Republicans in Congress are being painted as heartless in their effort to slash funding for food stamps, while at the same time supporting questionable corporate welfare for mostly wealthy farmers in the farm bill.

Separating food stamps from agriculture subsidies was not a bad idea. But proposing cuts to food aid for low-income people while at the same time pushing millions of dollars in aid to big agriculture companies and wealthy farmers has exposed the GOP to criticism.

Most people support food assistance for low-income people, even if they have concerns about the $80 billion annual cost. Complaints that food stamp participation has grown dramatically in recent years can be explained by the recent recession and weak economic recovery that is producing very modest job growth.

Pushing for big cuts in the food stamps, officially known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is a political risk for Republicans. But if the GOP would focus on reforming the food stamp program, as well as trimming farm subsidies, it might find broad support.

The taxpayer-funded program for nutritional support to women and small children, known as WIC (Women, Infants and Children) is widely praised as effective. WIC's focus on healthy eating, meaning paying for foods that are best for women and small children, and for women who are pregnant, should be a guide for the larger SNAP program. In the same way that WIC promotes healthy eating, the food stamp program should push recipients toward healthier foods — and away from unhealthy foods linked to heart disease, obesity and diabetes.

Already, there are some restrictions on what can be bought with a SNAP card. Prohibited items include cigarettes, alcohol and fast food, among other items. Why not go further?

The WIC program, sensibly, does not allow participants to use their food benefits for soda, sugary cereals, frozen pizza or canned fruit packed in sugary syrup.

Similar restrictions should be applied to food stamps. The same thinking that says that women and children are healthier when they avoid sugary snacks and carbonated drinks should be applied to the broader population using food stamp benefits.

According to the published reports, food stamp recipients spent about $2 billion last year on sugary soda alone. That's a lot of taxpayer money spent on something providing no nutritional value, and probably increasing the probability of obesity or diabetes. Why not stop that?

U.S. Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., has introduced a bill to restrict SNAP card purchases to “healthy foods,” meaning no junk food, no heavily sweetened foods or sodas, and no highly processed foods. Granted, it might be difficult to draw a clear line separating “healthy foods” from unhealthy foods. Another challenge would come from the big processed food companies, who would doubtless fight any loss of sales threatened by limiting food stamp purchases.

But it's an easy case to make and would have broad public support. Low-income people should get help buying nutritious foods. But taxpayers are not obligated to pay for their purchases of unhealthy foods like soda, candy and highly processed snacks.

The Republican proposal to cut $40 billion from SNAP over ten years would eliminate food stamp benefits from four million people and would trim benefits by $90 a month for another 850,000. Cuts of that magnitude sound harsh, even inhumane.

Most people want the less-fortunate, those who meet income guidelines, to not go hungry and to receive help buying food. But most taxpayers would also like to see SNAP benefits used for healthier foods, much like WIC food benefits.

Instead of just proposing to slash food stamps, Republicans should push reform, making the program focused on healthier eating. Why not start with an easy first step — no soda, no candy, no cake, no highly processed snack food with food stamps?