Congress needs to come to a compromise on the recently failed Farm Bill, veteran congressional reporter David Rogers writes for Politico, and he offers some granualr ideas after starting with the big picture: "After two seasons of failure, American agriculture is at a genuine crossroads in Congress. Will it continue to be whittled down by the left and the right? Or can it go up the middle with compromises that revive the urban-rural coalition so important to past farm bills?"
Rogers, left, notes that since the 1985 Farm Bill set a $2,000 limit on assets to receive for food stamps, that number remains the same, while during that time Iowa farmland has gone from $1,000 an acre to $8,000 an acre, and a top-selling John Deere tractor has gone from costing $54,000 to just under $200,000.
"Twenty-eight years later, the whole political and agriculture landscape has changed," Rogers writes. "But the $2,000 asset test remains, ignored by most states but now resurrected by House Republicans to wring savings from food stamps. Hundreds of thousands of households, who that otherwise qualify for food aid, would no longer be eligible. Parents, wanting to preserve some savings to meet unanticipated housing or medical costs, would have to spend down their cash reserves to below $2,000 to get back SNAP benefits for their children."
Adjusted for inflation, the $2,000 asset test would be $4,300 today. "Among all the contradictions in the Farm Bill, this stands out the most," Rogers writes, "because of the impact on the working poor and because assets are something all farmers understand — given the fickle nature of their livelihood and the bankers who control the loans needed to plant each year."
Last year the House Rules Committee blocked an amendment by Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), which "included a provision to double the allowed assets from $2,000 to $4,000 and exempt family cars needed to get to work, for example," Rogers writes. This year Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) created an amendment that "opened the door for states to toughen work requirements for food stamp recipients and share any savings that might result from culling the rolls," that helped lead to the bill's failure to pass.
"Finding some compromise through the food stamp asset test poses its own challenges," Rogers concedes. "An update could require as much as $5 billion in new offsets to keep faith with the House’s 10-year goal of $40 billion in new deficit reduction," Rogers writes. "But the House only narrowly rejected far bigger cuts from crop insurance subsidies last month. And there is the potential that a reform amendment could draw back support from both parties for passage." To make his case, Rogers analyzes crop insurance:
In 2012, taxpayers paid $264 million to cover almost $7.8 billion in liability for sometimes large, wealthy operations, Rogers writes. Catastrophic policies "would almost certainly have to be included in any attempt to find savings from crop insurance." President Obama’s 2014 budget "estimates that $4.2 billion could be saved over 10 years by asking all farmers to pay 3 percentage points more on any premium that is now subsidized at a rate of more than 50 percent. Together with changes in [the program], this would go a long way toward offsetting the cost of updating the food stamp asset test. . . . A 3 percentage point drop in the subsidy rate would be about a 9 percent increase for the farmer, but still a matter of pennies per bushel." (Read more)
Rogers, left, notes that since the 1985 Farm Bill set a $2,000 limit on assets to receive for food stamps, that number remains the same, while during that time Iowa farmland has gone from $1,000 an acre to $8,000 an acre, and a top-selling John Deere tractor has gone from costing $54,000 to just under $200,000."Twenty-eight years later, the whole political and agriculture landscape has changed," Rogers writes. "But the $2,000 asset test remains, ignored by most states but now resurrected by House Republicans to wring savings from food stamps. Hundreds of thousands of households, who that otherwise qualify for food aid, would no longer be eligible. Parents, wanting to preserve some savings to meet unanticipated housing or medical costs, would have to spend down their cash reserves to below $2,000 to get back SNAP benefits for their children."
Adjusted for inflation, the $2,000 asset test would be $4,300 today. "Among all the contradictions in the Farm Bill, this stands out the most," Rogers writes, "because of the impact on the working poor and because assets are something all farmers understand — given the fickle nature of their livelihood and the bankers who control the loans needed to plant each year."
Last year the House Rules Committee blocked an amendment by Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), which "included a provision to double the allowed assets from $2,000 to $4,000 and exempt family cars needed to get to work, for example," Rogers writes. This year Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) created an amendment that "opened the door for states to toughen work requirements for food stamp recipients and share any savings that might result from culling the rolls," that helped lead to the bill's failure to pass.
"Finding some compromise through the food stamp asset test poses its own challenges," Rogers concedes. "An update could require as much as $5 billion in new offsets to keep faith with the House’s 10-year goal of $40 billion in new deficit reduction," Rogers writes. "But the House only narrowly rejected far bigger cuts from crop insurance subsidies last month. And there is the potential that a reform amendment could draw back support from both parties for passage." To make his case, Rogers analyzes crop insurance:
In 2012, taxpayers paid $264 million to cover almost $7.8 billion in liability for sometimes large, wealthy operations, Rogers writes. Catastrophic policies "would almost certainly have to be included in any attempt to find savings from crop insurance." President Obama’s 2014 budget "estimates that $4.2 billion could be saved over 10 years by asking all farmers to pay 3 percentage points more on any premium that is now subsidized at a rate of more than 50 percent. Together with changes in [the program], this would go a long way toward offsetting the cost of updating the food stamp asset test. . . . A 3 percentage point drop in the subsidy rate would be about a 9 percent increase for the farmer, but still a matter of pennies per bushel." (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment