dollars

The epic whining heard across MLB over the Tarik Skubal acquisition is evidence Andrew Friedman and Dodgers management are a masterclass in demonstrating creative leadership to cultivate a winning ballclub. If you doubt this, check Steve Cohen’s Mets: monster payroll, less than .500 record.

Any talk of changing the rules, salary cap or otherwise, to put reins on this kind of success would propagate underperformance and penalize this fascinating culture of constant improvement. No one’s breaking rules. Any team could be doing what the Dodgers are doing if they had the wherewithal.

Valerie Martinez-Bencomo
Claremont

Unlike the Saturday evening shocker that occurred when the Lakers acquired Luka Doncic, it was no Saturday night surprise to learn the Dodgers traded for Tarik Skubal.

What was a surprise was the relatively minor amount the Dodgers had to give up to acquire the reigning two-time AL Cy Young Award winner. It is highly doubtful that Zyhir Hope will turn into the next Yordan Álvarez, or that River Ryan or Brady Smith will develop into the next Pedro Martinez.

Irrespective of whether Skubal signs a contract extension, as long as he does not complain of a ‘dead arm’ or sustain another injury, this appears to be an excellent deal for the Dodgers.

Ken Feldman
Tarzana

The Dodgers’ acquisition of Tarik Skubal is just another example of the team’s willingness to cause a lockout and blow up the 2027 season.

I understand why. Destroying the 2027 baseball season will give the team’s starting rotation a full year to recover from its numerous injuries.

Ed Kaz
Oak Park

The excitement over the Dodgers getting Tarik Skubal should be tempered by a couple of factors.

Skubal could care less about a Dodgers three-peat. Sure, he wants to show he hasn’t lost anything because of injury. He will have several starts during the rest of the season to do that.

His main priority will then be to avoid any injury that might compromise his value in the marketplace. (Remember Max Scherzer?)

Some of the other top-notch Dodgers starters might also be unhappy if denied a chance to start a postseason game.

Richard Balsam
Mar Vista

The federal government can’t block benefits from the nation’s largest food aid program from being used to buy candy, soda and other sugary drinks, a judge ruled.

Monday’s ruling scuttles restrictions now in place or planned for the federally funded and state-run Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 23 states. President Trump’s administration has not said whether it will appeal to a higher court.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who sits in Washington and was nominated to the bench by former President Obama, said in her opinion that the ruling was because the federal government did not follow its own definition of “food.” She said it wasn’t a comment on whether the restrictions are a good idea.

“The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals,” she wrote. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”

The restrictions are part of the Make America Healthy Again campaign

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have encouraged states to limit what the food aid can be used to buy as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign.

They reason that soda and candy fuel obesity, diabetes and chronic disease epidemics — and taking them off the menu would encourage healthier food choices.

The Agriculture Department has given 23 states so far permission to implement restrictions. Some have been implemented already, while others are queued to take effect in the coming months and years.

At least one state that was set to limit soda and candy purchases changed course earlier this year. Colorado’s human services board voted against implementing the ban after a March hearing in which SNAP beneficiaries and advocates said people would face stigmas if they mistakenly tried to use the benefits on prohibited items. They also said the rules were confusing because they would have allowed buying drinks with at least 50% fruit or vegetable juice, but not those with less.

While the goals are similar, the exact rules vary by state. Some wanted to ban both sugary drinks and candy, while others only sought to ban sugary beverages.

A legal challenge to the candy and soda ban — which includes items such as sports drinks in some states — was filed by SNAP beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Judge says government ignored a definition of food

Jackson said the main legal misstep in restricting what SNAP benefits could buy came because it ran contrary to Congress’s definition of “food.”

Under the law, SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — can be used for “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.”

The government can waive requirements, but limiting use of the benefits to improve nutrition isn’t listed as a reason to do so. Yet when states asked the Agriculture Department to let them restrict purchases, their requests included using alternate definitions of “food.”

This may not be the final word

The Agriculture Department has not said whether it intends to appeal the ruling.

The case is among scores of challenges to Trump administration policies that hinge on whether the administration has the authority to change policies without congressional approval.

While it’s a big program helping nearly 39 million Americans — about 1 in 9 — buy groceries, SNAP is normally relatively low-profile. That’s been different since Trump returned to office last year.

Under his big tax and policy law signed last year, more recipients are subject to work requirements and states are being required to pay a larger share of administrative costs — and could be on the hook for benefit costs if their error rates are too high.

During a government shutdown last year, courts blocked the administration from cutting off benefits. Meanwhile, Rollins has said that there’s rampant fraud in the program.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.