House Budget would cut Ag $1 billion over 10 years
March 17, 2015 |09:57 PM
The House Budget Committee today released a budget resolution that would ask the House Agriculture Committee to cut $1 billion from programs within its jurisdiction over 10 years, but also calls for turning food stamps into a block grant to the states in 2021.
The small size of the proposed cut is probably in reaction to a letter that all members of the House Agriculture Committee sent to the Budget Committee calling for no cut since the 2014 farm bill included $23 billion in savings.
A spokesman for House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, said Conaway “is still working through the details” of the resolution.
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said the cut is small, and “it raises the rather obvious question of why bother to go through an agonizing re-opening the farm bill via the budget reconciliation process for such a token amount.”
Robert Greenstein, president of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said that “sadly” the plan of House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., “doubles down on the type of extreme and ideological measures that have characterized House budgets in recent years.”
“The book and comments from Chairman Price indicate the plan would cut roughly $140 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which it also would convert to a block grant,” Greenstein said.
“If its policies were to become law, ours would be a coarser, more mean-spirited nation with higher levels of poverty and inequality, less opportunity, and a future workforce that’s less able to compete with its counterparts overseas,” he said.
The instruction to the Agriculture Committee (found on page 53, line 19 of the legislative text) says, “The Committee on Agriculture shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.”
The legislative text also says that all committees are to submit their recommendations to the House Budget Committee by July 15.
The budget resolution does not have the force of law, but is highly symbolic. The Senate Budget Committee is expected to release a budget this week as well. National Journal reported today that even though the Republicans control both chambers, they may have trouble agreeing on a budget.
A joint resolution would be a guide to appropriators. If Republicans can agree on a budget resolution and decide to follow it with a reconciliation bill to cut spending, that would require President Barack Obama’s signature to become law.
In commentary on food stamps — formally the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP — the House Budget Committee said, “Whether we are talking about food stamps, housing assistance or education benefits — all are made more difficult when Washington forgets the limits of its own understanding and power.”
“That is when these programs begin to fail the very people they are designed to help; when waste, fraud and abuse are ignored; when success is measured by how big in size and scope a program is and compassion is graded on the size of a program’s budget.
“When that happens, social and safety net programs stop being a bridge to a more secure future and rather become a barrier to success.”
The committee said that federal education programs, food stamps, public housing assistance and development grants “are judged not on whether they achieve improved health and economic outcomes for the recipients or build a stronger community, but on the size of their budgets.”
“It is time these programs focus on core functions and responsibilities, not just on financial resources. In so doing this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely.”
Federal spending for SNAP has increased from $21 billion in 2002 to $76 billion in 2014, the committee noted.
“Spending is forecast to be permanently higher than pre-recession levels, even as the job market recovers. There are many reasons for this, but the core challenge is that while states have the responsibility of administering the program, they have little flexibility to ensure it is run well.”
But the committee added, “This budget converts SNAP to a state flexibility fund so state governments have the power to administer the program in ways that best fit the needs of their communities with greater incentives to achieve better results. There are no changes made to the program until 2021, so that states have enough time to build their own program and craft innovative solutions.”
The committee also noted, “Our budget calls for reduced funding for federal advertising efforts to increase SNAP enrollment. Those savings are then shifted into programs that facilitate upward mobility, such as effective job- training programs.”
In more detailed comments, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, a group that advocates for small, environmentally-minded farmers, said it is thankful the draft resolution asked only for a $1 billion cut, but ‘Given the proposal is now officially on the table, we intend to support amendments to strike any farm bill re-opening, and, should those fail, intend to endorse amendments that support meeting the reconciliation target through farm program subsidy reform.”
“Far more onerous than the reconciliation instruction to the Agriculture Committee is the inclusion in the budget resolution of a $44 billion fiscal year 2017 cut to the already low, sequestration-driven budget caps for domestic spending,” NSAC said.
“While more than a year away, if such a cut goes through and traditional allocations are held to, this would mean at least a $1.9 billion (9 percent) cut to rural and agriculture discretionary spending.
“Last year, the Agricultural Appropriations bill re-opened the farm bill and reduced farm bill funding (primarily the conservation title) in order to make up for the shortfall in the allocation for [the Agriculture Department] and [Food and Drug Administration] discretionary programs, robbing Peter to pay Paul,” the NSAC said.
“The draft budget bill introduced today intensifies the likelihood that the farm bill will be under attack once again via backdoor raids in the appropriations process for years to come.”
The small size of the proposed cut is probably in reaction to a letter that all members of the House Agriculture Committee sent to the Budget Committee calling for no cut since the 2014 farm bill included $23 billion in savings.
A spokesman for House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, said Conaway “is still working through the details” of the resolution.
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said the cut is small, and “it raises the rather obvious question of why bother to go through an agonizing re-opening the farm bill via the budget reconciliation process for such a token amount.”
Robert Greenstein, president of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said that “sadly” the plan of House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., “doubles down on the type of extreme and ideological measures that have characterized House budgets in recent years.”
“The book and comments from Chairman Price indicate the plan would cut roughly $140 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which it also would convert to a block grant,” Greenstein said.
“If its policies were to become law, ours would be a coarser, more mean-spirited nation with higher levels of poverty and inequality, less opportunity, and a future workforce that’s less able to compete with its counterparts overseas,” he said.
The instruction to the Agriculture Committee (found on page 53, line 19 of the legislative text) says, “The Committee on Agriculture shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.”
The legislative text also says that all committees are to submit their recommendations to the House Budget Committee by July 15.
The budget resolution does not have the force of law, but is highly symbolic. The Senate Budget Committee is expected to release a budget this week as well. National Journal reported today that even though the Republicans control both chambers, they may have trouble agreeing on a budget.
A joint resolution would be a guide to appropriators. If Republicans can agree on a budget resolution and decide to follow it with a reconciliation bill to cut spending, that would require President Barack Obama’s signature to become law.
In commentary on food stamps — formally the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP — the House Budget Committee said, “Whether we are talking about food stamps, housing assistance or education benefits — all are made more difficult when Washington forgets the limits of its own understanding and power.”
“That is when these programs begin to fail the very people they are designed to help; when waste, fraud and abuse are ignored; when success is measured by how big in size and scope a program is and compassion is graded on the size of a program’s budget.
“When that happens, social and safety net programs stop being a bridge to a more secure future and rather become a barrier to success.”
The committee said that federal education programs, food stamps, public housing assistance and development grants “are judged not on whether they achieve improved health and economic outcomes for the recipients or build a stronger community, but on the size of their budgets.”
“It is time these programs focus on core functions and responsibilities, not just on financial resources. In so doing this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely.”
Federal spending for SNAP has increased from $21 billion in 2002 to $76 billion in 2014, the committee noted.
“Spending is forecast to be permanently higher than pre-recession levels, even as the job market recovers. There are many reasons for this, but the core challenge is that while states have the responsibility of administering the program, they have little flexibility to ensure it is run well.”
But the committee added, “This budget converts SNAP to a state flexibility fund so state governments have the power to administer the program in ways that best fit the needs of their communities with greater incentives to achieve better results. There are no changes made to the program until 2021, so that states have enough time to build their own program and craft innovative solutions.”
The committee also noted, “Our budget calls for reduced funding for federal advertising efforts to increase SNAP enrollment. Those savings are then shifted into programs that facilitate upward mobility, such as effective job- training programs.”
In more detailed comments, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, a group that advocates for small, environmentally-minded farmers, said it is thankful the draft resolution asked only for a $1 billion cut, but ‘Given the proposal is now officially on the table, we intend to support amendments to strike any farm bill re-opening, and, should those fail, intend to endorse amendments that support meeting the reconciliation target through farm program subsidy reform.”
“Far more onerous than the reconciliation instruction to the Agriculture Committee is the inclusion in the budget resolution of a $44 billion fiscal year 2017 cut to the already low, sequestration-driven budget caps for domestic spending,” NSAC said.
“While more than a year away, if such a cut goes through and traditional allocations are held to, this would mean at least a $1.9 billion (9 percent) cut to rural and agriculture discretionary spending.
“Last year, the Agricultural Appropriations bill re-opened the farm bill and reduced farm bill funding (primarily the conservation title) in order to make up for the shortfall in the allocation for [the Agriculture Department] and [Food and Drug Administration] discretionary programs, robbing Peter to pay Paul,” the NSAC said.
“The draft budget bill introduced today intensifies the likelihood that the farm bill will be under attack once again via backdoor raids in the appropriations process for years to come.”
