GOP to Slash Food Stamps, Part of Effort to Sustain Future Military Spending
Republicans to Slash Food Stamps
by David Rogers
Politico
April 16, 2012
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75190.html
From food stamps to child tax credits and Social Service
block grants, House Republicans began rolling out a new wave
of domestic budget cuts Monday but less for debt reduction -
and more to sustain future Pentagon spending without relying
on new taxes.
Going into November's election, President Barack Obama's
signature health care and financial market reforms are again
favorite targets. And with as many as six House committees
involved, the whole budget drill can resemble "
with Claude Rains's Captain Renault ordering his men: "Round
up the usual suspects!"
But what's more explicit in this round is the real shift of
resources from the domestic side of the ledger to military
spending. Caught in the middle are not just Obama's ideas
but the working poor and long-term unemployed forced for the
first time to rely on programs like food stamps in the
current recession.
At one level, the pro-Pentagon, anti-tax stance fits
traditional Republican doctrine. And the whole goal is to
come up with enough savings to forestall automatic spending
cuts that will fall most heavily on the Defense Department
in January.
But what's also driving the latest cuts is a newer
narrative, voiced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul
Ryan (R-Wis.), that the social safety net is at risk of
becoming a "hammock." And even as the unemployment rate has
begun to fall, conservatives are alarmed that the level of
income-related government benefits continues to rise.
Nothing better illustrates this perhaps than the renewed
focus on food stamps - now titled SNAP (Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program). And the estimated $33.2
billion in 10-year savings there could have an immediate
impact on the farm bill debate and come November, the 2012 elections.
An average family of four would face an 11 percent cut in
monthly benefits after Sept. 1 and, even more important,
tighter enforcement of rules would require that households
exhaust most of their liquid assets before qualifying for
help. This hits hardest among the long-term unemployed, who
would be forced off the rolls until they have spent down
their savings to less than $2,000 in many cases.
Indeed, food stamp enrollment and costs have exploded since
the financial collapse four years ago, making SNAP a target
for the right - but also a far bigger political issue in
swing states like
National enrollment reached 46.4 million people in January
2012, a nearly two-thirds increase from the average monthly
participation in fiscal 2008. The annual costs - now running
in excess of $80 billion - have more than doubled in the
same period. And even the most ardent food stamp proponents
will sometimes say SNAP is a program "asked to do too much."
The White House deliberately increased monthly benefits in
2009 by about $20 per person as a way to pump stimulus
dollars into the economy. And in this post welfare-reform
crisis, strapped governors have sought to maximize food
stamp dollars as a cheap way to help families without
tapping state funds.
The higher costs and visibility - especially as more
businesses advertise that they will honor the electronic
benefit cards introduced in the 1980s - are what's driving
the Republican push.
The Recovery Act boost in benefits is already phasing out
and will be gone entirely by November 2013. But the GOP
package now would cut them off this summer, hitting families
Sept. 1, and saving about $5.9 billion in 2012 and 2013.
In addition, $26 billion in longer-term savings are
attributed to tougher eligibility rules affecting what
assets a family can retain and the standard deduction
allowed for utility costs. In the second case, conservatives
complain that about 16 states are now abusing the system by
distributing token federal low- income energy assistance in
order to maximize the food stamp benefits allowed their
citizens. But the large savings, $14.3 billion, indicates
the language goes much further than that considered last
fall and would require even genuinely qualified families to
go through more paperwork to keep their benefits.
In fact, the severity of the proposed House cuts could be an
overreach for two reasons.
First, they are all coming from the House Agriculture
Committee in the context of rich farm subsidies that are
themselves a "hammock" amid record income for producers.
Even in the commodity lobby, there is broad consensus that
the current system of cash payments to growers can no longer
be politically defended. And by not striking more of a
balance, the committee risks real damage to the coalition
that has supported farm and food programs together for decades.
Caught most in the middle is Agriculture Chairman Frank
Lucas, who will take up the cuts Wednesday.
The Oklahoma Republican has shown a genuine commitment to
reforming the current farm program and last fall drafted a
bipartisan bill that ended direct payments and demanded
fewer cuts from nutrition programs. In interviews with farm
state radio stations - as well as POLITICO - Lucas has never
hidden his skepticism about the budget task at hand. And
Lucas appears to have made a calculated decision to go hard
right, assuming that the budget process will be a partisan
exercise in any case.
The affable Oklahoman is clearly gambling that he can move
back to the center later this spring and summer when he
wants to work with Democrats on farm legislation. "We have a
process in place to move forward with a bipartisan farm and
we will do so accordingly," said Tamara Hinton, Luca's press
secretary on the committee. "We expect to announce the next
set of farm bill hearings this week."
Inside his committee, he has kept up good ties with
Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the ranking Democrat and
former chairman. And Lucas knows that SNAP cuts of this
scale have been rejected before not just by Democrats but
also by a surprisingly diverse set of Republicans in the Senate.
No less than Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a hero of the tea
party movement mentioned as a potential vice presidential
nominee, opposed some of the same cuts on a 58-41 Senate
vote last October. And with 29 electoral votes in November,
Hard hit by unemployment, the state has more than doubled
its participation in the program, from 1.45 million persons
in 2008 to 3.29 million this past January. And in the same
period, the dollar value of the benefits received has almost
tripled from $1.78 billion in 2008 to $5.15 billion in
fiscal 2011, ending last September.
The White House has estimated that as many as 234,000
Floridians could lose their access to food stamps in the
coming year under the Republican budget plan. At the same
time, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) let out a cry recently,
protesting what he saw as a rush by gas stations and
restaurants to cash in on food sales paid for under the program.
"This program has expanded well beyond its original intent
and expanded to a far greater percentage of Americans," West
said. "Now we see a growing number of businesses in this
country, including sit-down and fast-food restaurants,
standalone and gas station convenience markets, and even
pharmacies eager to accept SNAP benefits. . This is a highly
disturbing trend."
"As more and more Americans rely on handouts from the
government," West added, in what seemed a nod toward Ryan,
"we see how the safety net has become a comfortable hammock."
c 2012 POLITICO LLC
No comments:
Post a Comment