A piece from the Daily Caller made the rounds yesterday, but I dismissed it as a parody when a few readers sent it my way. But as Simon Maloy noted, "[I]t seems too earnestly argued to be parody, and nowhere is it identified as such."
The opinion piece, published by author Brion McClanahan, calls for what he describes as "reform" of the food-stamp program. As McClanahan sees it, low-income Americans who rely on EBT government debit cards to purchase groceries should be forced to shop at "government stores" -- food stamps at private-sector stores would be prohibited -- which would only make available poor-quality food. These consumers would also have to "submit to a monthly tobacco and drug test," imposed by the government, which would cut off aid to those who test positive.
And then the real punishment kicks in.
People on government aid would also lose the privilege of voting. That way they couldn't vote for greater benefits or easier terms (most of them don't vote, but now they couldn't).
I don't know if this is intended to be funny -- it falls far short -- but as Maloy added, "What I do know is that he's put forth an idea that is illegal, almost certainly unconstitutional, morally reprehensible, and altogether monstrous."
Perhaps Daily Caller editors can explain what they were thinking when publishing this?