Ryan budget leaves Ag cuts up to committee, but calls for food stamp block grant
March 12, 2013 | 04:51 PM
The budget unveiled by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., today called for $31 billion in cuts to Agriculture programs over 10 years, but leaves the decisions about farm program cuts up to the House Agriculture Committee, while calling for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP or food stamps, to be turned into a block grant to the states.
The budget’s statement noted that, while the overall economy is struggling, agriculture “has remained an economic success story” that calls for a re-examination of aid to farmers
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
“Production costs have risen, but farmer incomes continue to be supported by strong prices for most crop and livestock commodities. The top five earnings years for farmers in the last 35 years have occurred in the last decade. Yet, at the same time, numerous overlapping government programs exist to provide income support to farmers. With farm profitability — and deficits — continuing at high levels, it is time to adjust support to this industry to reflect economic realities.”
Last year, Ryan called for specific cuts to direct payments, crop insurance and conservation programs.
This year the budget document calls on the House Agriculture Committee “to revisit current farm-support programs, such as the fixed payments that go to farmers irrespective of price levels and the current structure of the crop-insurance programs.”
But it adds, “Recognizing that the Agriculture Committee is responsible for implementing these reductions, and to maintain flexibility for the committee, this proposal does not dictate the specific changes to the programs in under the committee’s jurisdiction. These reforms will save taxpayers $31 billion over the next decade.”
In the case of SNAP, however, Ryan included the same specific proposals he made last year.
“This budget retools federal aid to low-income families in two ways,” the document says.
“First, it eliminates the incentive for states to sign up as many recipients as possible. After employment has recovered, it converts SNAP into a block grant, indexed for inflation and eligibility. This reform allows states to tailor their programs to their recipients’ needs. And it encourages states to help recipients find work.
“Second, it calls for time limits and work requirements. It suggests, however, that the federal government implement these reforms gradually to give states and recipients time to adjust.”
In an attempt to head off criticism, Ryan wrote that the budget “will still spend $600 billion on food stamps over the next decade. We will spend $3 trillion on Medicaid. Hardly draconian.”
The budget materials also say that SNAP is a good case study in how aid programs are in need of reform.
“Spending on SNAP has quadrupled in the past decade. It’s grown in good times and bad, because of the open-ended nature of the program. States get more money if they enroll more people. This setup encourages waste, fraud, and abuse.
“This budget fixes the flawed incentive structure that poorly provides assistance to those in need. By capping open-ended federal subsidies and allowing states to develop innovative approaches to delivering aid, the budget’s gradual reforms encourage states to reduce rolls and help recipients find work. The budget also calls for time limits and work requirements like the reforms that helped reduce poverty nationwide in the mid-1990s.”
The budget’s statement noted that, while the overall economy is struggling, agriculture “has remained an economic success story” that calls for a re-examination of aid to farmers
“Production costs have risen, but farmer incomes continue to be supported by strong prices for most crop and livestock commodities. The top five earnings years for farmers in the last 35 years have occurred in the last decade. Yet, at the same time, numerous overlapping government programs exist to provide income support to farmers. With farm profitability — and deficits — continuing at high levels, it is time to adjust support to this industry to reflect economic realities.”
Last year, Ryan called for specific cuts to direct payments, crop insurance and conservation programs.
This year the budget document calls on the House Agriculture Committee “to revisit current farm-support programs, such as the fixed payments that go to farmers irrespective of price levels and the current structure of the crop-insurance programs.”
But it adds, “Recognizing that the Agriculture Committee is responsible for implementing these reductions, and to maintain flexibility for the committee, this proposal does not dictate the specific changes to the programs in under the committee’s jurisdiction. These reforms will save taxpayers $31 billion over the next decade.”
In the case of SNAP, however, Ryan included the same specific proposals he made last year.
“This budget retools federal aid to low-income families in two ways,” the document says.
“First, it eliminates the incentive for states to sign up as many recipients as possible. After employment has recovered, it converts SNAP into a block grant, indexed for inflation and eligibility. This reform allows states to tailor their programs to their recipients’ needs. And it encourages states to help recipients find work.
“Second, it calls for time limits and work requirements. It suggests, however, that the federal government implement these reforms gradually to give states and recipients time to adjust.”
In an attempt to head off criticism, Ryan wrote that the budget “will still spend $600 billion on food stamps over the next decade. We will spend $3 trillion on Medicaid. Hardly draconian.”
The budget materials also say that SNAP is a good case study in how aid programs are in need of reform.
“Spending on SNAP has quadrupled in the past decade. It’s grown in good times and bad, because of the open-ended nature of the program. States get more money if they enroll more people. This setup encourages waste, fraud, and abuse.
“This budget fixes the flawed incentive structure that poorly provides assistance to those in need. By capping open-ended federal subsidies and allowing states to develop innovative approaches to delivering aid, the budget’s gradual reforms encourage states to reduce rolls and help recipients find work. The budget also calls for time limits and work requirements like the reforms that helped reduce poverty nationwide in the mid-1990s.”
