Arizona Gov. Hobbs vetoed a food stamp ban and threw folks under the bus

Why else would Gov. Katie Hobbs veto a Republican-backed soda ban? She chose politics at the expense of Arizona’s most vulnerable.

Show Caption

Arizona Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs blew up the chance to ban the use of food stamps on sodas.

And why did she do it?

Her answer is a head-scratcher that leads any reasonable person to conclude she vetoed the Republican-backed bill over politics at the expense of Arizona’s most vulnerable.

“I appreciate your intent to improve the health outcomes of Arizonans,” Hobbs wrote in explaining her veto to Republican Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro.

Really? If she believes that, then she should have signed the legislation that would help promote healthy foods.

Instead, Hobbs bought into the erroneous idea that prohibiting food stamps to buy sodas would “unnecessarily deprive” these recipients of their purchasing power and that “relegates them to a new underclass of grocery shoppers.”

Hobbs banned dyes in schools. Why not soda?

I don’t understand the logic.

Hobbs had earlier signed bipartisan legislation banning certain artificial dyes and other chemicals from what can be served at public schools, including what’s available in vending machines.

The only difference between these two bills was support from Democratic lawmakers.

The Democrats apparently couldn’t stomach giving Republicans a win. Period.

Absolutely nobody argued that there is nutritional value to sodas. Nobody. So, why not restrict it?

Democratic Sen. Analise Ortiz argued that this isn’t about sodas but rather an attempt by government to regulate the diet of those who need food stamps — mostly poor people.

Again, I don’t understand this logic.

Food stamps help the poor buy nutritious food

Food stamps, or what’s now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, are designed to help the poor. Yes, the poor, because the rich don’t need government assistance to buy basic food.

The goal as indicated in the program’s title is to provide “nutrition” to those who need it.

What’s wrong with adhering to that mission? This type of government assistance is crucial to ensure that nobody goes hungry in this wealthy country of ours.

Opinion: Trump’s border czar wasted his time in Arizona

The program doesn’t relegate users as an “underclass of grocery shoppers,” as Hobbs and other Democrats argued. These folks, unfortunately, are already poor. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need the assistance.

I see nothing wrong with putting some restrictions on the type of food that can be purchased with our tax dollars. Recipients have the choice of not taking that assistance if they don’t like it.

Trump and Kennedy are right about this

We must be willing to recognize that we have a junk food crisis in this country that manifests everywhere.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s head of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, is the worst possible person to be championing the fight against junk food.

Kennedy, who came to Phoenix to back the “soda ban bill” that Hobbs later vetoed, is a conspiracy theorist on many fronts. But he is not wrong about what junk food is doing to America.

House Bill 2165 doesn’t even ban sodas outright. It was merely the first step to let Arizona ask permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do it.

Trump’s and MAGA’s motives against certain groups of people, including the poor, are horrifying and scary. But they are not wrong about making sure government money goes toward nutritious food.

Nobody will suffer if they can’t buy sodas instead of fruits, vegetables, eggs and bread.

Handing out food stamps in perpetuity is not the answer to our wealth inequality in America. It’s a helping hand (with some restrictions) to those who need it while they get back on their feet.

Elvia Díaz is editorial page editor for The Arizona Republic and azcentral. Reach her at 602-444-8606 or [email protected]. Follow her on X, (formerly Twitter), @elviadiaz1.