Just doing some reading and came across an article on Coca-Cola's lobbying effort to make sure soft drinks are not excluded from purchase under the SNAP program (formerly known as "food stamps). SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
I wondered why they would be so interested.
The lobbying group Science in the Public Interest estimates that $4 Billion of the $80 Billion allocated to the SNAP program (that's 5%) is spent on carbonated soft drinks by recipients. This total does NOT include non-carbonated drinks like Monsters, Gatorade, etc, so the total on high sugar content drinks is likely significantly higher.
I was curious about how much this $4 Billion in transfer payments was as a percent of total soft drink sales.
In 2012 total soft drink sales were about $60 Billion, however that includes all outlets where soft drinks can be purchased such as restaurants, vending machines, sporting venues, grocery and convenience stores.
SNAP benefits cannot be used at all these locations. They can only be used at grocery and convenience stores primarily. According to a WSJ article total sales in grocery stores and convenience stores are about $28.7 Billion of the $60 Billion.
$4 Billion as a percent of $28.7 Billion is 14% of total soft drink sales that are derived from the SNAP program.
NOW I know why they are so interested---that is substantial for the industry...and Coke.
Let the special interest money flow...
Economics, civics, constitutional law, Supreme Court cases, AP Economics teaching resources, and classroom lessons by a retired social studies teacher.
Showing posts with label Government Waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Waste. Show all posts
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Creating poor incentives: "The Startling Rise of Disability in America"
National Public Radio (NPR) has a terrific article (and graphs!!) on the rise in the number of people receiving Federal Disability Compensation. It is quite eye-opening.
Seems like this program has resulted in TONS of un-intended consequences.
People have an incentive to lie and they are enabled to do so by government and other self-interested parties (read the part about the "disability-industrial complex").
It creates a lack of respect for a well-intentioned program and causes the rest of the population to be more cynical about government than is necessary.
I encourage you to read it. It is important for understanding the citizen-to-government relationship and how a breakdown in this relationship (mainly a lack of respect) is very harmful to the nation.
Seems like this program has resulted in TONS of un-intended consequences.
People have an incentive to lie and they are enabled to do so by government and other self-interested parties (read the part about the "disability-industrial complex").
It creates a lack of respect for a well-intentioned program and causes the rest of the population to be more cynical about government than is necessary.
"...The federal government spends more money each year on cash payments for disabled former workers than it spends on food stamps and welfare combined. Yet people relying on disability payments are often overlooked in discussions of the social safety net.
People on federal disability do not work. Yet because they are not technically part of the labor force, they are not counted among the unemployed.
In other words, people on disability don't show up in any of the places we usually look to see how the economy is doing. But the story of these programs -- who goes on them, and why, and what happens after that -- is, to a large extent, the story of the U.S. economy. It's the story not only of an aging workforce, but also of a hidden, increasingly expensive safety net...." NPR. "Unfit for Work: The startling rise in disability in America"
I encourage you to read it. It is important for understanding the citizen-to-government relationship and how a breakdown in this relationship (mainly a lack of respect) is very harmful to the nation.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Was Romney right in saying we need fewer Fire Fighters? See the graphs/data here before yelling at me...
Here are a couple of graphs showing some interesting information regarding firemen (and women).
The first one shows the decrease in the number of fires since 1980 (the RED line and look at the left hand scale) of about 40% and the increase in the number of firefighters (BLUE line and look at the right hand scale) of about 40%. We have many more firemen fighting fewer fires.
The second graph is pretty self-explanatory. The left scale shows the number of calls to the fire department for medical calls (BLUE line), actual fire calls (Solid RED line) and false alarms (dotted RED line).
In most cities we have firehouses that support BOTH ambulance service and firefighting equipment/trucks. The trend in the graphs seem to show we need fewer, expensive full service firehouses and more ambulance based houses with less capital requirements (trucks, etc) that would be less expensive.
Having said this, I LOVE MY FIRE DEPARTMENT!! :)
The first one shows the decrease in the number of fires since 1980 (the RED line and look at the left hand scale) of about 40% and the increase in the number of firefighters (BLUE line and look at the right hand scale) of about 40%. We have many more firemen fighting fewer fires.
![]() |
| Source: Marginal Revolution |
The second graph is pretty self-explanatory. The left scale shows the number of calls to the fire department for medical calls (BLUE line), actual fire calls (Solid RED line) and false alarms (dotted RED line).
![]() |
| Source: Marginal Revolution |
Having said this, I LOVE MY FIRE DEPARTMENT!! :)
Sunday, June 26, 2011
I have wasted money on some good or service, but I have never wasted money on money...Confused? Read this and you won't be confused but will be angry...
Wasting money on money. Who gets to say that? Well, some politicians and a bureaucratic structure that probably knew this was a bad idea but did not act, gets that distinction. I guess it is a stupid question to ask if anyone lost a job/election over this. Nice example of unintended consequences that really could have been avoided by resisting someone's pet project or idea. Gee Whiz--please be better stewards of the peoples money...
Got this from Greg Mankiw:
Got this from Greg Mankiw:
""On today's Planet Money, we visit an underground vault that's full of money nobody wants.
The money — bags and bags of dollar coins — is the result of a 2005 law that requires the U.S. Mint to print a series of coins bearing the likeness of each U.S. president.
The problem is, people don't really like dollar coins. And there aren't enough people who are fired up about, say, Rutherford B. Hayes, to make much of a difference.
So more than 1 billion dollar coins are now sitting, unwanted, in Federal Reserve vaults around the country. By the time the program wraps up in 2016, the Fed will be sitting on 2 billion unwanted coins, according to the Fed's own estimates.
The total cost to manufacture those unwanted coins: $600 million.""
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

