Junk Food and Banking: Trust People, Not Bureaucrats
From SNAP restrictions to banking regulations, government’s heavy hand punishes people instead of empowering them.
Hello Friends!
From SNAP (food stamp) restrictions to banking regulations, government’s heavy hand punishes people instead of empowering them.
Should Washington decide what families eat—or how banks lend? I’m discussing both today on panels at the State Policy Network Annual Meeting in New Orleans. Though the issues may look different, the lesson is the same: government doesn’t trust people. And when government doesn’t trust people, we all lose.
SNAP: Junk Food Bans Miss the Point
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, assisted more than 42 million Americans last year at a cost of $113 billion.
Now some states want to ban soda and chips. On the surface, that sounds sensible—who wouldn’t want healthier diets? But these restrictions don’t solve poverty. They undermine dignity, distort grocery markets (pushing up prices for items like milk), and even fuel black markets where benefits are traded.
The real problem isn’t whether a struggling family buys soda. It’s that SNAP, created in 1964 as temporary relief, has become permanent for many households. That’s not compassion—it’s dependency.
Reforming SNAP the Right Way
SNAP reform should focus on flexibility and self-sufficiency. A household of four earning under $3,250 per month can receive up to $973 per month in benefits. Those benefits should preserve choice while being tied to work, education, or training so families move toward independence.
As Milton Friedman argued, real compassion means trusting individuals—not bureaucrats—to make their own decisions.
Banking: The Same Problem in a Different Sector
Banking is facing its own wave of top-down mandates. Washington is expanding oversight of lending, interchange fees, and even what financial institutions are allowed to finance.
The result? Families and small businesses—those most in need of access to credit—are squeezed. History shows that when regulators micromanage banking, credit dries up, risk shifts into the shadows, and opportunities shrink.
When government doesn’t trust people, unintended consequences pile up:
SNAP rules raise food prices and encourage black markets.
Banking regulations reduce credit access and limit opportunity.
Bureaucracies grow while families struggle.
The Free-Market Alternative
The alternative is clear:
In nutrition policy: flexibility + work → self-sufficiency.
In banking policy: transparency + competition → access and stability.
Across the economy: less spending, lower taxes, fewer regulations → prosperity.
My Take
Whether it’s a mom in Houston buying groceries or a small business owner in Kansas seeking a loan, people—not bureaucrats—are best at making decisions. SNAP should not become a diet-policing tool. Banks should not become political pawns. Both should serve people, not the other way around.
Final Thought
Junk food bans and banking regulations may seem like separate debates, but the lesson is the same: top-down control doesn’t solve problems—it multiplies them. Empowering people, trusting families, and letting markets work is the only way to build a healthier, stronger, and freer America.
The attempt to isolate a problem ignores the complexities within. Sugar and corn syrup are heavily subsidized, yet these products contribute to type 2 diabetes which contributes to healthcare costs which taxpayers pay for. SNAP should not subsidize bad health resulting in increasing health costs. If it does, it should not exist.
People on SNAP not buying soda won't drive up milk prices, and it's not like Coke or Pepsi needs the money. I understand SNAP benefits aren't eligible to purchase alcohol or tobacco, either. Most stores clearly mark what is eligible for SNAP and what is not eligible. To avoid embarrassment, place the order online and have the employees do the shopping.