The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy has been kind enough to allow us to share its content for more than a decade when it interests us. We may not always agree, but that is not a barrier to sharing it. The point is to debate and to occasionally bend conservatarian light to shine on places that might appear contrary to mainstream thought.
Yesterday, while looking for content, I came across this headline. “SNAP candy & soft drink ban would hurt retailers.” The gist is this. Whether it is NH legislators looking to improve health outcomes for people spending other people’s money on “food” or the MAHA movement at the federal level, restrictions will cost everyone a lot of money.
The local and state economies will take a hit.
From lost sales to implementation, education, and enforcement costs, the report’s research suggests it would be better for everyone if we just dropped it.
The introduction of SB 615, HB 1773, and HB 1797 in the New Hampshire legislature no doubt represent well-intentioned efforts to curtail unhealthy eating and drinking habits among SNAP recipients in the Granite State. However, if the program were to be 100% successful in its goal of curtailing the consumption of candy and soft drinks by SNAP participants, it would, under our original analysis, cause a $17,828,522 annual loss to businesses that accept SNAP throughout the state, in the form of foregone sales.
17.8M. That’s a lot in a small state. I’m sure at least a few legislators have an OMG moment.
The report does state that EBT or SNAP users may simply do an end run and buy the items with their own money. That they might use those same EBT dollars on sweet items not restricted. That this would soften the blow they predict. And there are all sorts of calculations on estimated in-state and cross-border purchases lost. It’s quite comprehensive, but the news is always bad, and it never says anything (I could find) about the SNAP money not spent on candy and soda being spent anyway, on something else.
Neither the article itself nor the ten-page report that spawned it assumes the EBT card money will get spent, if not on candy and soda. Put another way, if SNAP beneficiaries spend millions less a year by not buying candy or soda, don’t we only lose those sales if they never spend it at all? That’s kind of absurd.
I may be oversimplifying it. I never made six figures (or any figures) as the director of an Institute for public policy, so it may well be I lack a gene for understanding how people on SNAP wouldn’t just spend the “free” money taxpayers gave them anyway, because they have it and they aren’t just going to give it back.
If you say, ” Here’s a few hundred dollars each month, don’t spend it on candy and soda,” it does not mean don’t spend it. You can’t store it in a mattress or buy gold or bitcoin with it. It isn’t an investment vehicle that grows the longer you leave it on the card. And it isn’t enough to save for a rainy day.
I guess the question is: where’d that money go?
Isn’t the answer right back to New Hampshire retailers on something else the program allows? And if that’s the case, are we really losing any money at all, including from the unfound fraud and abuse the system invites, and until recently most often ignores? And who wants to make an argument that stopping EBT fraud is bad for retailers (perhaps a discussion for another time)?
Maybe it is in the report, and I missed it, but if it was, I didn’t see it. And why write a report for the legislature to stop legislation if there is no scary measurable effect on retail sales and local and state economies?
A lateral move (they will spend it anyway) means no loss, and I’d wager that applies to some, if not all, cross-border traffic as well, given that people on EBT are likely to come here to pay a lot less for alcohol and cigarettes with other money and use some EBT dollars before they head back over the border.
I feel like I’m missing something because my analysis is just too damn simple to have been missed by the folks at JBartlett, who have done a lot of great research.
And sure, we would still have to spend money on education and enforcement of any new restriction, but here’s the other thing that never rears its ugly head in their research. Insulin resistance is caused by blood sugar spikes. Lots of them, over time. Sugar from candy, soda, added sugar in cheap food, and other carbohydrates create short-term highs that lead to cravings that lead to obesity, a significant long-term health problem in itself. But insulin resistance also causes type 2 diabetes, has been linked to Alzheimer’s (colloquially referred to as Type III Diabetes), and a growing list of health complications that, assuming EBT and SNAP users might also be on Medicaid, are significantly more expensive chronic diseases.
Without even guessing at the long-term personal and fiscal health benefit costs, acknowledging that EBT and SNAP users might still buy doughnuts or pastries instead, what if losing ten million a year on candy sales (even though that money will get spent elsewhere) saves us a 100 million a year later on?
And that’s without exploring that taxpayers might not want people spending their money on crap when SNAP and EBT are supposed to be supplemental ‘NUTRITION’ programs.
Note: A search of its 990s could not determine where JBartlett, which is a non-profit, gets its funding.
Here is the reported funding from 2020-2024.
Donor details are restricted, so we do not know if any research results can be in any way linked to financial support.
