Dems scream that new rules in some states bar food stamps from being used to buy...

PBS--the Public Broadcasting System, long funded by taxpayer dollars--constantly bleats that it totally supports good government policies, eh?  And since it's LONG been known that sugary drinks and foods fuel obesity, diabetes and poor nutrition, you'd think the Leftist/libs who run PBS would support any effort to reduce sugar consumption by young Americans, eh?

So last year, when the head of Trump's department of Health--RFK jr, a former darling of the Left--proposed a new rule allowing states that wanted to STOP allowing food stamps to be used to buy sugary soft-drinks or junk food to do so, you'd think PBS would applaud that, right?  

But because PBS is run by Trump-obsessed Dems, not only did PBS object to the proposal, they uploaded a LONG whiny propaganda piece on the Associated Press wire.  And the AP spewed that out to all newspapers and TV stations in the country.  Here's the core of it: 

The efforts are aimed at reducing chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes associated with sweetened drinks and other treats, a key goal of Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again effort. 

But retail industry and health policy experts said state SNAP programs, already under pressure from steep budget cuts, are unprepared for the complex changes, with no complete lists of the foods affected and technical point-of-sale challenges that vary by state and store.

Wait, what do the alleged "steep budget cuts" have to do with removing sugary drinks from the list of things consumers can buy with food stamps, eh?  Nothing, as PBS well knows.  So why would PBS mention it as the first objection?  Because they had to come up with something other than "Trump backed it, so we oppose it," since as PBS also well knows, the science is clearly on RFK's side.

Similarly, PBS bleats that states are "unprepared for the complex changes."  Really?  How complex can it be?  There's already a list of things people aren't allowed to buy with food stamps, and what PBS bleats are "complex changes" just involves adding two hundred or so UPC product codes to that list.
   Finally: "challenges that vary by state and store"?   By state, yes, but each state only has to worry about its own rules, not those of other states.  And all stores in each state have the same rules.  No complexity at all.  But PBS wants viewers/readers to believe there are daunting, insurmountable reasons why dis iz impossibly difficult!  Or in the unlikely event it can be done, the alleged complexity will surely destroy most grocery stores!

Now for the topper from the "believe all Science" liars at PBS:

And research remains mixed about whether restricting SNAP purchases improves diet quality and health.

REAL research unequivocally shows sugar consumption is linked to obesity and diabetes.  I don't doubt PBS has an expert from the "Learing Center of Minneapolis" who'll claim his "research shows no benefit from cutting back on sugar consumption, but real experts agree that sugar is bad, especially for kids.
   Wait, it gets better!  Here's PBS again:

The National Retail Federation predicted longer checkout lines and more customer complaints as SNAP recipients learn which foods are affected by the new waivers.

OMG, stop the presses!  "Complaints," y'say?  Stores in states that enacted the new rules have clearly posted 'em, well in advance of 1 Jan, but most stores only posted the new rules in English and Spanish.  What if you're from Mongolia?  A leftist/socialist "expert" wailed,

"It's a disaster waiting to happen of people trying to buy food and being rejected," said Kate Bauer, a nutrition science expert at the University of Michigan.  A report by the National Grocers Association and other industry groups estimates implementing the new SNAP rules will cost U.S. retailers $1.6 billion initially and $759 million each year going forward.

Wow, looks like hell has indeed frozen over, cuz have you ever heard PBS worried about predictions of losses by retailers?  I haven't.  PBS couldn't care less about companies losing money, cuz dey wants the government to run everything, including all grocery stores.  Cuz profits beez eeeebil!  Dat why dey support Momdani's faaabulous idea of New York City building and running city-owned grocery stores!  It'll only cost a paltry $30 million for a single store.  Such a deal!  
  But it gets even bettah!  Duh leftists are screaming that if duh horrible Trump regime "punishes" food stamp recipients by not lettin' 'em buy sugary soft drinks and snack cakes with food stamps, the rest of us will have to pay more for our groceries.  Seriously!

"Punishing SNAP recipients means we'll all have to pay more at the grocery store," said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for an anti-hunger advocacy group.

Let's take a look at that claim: The total value of food stamps issued each year is reportedly $100 billion or so, and every dollar is spent by recipients.  If they can't spend it on junk food, do ya think they'll just not spend it at all?  Of course not.  And if they DO spend it all--presumably on healthier food--how would retailers be losing income?

I'd love for a PBS propagandist to ask Gina Plata-Nino to explain her bullshit claim in detail--but of course that will never happen.  The shithead socialists who run PBS love claiming that the new rules will force YOU to pay more for groceries, and they're gonna run wif dat.

The first food-stamp law was passed in 1964 and later updated by the "Food and Nutrition Act of 2008," which said food stamps could be used for "any food product intended for human consumption," except alcohol and ready-to-eat hot foods.

On several occasions conservative lawmakers proposed stopping recipients from using food stamps to buy luxury foods like steak and lobster, or so-called junk food like potato chips and ice cream.  But Dems always rejected proposals to remove junk food because Leftists claimed any new rules "would be costly and complicated to implement, and might not change recipients' buying habits or reduce health problems."

Now, the research is unequivocal that eating less sugar is good for health.  And while the rules might not change "buying habits," at least recipients would now have to pay for junk food with cash instead of free food stamps, which would almost certainly reduce junk consumption.  But the Dems always easily defeat such simple logic for better health by wailing "Yew Rethuglicans cain't tell ouah voters whut to eat!!!"  

Of course the pro-health people were NOT telling food-stamp recipients they couldn't eat junk food, just that they could no longer use food stamps (taxpayer money) to buy sugary drinks, candy and junk food. 
 
But at last states are allowed to remove junk food from being paid with food stamps-– and they've responded.

The new rules took effect in five states on the first of this year.  Amazingly, despite Democrat predictions that the new rules would cause total chaos because of their alleged "complexity," that didn't happen.

PBS then wails about one food stamp user who says the new rules "will make it more difficult to determine how to use the $298 in SNAP benefits he receives each month, while also increasing the stigma he feels at the cash register."  Horseshit.  You just cant buy junk food with food stamps.  It's not complicated, despite what PBS claims.

But even if the states report significant health benefits, it won't matter the next time the Democrats win the presidency since the Dems will erase the new food stamp rules and put it back the way it was before Trump.

The PBS hit-piece closes with a quote from Anand Parekh, a doctor who's the "chief of health policy" at an enormous state U in a Dem shithole state.  He bleats that "This doesn't solve the two fundamental problems: that healthy food in this country is unaffordable, while unhealthy food is cheap and ubiquitous."

No, you leftist asshole, there's LOTS of healthy food in the U.S, and food stamp users can have it, paid for with food stamps (taxpayer dollars).  But from the beginning of the food stamp program, stupid rules have allowed users to buy junk and sugar with food stamps, even after it was known that the stuff caused obesity and diabetes.  But Leftist pols--Democrats all--have always blocked healthy changes, to curry favor (and votes) from food-stamp users.

The Dems wanna go back to that, and if that causes obesity and diabetes--as it does--they just smile and shrug.  "It's a free country, so we won't let yew make any rulez on whut ouah voters kin buy wif food stamps!  We haz spoken!"  And Republicans understandably won't wanna spend political capital on the issue.

Democrat logic.  "Sugar causes obesity and diabetes.  But we'll wail to high heaven that any policy that might reduce that is AWFUL--well at least if it's a Republican policy."

Source: PBS

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/bans-on-using-snap-funds-for-soda-candy-and-other-foods-take-effect-in-some-states-jan-1