For example, neighborhood grocery stores pay dearly for having a lot of variety and availability. They throw out a LOT of fresh food (conservative estimates are around 10%), in order to preserve the “customer experience.”
A government-run food delivery service could save a lot of money on this end, because of the economics of scale. Instead of individual stores having to overstock at every single location in order to guarantee local availability, a city- or county-wide service would only have to overstock by a smaller margin at a single location. Food waste could be much, much lower.
Also, retail brand-marketing is built into the cost of everything you see in the grocery store. A government-run service would save all this cost, as well.
Grocery store refrigeration is expensive, because all those items need to be kept at food-safe temps while also simultaneously being accessible to customers. A government service would be able to store foods at safe temps more efficiently. There’s a couple of bucks worth of electricity being saved.
Also, the grocery store profit margin is not negligible. It’s small, sure, but the government service wouldn’t be trying to run a profit, so those savings would also lower the cost compared to current food stamps.
I suspect that grocery stores keep very close track of what SNAP funds are spent on. Then, with this trended data, they raise prices on items SNAP recipients tend to buy. Why wouldn’t they? Consider that the government has to actually pass a law preventing landlords from raising prices on section 8 housing, and then tell me grocery stores wouldn’t do the same exact thing.
Why should private industry profit from government assistance programs?
Why couldn’t SNAP recipients just order the food they want delivered? A hypothetical government service wouldn’t necessarily have to deliver the exact same food to everyone, right?
Eclectic??
There are two people in my house that have dietary restrictions-One because of the medicines she takes for cancer recovery, and the other because of the transplant meds she takes to make sure she doesn’t spit up a donated kidney. I’ll be sure to give them your regards.
What do yo mean by a “good job”? I am sure that our soldiers are provided with food while they are in service. The US has the best logistical operations in the history of the world. They are provided at no charge the entirety of their nutritional needs, often needs that are higher than most US civilians.
Cost effectiveness though, I am not so sure about.
If the only food that you have access to is food that you don’t like, then you’re correct that you aren’t being force fed it, if that is the only definition you can think of for force, but, as you have no access to anything else, you are forced to eat that or to starve.
I imagine less money would be spent. I think the OP said proposal would save $12.9B. I’m not under the impression that there’s some population out there in America that needs food that’s not getting it simply because we don’t have enough money or the program is stretched too thin.
I’m not sure, either. But I’m willing to bet the government could do it more cheaply than private industry (subsidized by the government) could. Either way, I’d rather spend 1.50 in taxes that don’t go to Walmart, than spend 1.00 in taxes that do.
Reading, this I am reminded of how well-stocked and efficient those lovely government grocery stores were in the Communist Eastern Europe during the 1980’s.
Funny thing. One of the pieces of propaganda NK feeds its people is about how people in the US are forced to eat grass to survive. Is 'lil Kim prophetic or what?
We’re not talking about feeding them grass, we’re discussing if it would be ok to feed them “shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables”. So no, Rocketman is not prophetic.
