"The House of Representatives finally
passed a bill to fund nutrition programs as part of a farm bill on
Thursday through a bill that revolved around cutting $39 billion over 10
years," Chris Clayton reports for DTN The Progressive Farmer. "In a narrow, 217-210 vote, House
Republicans were able to pass the bill without a single Democratic vote.
Fifteen Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the bill. It tightens
eligibility requirements and would reduce enrollment of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program [known by its old name, food stamps] by 3.8 million people. The bill tightens
rules on how states can enroll people for the program, as well as add
tighter requirements, particularly for able-bodied people. The bill
takes away the ability of states to receive waivers from those work
requirements when unemployment levels are high."
House
Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) "said food aid such
as SNAP is meant to provide support, but not keep people in the program.
Lucas also acknowledged the SNAP bill put him in a unique position as a
chairman trying to complete a Farm Bill," Clayton writes. "For people in agriculture, the
narrow victory for House Republicans now at least ensures the House and
Senate will move to conference negotiations over a new five-year farm
bill." Lucas said, "I will admit to you this has been an
unusual process, but it remains my goal to get a five-year farm bill
enacted by doing everything possible to make sure that happens this
year. This is a step towards that goal." The Senate bill cuts less than $4 billion from SNAP over 10 years. (Read more)
In an editorial the Los Angeles Times writes: "While it may motivate some idle adults to get to work, it would also punish those who simply can't find jobs at a time when there are three applicants for every opening." SNAP "helps buy food for those who earn up to 30 percent more than the federal poverty level (which is $11,490 for a single adult). The amount is modest — an average of $5.10 per day for a single adult — and it's reduced as the beneficiary's income grows."
"The program has skyrocketed in cost, however, because so many people are on it: about 47 million, or 1 in 7 Americans," the editorial notes. "The fastest-growing group may be able-bodied adults without dependents, which increased from 1.7 million in 2007 to 4.5 million in 2011. That happened in part because of the surge in unemployment, particularly among younger adults, and in part because the government waived the requirement that such recipients lose their benefits after three months unless they work at least 20 hours a week or attend a training program. The House proposal would reinstate that cutoff, on the dubious theory that the availability of a few dollars in food aid per day is enough to persuade people not to work." (Read more)
The outlook for a Farm Bill is anything but clear, David Rogers reports for Politico: "What’s most remarkable are the almost polar-opposite visions of what lies ahead for the farm bill at this stage.
On one side, the new conventional wisdom is that Thursday’s food stamp vote dashed any chance of getting to a bill this year. On the other, veteran agriculture lobbyists take heart that a conference will at last begin — after all the frustration of the past two years." (Read more)
 |
| Frank Lucas |
In an editorial the Los Angeles Times writes: "While it may motivate some idle adults to get to work, it would also punish those who simply can't find jobs at a time when there are three applicants for every opening." SNAP "helps buy food for those who earn up to 30 percent more than the federal poverty level (which is $11,490 for a single adult). The amount is modest — an average of $5.10 per day for a single adult — and it's reduced as the beneficiary's income grows."
"The program has skyrocketed in cost, however, because so many people are on it: about 47 million, or 1 in 7 Americans," the editorial notes. "The fastest-growing group may be able-bodied adults without dependents, which increased from 1.7 million in 2007 to 4.5 million in 2011. That happened in part because of the surge in unemployment, particularly among younger adults, and in part because the government waived the requirement that such recipients lose their benefits after three months unless they work at least 20 hours a week or attend a training program. The House proposal would reinstate that cutoff, on the dubious theory that the availability of a few dollars in food aid per day is enough to persuade people not to work." (Read more)
The outlook for a Farm Bill is anything but clear, David Rogers reports for Politico: "What’s most remarkable are the almost polar-opposite visions of what lies ahead for the farm bill at this stage.
On one side, the new conventional wisdom is that Thursday’s food stamp vote dashed any chance of getting to a bill this year. On the other, veteran agriculture lobbyists take heart that a conference will at last begin — after all the frustration of the past two years." (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment