Free For Me, Not For Thee

Some business journalists follow daily events and long term trends, analyzing and interpreting data and informing the public. Others read a couple of blogs to write ill-informed hit jobs on ideological enemies (when they are not fluffing corporations).  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's hard to understand why someone would be paid so much money to do it. Megan McArdle:

Kevin Drum reacts to a bill which aims to limit the stuff that welfare recipients can buy with their food stamps:

What a dilemma. On the one hand, this bill promotes the exact same nanny-state behavior that Republicans howl about when Michelle Obama or Michael Bloomberg starts nattering on about salt consumption or fatty foods. On the other hand, it punishes welfare recipients, something that's always good for a round of applause from right-wing audiences. What's a conscientious conservative to do?

This doesn't seem like much of a dilemma, unless you think that favoring drug legalization, and selling heroin, are morally equivalent.

Miss Missed-the-Point strikes again! Drum is mocking conservatives, not making a moral equivalence. McArdle goes on to say that we should just give the poor cash and then leave them alone, except that we shouldn't.

But if we are going to have a food stamp program, that implies exclusions--things like laundry soap are already verboten from the program. It's not especially crazy to put unhealthy food on the excluded list.

McArdle was able to pay for a Victorian rowhouse in DC partly because of mortgage deductions and Obmaa's housing tax credit. Therefore I don't think it's especially crazy for me to say that I don't want my tax dollars freeing up McArdle's money to spend on a $1500 mixer.