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

I will present the Pro argument for Brattin's House Bill 813. In this debate I will support this law and prove why it would be beneficial for both the recipients of the food stamp program and the taxpayers who support it. The food stamp program is officially known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). It is, essentially, a government benefit that allows for families of lower incomes to buy certain foods for their households. The government works alongside Food and Nutrition agencies, nutrition educators, and local or faith-based organizations to ensure that those millions eligible for assistance make informed decisions and have access to resources. [1] It is important to understand that in order for these families to receive the food stamps, the food must already have been paid for. This means that a portion of taxes go toward this program. That being said, Brattin and other Republicans have introduced the House Bill 813 to prevent food-stamp recipients from using the benefits to purchase "luxury" or "junk" foods. For clarification (taken from Oxford dictionary): Luxury: an inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain. Junk food: pre-prepared or packaged food that has low nutritional value. Cookies, chips, energy drinks, and soft drinks all fall under the junk food category, I'm sure we agree. Seafood and steak, however, are much broader terms. Brattin later admitted that the language might need some tweaking. He hadn't intended to ban items such as tuna or fish sticks, which are good for the diet. He meant the more luxurious seafood such as lobster and sushi, which many taxpayers cannot afford on their salaries. The food-stamps recipients are, in reality, using the taxpayers' money to buy crab legs and such. [2] But besides the abuse of SNAP's intentions, it would also be beneficial to the families in poverty to have regulated item lists from which to buy. This would cut down on the sugary stuff and lead to healthier families. This is especially good for the children of such families. The healthy diets would promote brain and body function, resulting in better performance in schools. The First Lady was heralded for her initiative to make school lunches healthier. Brattin is attempting the same thing on a much larger scale. The US is the most obese nation on the planet. While many are against this law, Brattin states, "This is anything but an attack on the poor. It's good government to ensure that those in need have good nutritional assistance without raking the taxpayer over the coals. This isn't me controlling what you can do with your own money, this happens to be the taxpayers' money." [3] Brattin plans to clarify the language in the bill, which undergo an extensive legislative process of debates and amendments. In conclusion, the recipients of SNAP benefit because their diet is improved, leading to healthier minds and bodies. The taxpayers benefit in that their money does not buy items that they themselves cannot afford for other people and their families. Thank you for your time, and good luck. #1: http://www.fns.usda.gov... #2: http://www.washingtonpost.com... #3: http://dailysignal.com...