Questions

Reader comment on: Krugman and Obama on Infant Nutrition

Submitted by Andy C (United States), Feb 18, 2011 15:57

Is the change in the absolute size of the program the right way to look at WIC? Should the fact that the poverty rate has recently hit a 15 year high be taken into account? Would the right way to look at this be to look at WIC benefits per recipient, taking into account the fact that food prices have also risen over the last ten years?

As to middle income families being eligible for WIC, am I mistaken that eligibility is a fx of two factors: household income and members of the household? The eligibility requirements on the USDA FNS site seem to preclude real headline-grabbing abuse:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/incomeguidelines09-10.htm

Finally, is Krugman's argument that both parties are wielding strawmen and red herrings to evade the truly difficult decisions that must be made re Medicare and Medicaid?

---

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title	By	Date
the elephant in the room [w/response] [95 words]	davesnot here	Feb 22, 2011 10:12
WIC [w/response] [148 words]	Vince	Feb 18, 2011 23:48
↔ Why would it cost more in 2010? [64 words]	editrix	Feb 20, 2011 04:53
↔ Twice more sounds about right [66 words]	Not to sure but...	Feb 20, 2011 19:34
⇒ Questions [136 words]	Andy C	Feb 18, 2011 15:57
↔ Inflation, income and abuse [152 words]	Shannon Love	Feb 18, 2011 17:14
↔ Good point [104 words]	Andy C	Feb 18, 2011 21:12
↔ WIC [w/response] [112 words]	Vince	Feb 18, 2011 23:57
↔ Rich isn't numeric [98 words]	Shannon Love	Feb 19, 2011 00:28
↔ re: WIC [126 words]	Jill C	Feb 21, 2011 18:06
It's hard to help without hurting [214 words]	Shannon Love	Feb 18, 2011 14:19
I'm ashamed [92 words]	Brian C.	Feb 18, 2011 12:36
What a surprise [17 words]	deepelemblues	Feb 18, 2011 11:22
↔ Apples to apples [78 words]	jwg	Feb 18, 2011 14:35

Comment on this item