By E. Fletcher McClellan

In a free society, open debate is needed to sort out good public policy ideas from bad.

E. Fletcher McClellan (PennLive file photo)

How else will we know whether a proposal is smart or dumb unless it is tested by logic, evidence and experience in the marketplace of ideas?

History tells us that dumb ideas have not been in short supply.

New Coke. Prohibition. Jar-Jar Binks. Selling arms to Iran to fund Nicaraguan rebels.

Now come two policy proposals from the Trump administration that are not just stupid but also counterproductive.

Arming teachers.

"Harvest boxes."

As for the first idea, we should not dismiss any suggestion that could reduce the possibility of school shootings.

However, a degree in rocket science isn't needed to see that the chances of gun violence in schools will be increased by inserting firearms in classrooms.

Keeping guns secure, screening for those who would use weapons responsibly, and providing intensive training to recognize and react properly to threats are but a few of the needed precautions.

Even the most gun-adept educators may fail to confront situations in an impartial and skillful way.

If the threat comes from someone a teacher knows - maybe a troubled student with whom he or she has been working - any hesitation in dealing with the menace may be fatal.

In other words, teachers are trained to be open, accessible and nurturing rather than adversarial and suspicious in their relationships. Dealings with shooters should be left to school resource officers.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with brainstorming policy responses under such tragic and emotional circumstances.

But persisting in the promotion of such a flawed remedy, as President Donald Trump has, only delays discussion of more serious proposals and serves the interests of those who want public attention to turn elsewhere.

While good and bad ideas may rush to the surface when a crisis event occurs, sometimes an oddball notion can come out of nowhere.

Enter the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Looking for ways to cut the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $200 billion over ten years, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue proposed that, instead of purchasing specified food items at the grocery store, beneficiaries could receive packages of staples from the government.

"A Blue Apron-type program," said an excited Mick Mulvaney, Trump's Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Not exactly.

Instead of containing ingredients for gourmet meals, the USDA boxes would include nonperishable items such as peanut butter, canned fruits and vegetables, shelf-stable milk, pasta, cereals, and canned meat.

By purchasing items wholesale and rationing what SNAP recipients can receive, supporters say food packages will save the government money.

Like arming teachers, the harvest box proposal sounds plausible, even intriguing

Until you think about it.

It is no secret that the SNAP program, formerly known as food stamps, has been the target of conservatives for a long time.

The Great Recession increased the number of SNAP beneficiaries from 25 million to 45 million, and the costs of the program soared from $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion in the last ten years.

Ironically, conservative ideas improved the program, which is basically a voucher, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Food stamps were replaced as currency with a special debit or EBT card.

This change eliminated paperwork, empowered beneficiaries, and eliminated a black market for food stamp exchange. Fraud rates declined significantly.

In contrast, the package delivery model will require establishment of a parallel supply chain to the existing food distribution system. Administrative costs will increase and likely be passed to the states as an unfunded mandate. The real beneficiaries will be the new middlemen.

Instead of giving SNAP recipients the freedom to choose the items that meet their budget and dietary needs, harvest boxes will be the ultimate, one-size-fits-all, heavy-handed government approach.

Of course, that may be the point. Low-income people can't be trusted to spend public dollars wisely, SNAP detractors say. And it is true that soft drinks are the most purchased SNAP item, with high-carb snacks and sweets not far behind.

On the other hand, that wouldn't make SNAP recipients much different than non-SNAP consumers.

And if welfare reformers are so concerned about nutrition, why not put high-sugar drinks on the SNAP prohibited list?

We know the answer. That would place reform in the cross-hairs of the powerful beverage industry, which is currently engaged in an all-out campaign to eliminate the Philadelphia soda tax.

It is difficult to think of a meaner and more paternalistic proposal than the Perdue/Mulvaney scheme. That said, there may be a silver lining.

Ludicrous ideas for change may raise awareness of the virtues of existing policies.

There is a mountain of research detailing the positive effects of SNAP on child health and nutrition, school completion, and worker productivity. The program not only prevents hunger, it lifts people out of poverty and serves as an economic stimulus.

Rather than thinking of ways to reduce access to SNAP, including imposition of work requirements and drug tests, we should consider how the program's benefits could be extended.

Maybe there is no such thing as a bad idea after all.

PennLive Opinion contributor E. Fletcher McClellan is a political science professor at Elizabethtown College. His work appears biweekly.