Government Welfare Encourages Obesity… or so it appears
On Thursday, the state-by-state obesity rankings were announced. As a cynic, my first thought was, “I wonder if the fattest states are also those which spoon out the highest levels of welfare?” Turns out the data correlates quite nicely.
by Michael Naragon
theconstitutionalalamo.com
The “F as in Fat” study presented by the Trust for America’s Health provided statistical information to show that the nation is becoming more obese. The states were ranked 1 to 50, from the highest percentage of obese people to the lowest. States 51 through 57 were, unfortunately, left out of the study. Sorry, Mr. President.
News broadcasts across the country scolded their respective localities for their gluttony. Rather than simply take the statistics at face value, however, I wanted to see if there is any relationship between the federal government’s social welfare programs and obesity, a link between Big Brother and Big Butts, so to speak. What I found proves no causality, of course, and a much more extensive analysis would need to be done to bear out my findings. The findings, however, are provocative.
In the Trust for America’s Health study, the most obese state in the country is Mississippi, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, answering the question of why Mark Sanford had to fly all the way to Argentina to sow his oats. The least obese–and presumably the healthiest–states are Colorado, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Hawaii. I limited my investigation to these ten states.
I compared the TAH’s numbers with the federal government’s statistics on individual Food Stamp participation for each of the ten states. More effort was required to find this information than I would have imagined, until I discovered that the official name of the program, as of October 2008, is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Now it sounds much more like the bureaucratic black hole that it is. Here are the top five obese states, with their percentages of obesity and food stamp participation:
¦Mississippi – 32.5% of population is obese, 14.8% of pop. participates in SNAP
¦Alabama – 31.1% obese, 11.9% SNAP
¦West Virginia – 31.1% obese, 15.3% SNAP
¦Tennessee – 30.2% obese, 14.5% SNAP
¦South Carolina – 29.7% obese, 13.0% SNAP
¦Average of the top five: 30.92% obese, 13.9% SNAP
These numbers aren’t particularly striking until you compare them with the least obese states. I have listed them from 46 (Hawaii) to 50 (Colorado). Colorado, again, was the least obese state in the nation.
¦Hawaii – 21.8% obese, 7.4% SNAP
¦Rhode Island – 21.7% obese, 8.1% SNAP
¦Connecticut – 21.3% obese, 6.4% SNAP
¦Massachusetts – 21.2% obese, 7.7% SNAP
¦Colorado – 18.9% obese, 5.1% SNAP
¦Average of the bottom five: 21.0% obese, 6.9% SNAP
Again, these statistics are no proof of causality, but there is a definite correlation. The SNAP program, according to the government’s website, is designed to “put food on the table for some 31 million people per month.” Many of these individuals apparently need larger chairs to sit around their tables. One of the reasons behind the government’s name change, the website explains, is to focus more on getting healthy food within reach of its “clients,” an indication that Washington may have an idea that this sort of relationship exists.
For me, the numbers raise several questions. First, regardless of the government’s apparent junk food explanation for the statistics, one would expect people living at or below the poverty level to be anything but obese. The assistance provided by Washington would be getting them the essentials they need to survive until they can get back on their feet, right? And before I go on, I am fully aware that there are families who have used this program, or one like it, to do exactly that: get back on their feet and off the federal dole. But there are many more families–and I have seen examples first-hand–who use their federal food assistance as merely an addition for purchasing staple items while they use their unemployment or welfare money to buy alcohol, cigarettes, and food not included on the SNAP list. Poor states like Mississippi, where we should expect to see a lot of the belt tightening of which the president speaks, are instead the most obese. Could we not make a reasonable deduction that the people of the most obese states have no problem obtaining food?
A second question raised by these statistics involves health care. President Obama and his lackeys are making a concerted effort to push a federal health care system through Congress. Assuming many of these impoverished obese are currently also on Medicare, would they then all move to Obama’s “competitive” insurance plan? Has the Congressional Budget Office or the Office of Management and Budget figured the true cost of nationalized health care, taking into account these obese and the chronic health care issues that accompany them? More importantly, can a government that makes us fat really be trusted to maintain our health?
Finally, I wonder if the federal government doesn’t look at the obese in much the same way it looks at tobacco users. Our smoking president proudly signed more anti-tobacco legislation last week, but the government still depends upon the tax revenue generated by the nicotine addicts, many of whom are considered “poor.” Has Washington been working the same way with those addicted to Little Debbie cakes? Have they been fattening up the low-income population in order to make them more ready and dependent upon federally-administered health care?
As a side note, I noticed a few other interesting tidbits when combing through the TAH study. The most rapidly fattening states? Ohio, which increased 1.6% from 2008 and Arizona, which increased 1.5%. Ohio’s SNAP population is also rising as the state’s economic wounds continue to fester. Perhaps John Kasich’s platform as he runs for governor should stress fixing the Buckeye State’s economy and waistline. Arizona’s illegal immigrant population may be having some effect on their obesity push. The qualifications for SNAP eligibility are so full of loopholes that many illegals are undoubtedly receiving federal benefits, and their SNAP participation is on the rise.
So the next time the president speaks about 50 million uninsured in America as the violinist plays in the background, don’t allow yourself to feel too guilty. At least they’re eating well on the taxpayers’ dime. |
