> some anti-poverty activists call it a mean- spirited
> intrusion into the cupboards of the poor.

But it nicely complements our mean-spirited intrusion into their wallets, doesn't it?

Classic toss up for small-government types like myself. You don't want the government dictating what people can and cannot due but on the other hand you don't want people wasting resources that are provided by your tax dollars.

The Nanny State strikes.

Jeff:

Were the poor not childlike we'd not have to be their nannies.

"The federal government already restricts the use of food stamps somewhat. Recipients cannot use food stamps to buy liquor or tobacco, or hot foods such as rotisserie chicken."

Rotisserie chicken?

I have to back Jeff here. Bureaucratic control over these peoples' lives is already chilling. If your welfare consists of giving out certain foods, fine, but if it is money, then it is money. They may be childlike, but the nannies are incompetent.

Although, a forced diet of broccoli and tofu might drive them off the rolls pretty soon.

Peter--

But it's not money, it's food stamps, and food stamps are already restricted.

Of course it's an intrusion on the lives of the poor--but so is "antipoverty activism":

Colleen Moriarty, executive director of Hunger Solutions, which represents Minnesota food banks, said it would be better to simply try to educate food stamp recipients about nutrition.

"I think it's a bad idea to regulate people instead of empowering them," she said.

"Empowering" meaning "indoctrinating," no?

I don't get it. Is there something wrong with Twinkies?

Ask Harvey Milk.

If one's money has some private source, such as a job, investments, or relatives, then one is free to spend as one wishes.

However, why should those who live on the public dole have the freedom to dictate how the money should be spent ?

It's the same paradigm as allowing those receiving benefits to vote on whether to raise the benefits, or allowing CEOs to hand-pick the members of the compensation committee.

Especially since the foods that are proposed to be restricted are KNOWN to be unhealthy.
Thus, the taxpayers are put in the position of both paying for unhealthy behavior, and paying for medical care to alleviate the predictable health problems that result.