Excellent dive into SNAP, thanks Justin! Shout out to your daughter from this geriatric long time food banker.
I appreciate your observations about farming SNAP out to the states (pun possibly intended) and the unequal/inequitable patchwork that results. Note we DO NOT do that with Social Security and Medicare - somehow the federal government manages to run those programs across all states.. we manage to collect federal taxes centrally as well... stipulated that those systems aren't perfect, just emphasizing that there's no mystical advantage to 50 states running a national program in their own way, subject to widely varying state resources and abilities to run & fund 50 management systems instead (almost seems like asking for inefficiencies and duplicative bureaucracies?)
On a personal level, I appreciate your editorial comment in the last couple minutes. If only we could more widely speak like and be spoken to as adults, as you do in these videos: here's what's really happening, in detail; let's walk through causes and effects; now, are we happy with these realities? Put on our thinking caps AND do a little heart check... are we proud of our work (our shared national policy & procedural outcomes) or do we want to advocate for change?
This is how/why your Substack is valuable to me - not just reinforcing my feelings or assumptions; rather, providing analysis and setting the questions that arise within that
Excellent explanation of the consequences of the Big Beautiful Bill that the Republicans in Congress, who passed the bill (congratulating themselves for doing so) tried to hide from their constituents by any means possible.
…and J AZ. Wrestle a do nothing Congress who fails to represent we the people. We elect them…we pay them…we tell them how we would like them to allocate the tax dollars that we annually deposit into the federal treasury for them to fund some big beautiful bullshit bill I don't want to support. I want my Congressperson to represent my interests and the lobbyists want theirs represented at the same time…looks like money talks louder than me.
Australia applies the principle of “direct offset” to many areas. I would like to hear an economist discuss how it could be applied to our annual federal tax. It would require an amendment to the constitution. What if I could earmark my tax payment for SNAP as a legally binding intent for it to be used for that purpose and that amount is directly offset on the liability side. The money would still go into the treasury for Congress to muck around with but there is a calculated annual distribution that must be spent (per my wishes) on SNAP. That, by the way, is how The University of Michigan endowment process works. See how dollars specifically earmarked for football have worked. The Wolverines are the best team money can buy.
Not a can of worms but a treasury more like a tackle box full of artificial lures. You open the box and all the lures are tangled into a ball. You carefully pick up said ball and turn it until you find the lure you need and surgically remove it without burying a barb in your finger. Trust me…it hurts. I can show you pictures. But ultimately I got a monster smallmouth with it. Probably because of the blood scent on the lure.
Did I want Congress to give Musk a low interest loan? Hell no. But what if some Ford spin-off geek wants to build flying cars in Michigan and requests some federal dollars for the project?(always wanted one) My Congressperson would have to directly lobby me for those dollars. That would make me feel like I am actually being represented in this system…how it's supposed to feel.
Excellent dive into SNAP, thanks Justin! Shout out to your daughter from this geriatric long time food banker.
I appreciate your observations about farming SNAP out to the states (pun possibly intended) and the unequal/inequitable patchwork that results. Note we DO NOT do that with Social Security and Medicare - somehow the federal government manages to run those programs across all states.. we manage to collect federal taxes centrally as well... stipulated that those systems aren't perfect, just emphasizing that there's no mystical advantage to 50 states running a national program in their own way, subject to widely varying state resources and abilities to run & fund 50 management systems instead (almost seems like asking for inefficiencies and duplicative bureaucracies?)
On a personal level, I appreciate your editorial comment in the last couple minutes. If only we could more widely speak like and be spoken to as adults, as you do in these videos: here's what's really happening, in detail; let's walk through causes and effects; now, are we happy with these realities? Put on our thinking caps AND do a little heart check... are we proud of our work (our shared national policy & procedural outcomes) or do we want to advocate for change?
This is how/why your Substack is valuable to me - not just reinforcing my feelings or assumptions; rather, providing analysis and setting the questions that arise within that
What would Steve Irwin do?
wrestle that croc into submission? 😉
Excellent explanation of the consequences of the Big Beautiful Bill that the Republicans in Congress, who passed the bill (congratulating themselves for doing so) tried to hide from their constituents by any means possible.
…and J AZ. Wrestle a do nothing Congress who fails to represent we the people. We elect them…we pay them…we tell them how we would like them to allocate the tax dollars that we annually deposit into the federal treasury for them to fund some big beautiful bullshit bill I don't want to support. I want my Congressperson to represent my interests and the lobbyists want theirs represented at the same time…looks like money talks louder than me.
Australia applies the principle of “direct offset” to many areas. I would like to hear an economist discuss how it could be applied to our annual federal tax. It would require an amendment to the constitution. What if I could earmark my tax payment for SNAP as a legally binding intent for it to be used for that purpose and that amount is directly offset on the liability side. The money would still go into the treasury for Congress to muck around with but there is a calculated annual distribution that must be spent (per my wishes) on SNAP. That, by the way, is how The University of Michigan endowment process works. See how dollars specifically earmarked for football have worked. The Wolverines are the best team money can buy.
Now I'm just having Platypus Econ. fun.
Not a can of worms but a treasury more like a tackle box full of artificial lures. You open the box and all the lures are tangled into a ball. You carefully pick up said ball and turn it until you find the lure you need and surgically remove it without burying a barb in your finger. Trust me…it hurts. I can show you pictures. But ultimately I got a monster smallmouth with it. Probably because of the blood scent on the lure.
I know…it would be a bureaucratic nightmare can of worms…but a guy can dream, right?
Did I want Congress to give Musk a low interest loan? Hell no. But what if some Ford spin-off geek wants to build flying cars in Michigan and requests some federal dollars for the project?(always wanted one) My Congressperson would have to directly lobby me for those dollars. That would make me feel like I am actually being represented in this system…how it's supposed to feel.