result: economic stimulus to all income levels... this concludes today's lesson of "why it's not illogical to think that subsidized meals stimulate economic growth." If you're still ignorant on how this works then I can't help you...go ahead and vote for Romney.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • El Duderino wrote...
    Growth via Debt and Taxation
    April 25, 2012 9:01 am
    You had me until "Money (food stamps) goes[.]" So where does the money come from? Obama's stash? No, it's either from taxes or deficit spending. Taxes --- taken from someone or a business who would have done something else with the money (invest, spend, save in a bank), or deficit spending --- going into debt. This does increase demand for necessities but hurts demand for personal "wants" and business purchases, there's no free lunch here (pun intended).

    I suppose the snake gets marginal utility out of eating its own tail too.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Anton wrote...
    El Duderino
    April 25, 2012 9:49 am
    "Where does the money come from?" Yes, taxes!

    You must have me confused with the conservative rhetoric that raising taxes hurts the economy. Taxes are of little consideration to any business or person planning to make a business or personal decision...yes, you heard me right!

    When is the last time you went into the store to buy an item you wanted (or needed), saw it on the shelf, grabbed it and went to the cashier, suddenly discovered that you had to pay sales tax...and then (furiously) put the item back on the shelf disgusted because you suddenly realized that there's such a thing as sales tax!?? I could say the same thing for business as well. Taxes play little role in the purchase (investment) of new equipment or hiring....if you need that equipment you'll buy that equipment and won't think twice about the tax in addition to the product.

    Speaking of the product, ever notice that conservatives never gripe about the inflation of a product brought about by the private sector?... just the taxes. They assume that the reason why the price of a good went up by 100% must be something honorable that the business was doing and the 100% increase is justified some way. But if a tax went up .00001% they jump to the moon and say that it's murder! Just saying...

    Anyway, the point is that the benefit to spending on food stamps (even if it comes from higher taxes) outweighs the punishment (I still hate that term to describe higher taxes on higher incomes) you listed.

    Food Stamps benefit > Tax Reduction

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Anton
    April 25, 2012 10:20 pm
    Are you really that ill-informed or are you just staggeringly stupid? I'm guessing both.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BigGovSux wrote...
    Nice Try Anton...
    April 25, 2012 9:30 am
    Your presumption is correct but your analysis forgets to add in opportunity cost. You see when you take money from someone (via taxes) and give it to someone else, there is a ripple effect. The money you or I (the taxpayer) would have had to spend on your "object that they can now afford" in your example is now gone. So while the food stamp recipient can now buy said "object" - you or I cannot. You are simply picking and chosing who gets to buy the object and stimulate the economy. You have put yourself in a circular firing squad with your argument.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Anton wrote...
    BigGovSux
    April 25, 2012 10:27 am
    Actually, my analysis relies on opportunity cost. I would focus raising taxes on the upper incomes. The "so-called punishment" would apply to people making so much money that the "opportunity cost" is nearly non-existant - P.S. this is a benefit of 'being successful' in this country to counter the "punishment". They have essentially proven that lower taxes do not create nearly as many jobs as touted by conservatives. There are about 10 - 20% of the income-generating population that should have their taxes increased. That leaves 80-90% of the population to circulate spending through the rest of the economy... Not you or I (assuming that your not in the top 10-20%). Will this cover the entire debt? No. But does that mean we shouldn't even consider raising taxes to put us in a better position?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Anton
    April 26, 2012 7:11 pm
    I just spotted BigGovSux, he was heading into the deep woods. Bringing facts into the discussion must have frightened him
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • John E wrote...
    BigGovSux
    April 25, 2012 10:56 am
    You failed to mention the possibility that the person who's money is being taken away (taxes) would already have the object that the recipient is buying. So for example, if that money is spent on DVD players by 5 recipients vs. the taxed buying 5 DVD players himself (or even an extra one)? In many of these cases, the recipients are buying items the more fortunate already have.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    So...
    April 25, 2012 11:25 am
    we should all be on food stamps?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jhosford4 wrote...
    and cell phones, and cable, ......
    April 25, 2012 2:38 pm
    What the "dumb conservatives" get is self reliance. I would love to help people. I don't trust the goverment to use my money the best way to help people. My wife works at grocercy stores and sees those food stamps go towards crap all the time, meanwhile they are talking on their fancy cellphones for $100+ a month society has told them they need, and DVRing their shows for $100+ a month instead of managing the little money they are making. Let society keep thier money and take care of their own instead of giving your money to a government that will give half of it to buisnesses on it's way to people who need help.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    @Anton: you killed your own argument
    April 25, 2012 11:19 am
    "When is the last time you went into the store to buy an item you wanted (or needed), saw it on the shelf, grabbed it and went to the cashier, suddenly discovered that you had to pay sales tax...and then (furiously) put the item back on the shelf disgusted because you suddenly realized that there's such a thing as sales tax!?? I could say the same thing for business as well. Taxes play little role in the purchase (investment) of new equipment or hiring....if you need that equipment you'll buy that equipment and won't think twice about the tax in addition to the product."

    Apply that same logic to the person who receives the food stamps and it's clear there is NO net gain from food stamps. It is simply a redistribution of wealth.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    SeattleNative nailed it.
    April 25, 2012 11:31 am
    The liberal mantra. Take from those that do and give to those that don't. Obamas battle cry.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    the HIGHEST return per dollar spent is JOBS.
    April 25, 2012 11:52 am
    Whatever investment a company may make employing people, it is surely gaining far above whatever costs with productivity and profit. And the wages paid then are used by those employed for stimulate the entire retail economy, not just grocers. And as every dollar stays in the economy, circulating and recirculating, the return is many times above '$1.74.. on every $1.00'. .................... Taking money OUT of the economy to be sent to GOVERNMENT to THEN be returned is unproductive and a hinderence on the circulation that actually gives VALUE to money.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Anton wrote...
    All in one shot...
    April 25, 2012 12:55 pm
    kata: No, not everybody on food stamps, just the ones that need it.

    SeattleNative: No I didn't kill my own argument, I just don't care about having a stigma of "redistribution" if it helps the entire economy. If I had to choose between the current system of consolidating more and more wealth at the top and allowing only a certain segment of the population to eat, attend school, clothe themselves, etc.. OR a system of raising taxes when warrented that you call redistribution, so be it! We can politely disagree on the amount of people that you and I would say are able-bodied and just refuse to work for food stamps, but I wouldn't just say "...you are on food stamps, ergo, you didn't earn the money that goes to you." Did you ever think that at least some food stamps go to kids too young to work or elderly folks?...

    ron p: A job is an awesome way to circulate money through the system. Tell me what happens when you lose your job? Are you expected to starve to death? Because by the responses here you would think that there's no difference from people who have recently lost their jobs and need assistance until they find another and the folks who milk the unemployment for everything they can get. Also, 2 things: 1) the ONLY reason a business decides to employ a person is the projected output / income in addition to what they are currently producing. They don't hire people out of a happy feeling generated by just employing someone for the sake of it. Nor do they hire due to getting a tax break. Nor are taxes taken as a consideration preventing one from hiring - if you need a person, you NEED a person, regardless of taxation. And 2) The only thing that gives money its value is its scarcity (in other words, the fact that I have some and you don't!) So long as this is the case with the value of money I have no problem with taxing higher incomes as a way of evening out the so-called punishment to benefit ratio.

    I understand all your concepts of taking money, giving it to the government and then them giving it to so-called undeserving individuals. However, I am just refering to specifically helping the economy, not judge the morality or merits of money (food stamps) earned...dismal science and all! :)

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    LIES!
    April 25, 2012 1:15 pm
    The Obama administration has assured us that there is NO INFLATION.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Citizen of Krazy Town
    April 27, 2012 1:16 pm
    When did the Obama administration assure anyone that there is "NO INFLATION"? Your a flat out LIAR
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }