21 car century insurance: How to embarrass a witness

View in browser

I'm entertained when Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) questions witnesses, and somehow I missed when Gina Plata-Nino, the Director of SNAP Policy and Advocacy at the Food Research and Action Center, appeared before him.

What makes him effective is not only that he's prepared, but also that he's relentless. When he perceives that someone is too ideologically blinkered even to acknowledge a simple fact everyone knows, he pushes and pushes on that issue and won't let go.

The witness, continuing to refuse to admit the truth of something everyone watching knows to be true, begins to look ridiculous.

This particular exchange went like so:

Gill: Should SNAP dollars be spent on sodas?

Plata-Nino: The purpose of this program is to provide families to have food and beverages.

Gill: Should it be spent on sugary sodas?

Plata-Nino: I am happy to talk about hunger and nutrition, but not dictate what Americans should or should not eat or may have access.

Gill: I'm asking if tax dollars should be used to pay for sodas.

Plata-Nino: Taxpayers money should be utilized to ensure that individuals have access to the food that they need to survive, or may be accessible to them.

Gill: Do they need sugary sodas to survive?

Plata-Nino: Some of them do. Who do have low blood issues --

Gill: Is that right?

Plata-Nino: -- or who have kidney issues.

Gill: You think they need Coca Cola to survive? Do you think that's the most appropriate use of our tax dollars?

Plata-Nino: I am not a physician, but medical records --

Gill: And you were just citing the health needs, apparently, of the American people. So do the American people need Coca Cola to survive?

Plata-Nino: I did not say that. I said --

Gill: I'm asking you. I'm giving you the opportunity to say yes or no.

Plata-Nino: I will not answer for individuals and their choices.

Gill: You think that there are some Americans who need Coca-Cola to survive. Is that your testimony?

Plata-Nino: I I'm happy to talk about the food --

Gill: You just don't know individuals. You just don't know. I think most people can rationally say that you don't need Coca-Cola to survive. Wouldn't you agree?

Plata-Nino: I agree that we have a hunger crisis and that we need to address it, by ensuring that individuals have the food resources that they need.

Gill: Got it. And one of those is sugary Coca-Cola. What does what does SNAP stand for?

Plata-Nino: It's the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Gill: What's nutritional about Coca-Cola?

Plata-Nino: I am not a nutritionist. I am a food security expert in ensuring that individuals have the food resources that they need.

Gill: This is a common-sense question. All of these have been common-sense questions. I'm just asking you: is there nutritional value to sugary sodas? It's a yes or no question.

Plata-Nino: I am not an expert. I have to look at the dietary guidelines.

Gill: I'm not an expert. I don't think that there's nutritional value to sugary sodas. I think most people in this room would agree with that assessment. But you have no opinion

Plata-Nino: I'm here to talk about the food needs and the hunger crisis that individuals here in America.

Gill: Are you that ideologically dug in, that you want our tax dollars paying for sugary sodas and you will not, in a straightforward way, admit that sugary sodas are not healthful for the American people?

Plata-Nino: I think that focusing on soda when people are going hungry --

Gill: A lot of our tax dollars are spent on soda. That's why I'm asking about it. You appear to be so ideologically dug in that you won't answer a simple question that that's not an appropriate use of our tax dollars, and that that does not, in fact, make the American people more healthy.

Plata-Nino: I won't answer because there's no data sort of proving that.

Gill: Do you need data to determine whether drinking soda is healthy? I'm sorry, it's a serious question. Do you believe that perhaps drinking sodas every day is healthy

Plata-Nino: The worst health outcome is hunger when individuals don't have the resources.

Gill: Do you satiate hunger with Coca-Cola?

Plata-Nino: I did not say that.

Gill: But you said that the worst health outcome is hunger, and I'm asking you about sugary sodas.

Plata-Nino: And I'm focusing on the nutrition needs and making sure that children have the resources.

Gill: Is your organization funded by soft drink makers?

Plata-Nino: I am not in charge of development, but no.

Gill: Is your is your organization funded by organizations that make money from food stamps? Do organizations who profit off food stamps fund your organization or businesses?

Plata-Nino: I can't comment to that. Happy to talk about the resources that need it [sic].

Gill: Does General Mills fund your organization?

Plata-Nino: I don't have access to that information.

Gill: It's right here. They do fund your organization. Do they profit off food stamps?

Plata-Nino: Retailers are the major beneficiaries.

Gill: Do you think that that's a conflict of interest?

Plata-Nino: That's where EBT dollars are utilized.

Gill: Yes. And they're profiting off your advocacy. Do you think that that's a conflict of interest? I think most people think that's a conflict of interest. I know you don't want to answer. My time is up.

Back to Woods:

It's crazy that she wasn't prepared for that question, since it's been part of the mainstream discussion of SNAP for as long as any of us can remember.

Her strategy for dealing with it was to play the old I'm-not-a-biologist-so-I-can't-tell-you-what-a-woman-is card.

Gang, ol' Woods here isn't an expert, but you can take my advice not to drink lots of sugary sodas, or put sand in your gas tank, or pour sulfuric acid on your lawn.

Tom Woods

P.S. "I won't answer because there’s no data proving that."

Nobody in that room needed a peer-reviewed study to know Coca-Cola isn’t nutrition. She had to pretend not to know because the obvious answer was inconvenient.

I have the opposite problem with something I recommend.

For a while now I’ve told you about Low Stress Options, a conservative approach to options trading built around keeping risk low. A great many of my readers (most of whom never in a million years would have envisioned themselves "trading options") have joined, and the reports haven’t stopped coming in. Some people have gotten choked up telling me what it’s meant for their families.

No program I’ve created myself has produced anything like it. I wish I could say I'd done something that had one-tenth the impact of this program. But that makes it hard to write about, because when I describe it, it sounds too good to be true. A sensible person discounts claims like that, and I would, too.

So I won't ask you to take my word for it. I'd rather you look at the evidence: my readers, in their own words, describing what happened to them. I collected their accounts in an eBook, which you can read here: