Surf-n-Turf Law (House Bill 813) is illogical and unreasonable.

Thank you for your patience I apologize that I did not have my response ready for round 2. Thank you for your clarification and definitions of The food stamp program (SNAP), the proposed purpose of the bill, luxury, and junk food. Although, I have a few problems with how they relate to the bill, and your argument that "it would be beneficial for both the recipients of the food stamp program and the taxpayers who support it." Yes, I do agree that cookies, chips, soft drinks, and especially energy drinks all fall under the category of 'junk food'. yet, I will argue that they are still a part of the diet of a majority of Americans. As for seafood and steak. Despite what Brattin claims, the proposed bill has been drafted, and until changes are made, I am opposed to that said bill. Having said that, you still have some good points. If he truly meant that the more luxurious items in those categories be banned, I would then change my stance on that part of the bill. Fish and red meat are, in some opinions, part of a healthy diet. But restricting 2 categories of meat is unreasonable in my opinion. There are luxury items in these categories, but there are also affordable ones. As for steak, you can get new york strip for $10 lb, or premium kobe for anywhere from $1-200lb. Same with seafood, You can get affordable fish like tilapia, or salmon, or you can get Really good, expensive tuna. My point is there is no logic in banning the whole spectrum. In response to Brattin not planning on banning tuna or fish sticks, this sounds like an easy out to me. According to your definition of 'Junk food' ,"... pre-prepared or packaged food that has low nutritional value." I would consider tuna (canned I assume) and certainly fish sticks under the category of 'junk food'. personally I wouldn't consider them junk food, but they are pre packaged, and processed. Overall I believe he's saying 'you can't buy the luxury foods but you can buy the cheap ones' opposed to ' you can't buy the luxury foods but you can get the nutritional ones'. SNAP is an assistance program, not a support program. The amount of money people get is supplemental to their income, to help by paying for food, its not as if they get food stamps and go out and leave with more groceries than a person that has a job a supports themselves. its just a little bit of extra money to help. The abuse of food stamps has been studied and is a small percentage of the population of recipients. As for regulating items from which to buy would be the opposite of beneficial. Sure, cutting down on sugar in a diet is almost always beneficial, but whose to say all the recipients make bad choices when buying food? and yes, again a healthier diet will promote better brain and body function, but where are the facts that say 'SNAP recipients only buy junk foods, and need regulation'? better performance in schools would be beneficial, to the student and future community, but your basis behind it is false, therefore it isn't relevant. The First Lady had a great plan with the school lunch program, But Brattin's plan is what we are debating, and they have many differences. Taking sodas out and bringing better food into schools vs. putting a restriction on the foods that 14-15% of Americans wouldn't be able to purchase....and my response to, "...without raking the taxpayer over the coals".... the amount of people on food stamps, and funding going to the program has been on a decline since its record of 47.8 million recipients in December 2012. http://www.wsj.com... If and when Rick Brattin revises the bill and defines his terms, I will revisit my position on House Bill 813, but until then I still stand that it is illogical and unreasonable. thank you.