The conclusion seems likely but this logic doesn't make sense. They don't recalculate a food budget every year and multiply it by three, they take that original

The conclusion seems likely but this logic doesn't make sense. They don't recalculate a food budget every year and multiply it by three, they take that original 1963 number and add inflation. I think this is dumb, but it's dumb in a completely different way than the article is saying.