Why should taxpayers fund the soda and candy habits of people on food stamps?

How long will Texas Democrats hide out in the massive shadow of Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker?

And will people finally go to prison for Obamagate?

All that and more on The Kyliecast.

Thank you. Hi, everybody and welcome to the Kylie cast.

I'm Kylie Griswold, managing editor at the Federalist.

Be sure to like and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

And if you're just listening to the show, be sure to go check out the full video version

on my personal YouTube channel or the Federalist channel on Rumble.

As always, you can email the show at Radio at thefederalist.com.

I would love to hear from you.

I don't know about you, but I am so not tired of

winning. We're going to win so much. You may even get tired of winning. You know, thanks to Democrats'

endless resistance efforts, sometimes conservative progress feels like one step forward, five steps

back. But this week, we are marching forward, baby. For starters,

we got a big old Maha victory on Monday. Trump's Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rawlins

authorized waivers for six new states that want to limit the sugary junk people can buy on

food stamps, bringing the total number of states with approval to limit these taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits to 12.

This is just common sense when you consider that SNAP literally stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Nutrition is in the name.

But meanwhile, it funds garbage food and drinks that fuel obesity and diabetes, such as soda, other sugary drinks, candy, and processed junk.

And SNAP is bankrolled by tax dollars.

...