SNAP Shouldn't Subsidize Slurpees

Victor Joecks on Apr 1, 2025

Even Chicken Little would be exhausted trying to keep up with what Democrats claim President Donald Trump wants to do.

Just look at the news. On Tuesday, Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., said that Republican cuts to SNAP "are the difference between life and death for the many in the communities that we serve." SNAP is the rebranded food stamps program.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has accused Republicans of setting "in motion the largest cut to Medicaid in American history." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Trump's work to dismantle the Department of Education "is a direct attack on America's students, teachers and families."

To understand why this is fearmongering, consider a recent trip I made to 7-Eleven. My wife and I wanted to buy our kids Slurpees after baseball practice. Shhh ... don't tell Robert Kennedy Jr. In between my frantic efforts to keep my kids from overfilling their cups, I noticed a sticker on the machine.

"All Slurpee cups are EBT eligible," it read.

EBT stands for Electronic Benefits Transfer. It's how people spend their SNAP benefits at stores. There was a similar sign on the soda machine. The U.S. Department of Agriculture website confirms that the signs are accurate.

Taxpayers are subsidizing Slurpees and sodas.

This is wasteful. Food stamps are supposed to help low-income individuals ward off hunger, not satiate their sweet tooth. But imagine the left's reaction if you proposed making junk food ineligible for food stamps.

They'd claim that you wanted to cut benefits from the poor. That you wanted to cut the program. That you wanted to stigmatize poor people.

This isn't speculation. House Republicans are currently pushing a bill to do just that, and those are some of the attacks they're facing.

Those attacks may have a grain of truth but they're deeply misleading. If Republicans pass a ban on SNAP paying for junk food, hunger won't increase one bit. The biggest impact may be a reduction in diabetes, which low-income Americans are more likely to develop. That could save the Medicaid program money, but then Democrats would likely claim Republicans are cutting the program.

Once you see this pattern, Democrats' alarmism is hard to take seriously. The Department of Education has been around for decades. Aside from some bright spots with charter schools, public education is generally terrible. Just because the name says "education" doesn't mean the department is doing much to improve how kids learn.

Now, if I haven't convinced you, I challenge you to do this: Open the calendar app on your phone. Create an appointment for July 15, 2026. In the notes section, write down three things you think will happen as the result of Republican actions.

Some examples: Republicans will cut SNAP benefits and 100,000 people will die of starvation. Trump will cut Medicaid and people will have worse health outcomes, including 50,000 more heart attack deaths. Gutting the Department of Education will reduce student achievement by five percentage points. A note: Look beyond the funding level of a certain program and consider outcomes. Government programs are supposed to be a means to an end, not just a money pit.

If you think Trump has dictatorial aspirations, set a reminder for November 2026 or 2028. Write down if you think Trump will cancel elections or run for a third term.

Make sure to also write down if someone has made this claim.

When that date comes, look around and see what happened. Perhaps Trump has led America into unprecedented levels of starvation, illness and ignorance. Or perhaps Democrats have staked their electoral success on scaring people like you.

Either way, you won't have to take my word for it.

========

Victor Joecks is a columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Email him at vjoecks@reviewjournal.com or follow @victorjoecks on X. To find out more about Victor Joecks and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the

----