White House pushes for Senate version of SNAP cuts
November 26, 2013 | 03:52 PM
In a pre-Thanksgiving campaign to influence the nutrition title of the farm bill, key White House officials said today that the House-passed $39 billion cut to food stamps over 10 years would deny food to needy people, but that the Obama administration would support the $4 billion cut in the Senate-passed bill.
Noting that Congress has reauthorized the farm bill with a nutrition title for 40 years, Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Policy Council, pointed out that the House divided the reauthorization of food stamps — formally the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP — from the farm bill and proposed “some very significant” cuts that would have an impact on the availability of food for low-income children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
How Congress ultimately approaches SNAP, she said, “says a lot about who we are as a country.”
Food stamps, she added, have the biggest impact in reducing child poverty except for low-income tax credits. SNAP is also efficient, she said, with administrative costs amounting to only 5 percent of program costs and the payment accuracy rate now the highest in the history of the program.
“Americans not only care about ensuring their neighbors have enough to eat on Thanksgiving, but at a time when people are about to sit around the table with their families to celebrate a meal it hardly seems to be the right time to be pulling food off the table,” added Gene Sperling, director of the White House Economic Council.
Sperling noted that after the expiration of the Recovery Act boost on November 1, a New York City study showed that in stores with a large food stamp customer base, sales dropped by as much as 10 percent. “SNAP turns out to be one of the best things that we can do for our economy,” he said. “This is the reason it has been integrated into the farm bill.”
Sperling also said that it is “particularly unfortunate” that the House bill would propose reducing benefits and taking close to 4 million people off the rolls so soon after the Recovery Act ended.
“This would be harsh and unacceptable at any time, but particularly as we enter the holiday season,” he said.
After a reporter pointed out that the White House had supported using part of the budget authority for the Recovery Act boost to pay for an increase in reimbursements to schools for healthier meals, Sperling responded that the administration had never expected the increase to be permanent, but would have liked it to last longer if Congress had gone along with the president’s budget.
But the House proposal to make additional cuts is “the compelling issue that is on the legislative table,” he said.
Neither Sperling nor Muñoz mentioned the $4 billion cut in the Senate bill.
In response to a question from The Hagstrom Report, Muñoz said that the food stamp program is important to reducing child poverty and that “there is no reason we need to be focused on the SNAP program in terms of cuts.”
But Sperling quickly added that the Office of Management and Budget did issue a statement of administration policy supporting the Senate bill and that “this administration is generally supportive of the bipartisan compromise that was worked out in the Senate bill. We all need to compromise to move forward.”
Noting that Congress has reauthorized the farm bill with a nutrition title for 40 years, Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Policy Council, pointed out that the House divided the reauthorization of food stamps — formally the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP — from the farm bill and proposed “some very significant” cuts that would have an impact on the availability of food for low-income children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
How Congress ultimately approaches SNAP, she said, “says a lot about who we are as a country.”
Food stamps, she added, have the biggest impact in reducing child poverty except for low-income tax credits. SNAP is also efficient, she said, with administrative costs amounting to only 5 percent of program costs and the payment accuracy rate now the highest in the history of the program.
“Americans not only care about ensuring their neighbors have enough to eat on Thanksgiving, but at a time when people are about to sit around the table with their families to celebrate a meal it hardly seems to be the right time to be pulling food off the table,” added Gene Sperling, director of the White House Economic Council.
Sperling noted that after the expiration of the Recovery Act boost on November 1, a New York City study showed that in stores with a large food stamp customer base, sales dropped by as much as 10 percent. “SNAP turns out to be one of the best things that we can do for our economy,” he said. “This is the reason it has been integrated into the farm bill.”
Sperling also said that it is “particularly unfortunate” that the House bill would propose reducing benefits and taking close to 4 million people off the rolls so soon after the Recovery Act ended.
“This would be harsh and unacceptable at any time, but particularly as we enter the holiday season,” he said.
After a reporter pointed out that the White House had supported using part of the budget authority for the Recovery Act boost to pay for an increase in reimbursements to schools for healthier meals, Sperling responded that the administration had never expected the increase to be permanent, but would have liked it to last longer if Congress had gone along with the president’s budget.
But the House proposal to make additional cuts is “the compelling issue that is on the legislative table,” he said.
Neither Sperling nor Muñoz mentioned the $4 billion cut in the Senate bill.
In response to a question from The Hagstrom Report, Muñoz said that the food stamp program is important to reducing child poverty and that “there is no reason we need to be focused on the SNAP program in terms of cuts.”
But Sperling quickly added that the Office of Management and Budget did issue a statement of administration policy supporting the Senate bill and that “this administration is generally supportive of the bipartisan compromise that was worked out in the Senate bill. We all need to compromise to move forward.”
