Finley Approaches a Slippery Slope on SNAP

Allysia Finley is on a slippery slope when she argues that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, beneficiaries ought not be allowed to purchase candy or sodas with their food stamps ('Do Food Stamps Make People Fat?,' Life Science, April 21). True enough: Such consumption except in moderation isn't healthy. Why should the taxpayers subsidize it?
Also true: The federal government spends almost $2 trillion annually—over a quarter of all federal outlays—on healthcare. Under Ms. Finley's principle it would be appropriate for the government to withhold such benefits for given people unless they adhere to government diktats on such lifestyle choices as individual diets, exercise habits and so forth. More monitoring of Americans in their daily lives would be guaranteed. Thus are we confronted with the age-old conservative principle: More government inexorably yields less freedom. Ronald Reagan was right yet again when he observed that 'the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' '

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

4 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Supreme Court finds retired firefighter cannot sue for disability discrimination

Advertisement In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had 'plainly protected their right to do so' when it drafted the federal disability rights law. Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question. Advertisement Stanley worked as a firefighter in Sanford, Florida, a city of about 65,000 people northeast of Orlando. When she started her job in 1999, the city offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees -- those with 25 years of service and those who retired early because of disability. In 2003, the city changed its policy, limiting health insurance to those who retired because of disability to just 24 months of coverage. After nearly two decades, Stanley retired in 2018 at age 47 after she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. She expected that the city would continue to pay for most of her health insurance until she turned 65, but it refused, citing its changed policy. Stanley sued, claiming that the city had violated the ADA by providing different benefits to 25-year employees versus those who retired because of a disability. She argued that the city's policy amounted to impermissible discrimination based on disability. A federal trial judge dismissed her claim under the ADA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed. In asking the justices to hear the case, lawyers for Stanley said it could affect millions of disabled Americans who rely on retirement benefits that they earned while employed. One section of the ADA specifies that it is illegal to discriminate in compensation because of a disability. The justices wrestled with whether the section included retirees. Deepak Gupta, a lawyer for Stanley, said in an emailed statement that the decision had created 'a troubling loophole that allows employers to discriminate against retirees simply because they can no longer work due to their disabilities.' Advertisement In her dissent, Jackson wrote that she hoped Congress might step in and provide a 'legislative intervention' to shield other disabled retirees. This article originally appeared in

Atlantic

4 hours ago

• Atlantic

It Has Come to Protein Iced Tea

In the early 1950s, 'Hi-Proteen' powder, one of the first modern protein supplements, hit the market. Initially, it tasted awful. But after its creator, Bob Hoffman, added in Hershey's chocolate, the flavor improved. (He used a canoe paddle to stir his mixture in a giant vat.) Protein products have come a long way since then. Perhaps, they have come too far: Last weekend, at the gym, I was offered a can of lemon-flavored ' protein ice tea.' The summery, yellow-striped packaging advertised 15 grams of protein per can, or about the same as what you might get from three eggs. Apparently protein shakes and protein bars don't cut it anymore. Americans are so obsessed with protein that even an Arnold Palmer comes infused with it. Perhaps protein iced tea was inevitable. Whenever something is trendy, the food industry can't help but push things to the extreme—consider ' plant-based ' peanut butter (as if the spread was not already vegetarian) and gluten-free pumpkin dog biscuits. But even compared with other food trends, the protein situation has gotten out of hand. Just last week, Starbucks announced that it's piloting a high-protein, banana-flavored cold foam. There is protein water, Kardashian-branded protein popcorn, and ' macho ' protein pasta sauce. If you want to get drunk while bulking up, consider a protein-fortified pale ale or a 'Swoleberry' spiked protein seltzer. Nothing is safe from the protein pandemonium. Name a food, and the protein version of it probably exists. Even if you, like me, aren't trying to maximize your protein intake, all of these products can be hard to escape. They have infiltrated every inch of the supermarket: On Monday, I went grocery shopping with the mission of finding the most ridiculous protein-enriched ingredients possible. While preparing my meal, I crunched on ranch-flavored protein tortilla chips (13 grams) and sipped from a bottle of grapefruit-flavored protein water (20 grams). Dinner began with a salad made of 'OrganicGirl Protein Greens,' which feature an assortment of mixed greens including naturally protein-rich sweet-pea leaves (5 grams). My main course was chickpea protein pasta (20 grams) and salmon (40 grams). I topped it all off with a frozen peanut-butter-banana bar for dessert (another 5 grams). In total, I ate more than 170 grams of protein on Monday, or the equivalent of 31 medium eggs. According to the federal government's recommendations, that's almost four times what someone of my build and activity level needs in a day to maintain a ' nutritionally adequate ' diet. The official dietary guidelines suggest that a person needs at least 0.36 grams of protein per pound of body weight to stay healthy. That's not all that much protein. Before my dinner experiment, I had gone through the day without thinking about my protein consumption, and had already surpassed my recommended amount by more than 30 percent. The average American adult regularly exceeds the federal recommendation. So why is protein showing up in iced tea? Some health experts think that the current federal recommendation is insufficient. They believe that for optimal health—to get beyond simply meeting basic nutritional needs—we should be consuming double, if not triple, the recommended amount. Some people—those who strength train, for instance—certainly benefit from increased intake. But for the average person, most experts don't see the point in going wild with protein, as my colleague Katherine J. Wu has written. What makes protein so appealing is that it has been offered as an answer for lots of people's dietary goals. Want to build muscle? Eat protein. Want to feel fuller for longer? Eat protein. Want to lose weight? Eat protein. The nutrient can indeed help with all of those, but sometimes, the claims turn absurd. Cargill, the food giant, recently suggested that protein might help solve broken marriages: 'Protein helps individuals become better parents, partners and employees,' the company wrote in a report this spring. In other words, protein has become synonymous with 'healthy.' The message seems to be resonating: Last year, 71 percent of American adults said they were trying to consume more of it. For food companies, adding protein to virtually everything is an easy way to make their products more alluring. No Starbucks executive is going to suggest a new line of 'fat enhanced' cold foam or iced tea with extra carbs. But extra protein—sure. And that's how we end up in a world of protein mania. The protein shake has given way to protein coffees and protein matchas and protein energy drinks and protein sodas. The protein bar has similarly descended into madness: Last week, Hershey's announced a 'Double Chocolate flavored protein bar' that looks like its normal chocolate bar (Hoffman would be proud). For the purists, there's the recently launched David bar, named after Michelangelo's, which bills itself as 'the most effective portable protein on this planet.' You can eat protein-fortified vanilla glazed donuts for breakfast, top your double cheeseburger with protein-laced ketchup, and finish the day with protein powder mixed with melatonin that promises a good night's sleep. If you're suspicious of these products, it's for good reason. Shoppers might think that certain foods are healthier now that they have a protein label slapped on them. Some of the new products are truly good for you—but eating a ton of protein-packed candy (or even just lots of red meat) comes with health risks that could offset whatever dubious benefit all that added protein might provide. A Snickers bar with 20 grams of protein is still a Snickers bar. By the time I finished my protein dinner, I was starting to feel bloated. Still, I wasn't quite done. I cued up the trailer for Protein, a film that debuted in U.K. cinemas last weekend. The movie tells the story of 'a gym-obsessed serial killer' who 'murders and eats a local drug dealer' for—what else?—protein. I took a bite of a protein-packed double-chocolate cookie and hit 'Play.'

CBS News

5 hours ago

• CBS News

Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns with Trump's "big, beautiful bill"

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns over potential cuts President Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill" would make to Medicaid and food benefits for her constituents in Alaska. In an interview for "CBS Sunday Morning," Murkowski told CBS News senior correspondent Norah O'Donnell that she hasn't given any absolute deal-breakers in the Senate legislation — but she's voiced her reservations about the Medicaid proposals. "I have not given anybody in the administration an absolute, this is my red line, right?" Because I think it's important that every step of the way, I communicate where my concerns are," Murkowski told O'Donnell in the interview airing this weekend. The reconciliation bill — or "one big, beautiful bill," as Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress have dubbed it — has passed the House, but remains up for debate in the Senate, where some Republicans are pushing for deeper cuts to Medicaid than the House-passed version allows. Medicaid is the entitlement program that offers government-backed health care for both low-income Americans and those with disabilities, with the federal government and states splitting the costs. While the House version adds a new work requirement to Medicaid for childless adults, the Senate wants work requirements to expand to parents of older children. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, provides food benefits to the poorest Americans, and some Senate Republicans are hoping to place more requirements on states. "So I've been pretty clear that when it comes to Medicaid, those cuts that would harm Alaskan beneficiaries, that's not something that I can take home, right? We have some of the highest health care costs in the country. We have 40% of Alaska's kids that are on Medicaid. I want to try to do what we can to address certain aspects of our entitlement spending. We've got to do that. But doing it with the most vulnerable bearing the brunt of that is not the answer," she said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from North Dakota, wants the reconciliation bill to pass by the July 4 holiday, but that deadline is quickly approaching. Watch more of the interview with Sen. Lisa Murkowski on "CBS Sunday Morning" on Sunday, June 22.