[lbo-talk] "A Libertarian Alternative to the EFCA"

[Jordan Hayes]

I've always thought that a similar line of reasoning would be useful to 
think about the dread of "socialism" -- at least as purported by folks 
like CPAC.  Say you were to propose a huge increase in the size of the 
food stamp program.  Right now, the rough guidelines for income 
eligibility are 130% of "poverty wages" on a gross basis, and 100% on a 
net basis[1] ... what if we, say, doubled it?  The current 
family-of-four gross limit is $2300; at $4600 that represents up to 
$55k/yr.

"Socialism!" would be the cry.

But think about what it would do for "market choice" -- those in the 
$27k->$55k (re: doubling above) income range could suddenly "afford" 
more kinds of food[2] (especially the "better" kinds found at places 
that are typically "too expensive") and should stimulate growth in that 
market, and in a way that doesn't have "the government telling you what 
to do" ... because, of course, you buy your own food.

But as we have it now, the "socialism" that goes undetected by those who 
call into Rush's show are things like a ~$6B/yr corn subsidy[3], leading 
almost directly to the "popularity" of high fructose corn syrup -- and 
leading directly to a lack of "market choice" because the "foods" that 
are produced by the subsidized corn are all the same, all bland, and 
uniformly no good for you.

Right now the working poor get to "choose" between the various formats 
of HFCS-laden garbage that comes out the other end of the 
corporate-food-stamp-funded factory.

Bottom line: food is expensive, so the government has to pay to help; we 
can choose between:

1) Pay the companies to make the food cheaper, and take whatever it is 
their quarterly-earnings-based decision process results in producing

2) Pay the consumers and "let the market decide" which food companies 
last

Which one is more representative of the "goals and values" as stated by 
our politicians?  Which one is more "socialist" ...?  Which one supports 
more "market choice" ...?

/jordan

[1] Note that presupposes that our poorest of workers can expect a 30% 
tax haircut ...

[2] A completely different thread could be started whereby you could 
find all kinds of trickle-down benefits of this strategy: poorer people 
would eat better, thus helping the health care industry; by getting help 
with purchasing food, these families would have more disposable income, 
which they might use to buy a house or a cleaner car, or even just 
spending it on something fun, also stimulating the economy

[3] SNAP, the SNAP-y new name for the food stamp program, costs about 
$30B/yr these days and serves about 30M people -- only about half of 
those who, at first glance, "should" be eligible (i.e., are living under 
the poverty line)