It’s weird because the bill is literally just for hot rotisserie chicken, and absolutely nothing else.
The amendment would amend the 2008 Food and Nutrition Act by modifying the definition of food to add “hot rotisserie chicken,” according to a joint statement about the bill from Sen. John Fetterman’s (D-Pa.) office. It would not increase funding or SNAP participant eligibility, or “allow all hot foods to be included for purchase.”
There’s nothing wrong with it I guess but it’s just weird. And this isn’t just another eccentric action by Fetterman, it’s a true bipartisan effort.
Sens. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) joined Fetterman in backing the amendment.
I guess that’s the most bipartisanship possible in today’s political climate. We can get people to agree on rotisserie chicken.
I mean, most grocery stores these days have a deli counter that serves rotisserie chicken, and it’s usually inexpensive - I believe it’s $6 for a whole chicken where I work. For that price, which is literally cheaper than a Big Mac these days, you get a main course that can easily serve a family with two or three kids. Considering that low-income families might not have the means to cook a whole chicken at home (I grew up poor and there were years when all we had was a microwave and a hot plate), it makes just about as much sense as being able to use food stamps at Papa Murphy’s, and it’s more cost-efficient too.
I have supermarket rotisserie chicken like 3 times a month, and it really is an inexpensive, tasty, and reasonably healthy family meal (plus a couple of sides). It’s totally ridiculous that SNAP doesn’t allow it.
I was going to comment just that, it’s a good idea but it seems ridiculously limited, why not let them whatever they need? or if you want to nanny them, forbid buying non-food items.
God knows the world will not end if a poor person buys a lobster, a rotisserie chicken or anything else a bit more expensive than ramen.
Generally, you can buy lobster with food stamps. (And I don’t judge anyone who does - if you want to spend the limited amount you get each month on a little treat, that’s your prerogative.) The dividing line is that it can’t generally be used to buy foods that are hot and ready to eat - so you can buy a take-and-bake pizza, or a rotisserie chicken that’s been cooked and then cooled, but not one that’s fresh out of the oven.
It’s true though that it’s extremely affordable, is ready to eat, it’s very healthy, and very filling. When I was poor it was a staple and I still buy it because it’s delicious and convenient.
Welcome to the American Protestant work ethic. The trend these days has been toward states banning EBT recipients from buying certain foods with it, because I guess poor people have to suffer in order to learn that God hates them for being poor.
The idea is that legitimately poor people cannot afford prepared food. I’m not defending that idea, just presenting the rationale behind the existing law.
The reason for making an exception for rotisserie chicken is that a cooked whole bird is often a loss-leader in U.S. groceries, thus cheaper than a fresh uncooked chicken of the same weight.
Getting this back to Fetterman, it is a centrist idea. Progressives might vote for it, but they won’t be co-sponsors because of wanting to make the program a lot less restrictive rather than just liberalizing at one edge. And hard-core Trumpers are against helping the poor, period.
Having Democratic Party senatorial centrists like Fetterman, or, previously, Manchin and Sinema, without real Republican equivalents, is unfortunate AKA sucks. But we would be better off it there was an equal and significant number of Democratic and Republican Fettermans. Many laws have obscure provisions that need tweaking because of some small change in society. Cooked chicken having become frequently cheaper than fresh is a mundane but real example.
Has Fetterman ever caused problems for Democratic leadership? Has his vote ever flipped the outcome?
If not, I shrug. Fetterman is from a swing state and is tacking to center. Yawn. But he lacks the cognition to pull it off effectively. I don’t like primarying Dems, but if he doesn’t resign before his term runs out, he should be primaried. But I don’t currently bear him the ill will that I’m reading here. It’s an unfortunate medical situation.
Sincere thanks @needscoffee: that was a consequential vote. But I couldn’t find any evidence online that it caused problems for the Democratic Leadership. It did attract attacks by Democratic House members. Radio silence from Fetterman’s Senate colleagues. Corrections welcome.
In the articles that I skimmed online, I couldn’t find evidence that action hero and prevaricator Markwayne Mullin would be worse than ICE Barbie Christie Noem. And I doubt whether any temporary deputy appointed by Trump would be better.
I want a Senate majority. That means supporting popular moderates. Fetterman is tacking moderate, but really isn’t popular. So I’m open to alternatives, but I lack the angst. Politics is about power. I do have bright lines. Filibuster and SCOTUS reform are mandates.