In Belzoni, Miss., the disagreements over the Farm Bill—any version of which would cut food stamps and change farm subsidies—match those in Washington but are about real lives, not government policy. "Since 1995, farms in Humphreys County [Wikipedia map] have received about $250 million in subsidies [and] nearly half of the county's 9,100 residents receive food stamps, one of the highest rates in the nation," Ron Nixon writes for The New York Times.
These facts draw a clear line between those who fear cuts in food stamps and those who could receive more subsidies. Both the Senate and House versions of the bill would eliminate direct payments but expand crop insurance by $10 billion a year, while the House version would take 5 million people off food stamps, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nixon writes.
No one is sure how these changes will affects Humphreys County residents, but state officials are concerned. "Anything that reduces the program further will have an impact and could result in families' going without the benefits that get them over the hump every month, particularly in a country like Humphreys," said David Nobel, the state operations director at the state Department of Human Services, which administers the food-stamp program, officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program.
Nixon lays out the farm subsidies: "Under the existing program, farmers can buy insurance that covers poor yields, declines in prices or both, allowing them to guarantee about 85 percent of their income," but the new bill would "guarantee about 90 percent of their income." Thomas Bond, a cotton grower whose onetime 8,500-acre partnership of farms has received $4 million in federal subsidies in the last seven years, said, "Farming is risky business. Farmers need a safety net." Some groups, such as the liberal Environmental Working Group and the conservative Heritage Foundation, have criticized the crop-insurance program, saying it mainly benefits insurance companies and well-to-do farmers.
All arguments aside, Bond wants Congress to pass the bill because without it, farmers find it difficult to plan for the future. "There's a lot of uncertainty, and that's not good when you're a farmer," he said. "Banks are reluctant to loan us anything when they don't know how they are going to get their money back." Uncertainly works both ways. Monica Stokes, a clerk at a local store, was cut off from $167 per month in food stamps because her income rose slightly. "People are uncertain about where their next meal might come from," she said. (Read more)
These facts draw a clear line between those who fear cuts in food stamps and those who could receive more subsidies. Both the Senate and House versions of the bill would eliminate direct payments but expand crop insurance by $10 billion a year, while the House version would take 5 million people off food stamps, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nixon writes.
No one is sure how these changes will affects Humphreys County residents, but state officials are concerned. "Anything that reduces the program further will have an impact and could result in families' going without the benefits that get them over the hump every month, particularly in a country like Humphreys," said David Nobel, the state operations director at the state Department of Human Services, which administers the food-stamp program, officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program.
Nixon lays out the farm subsidies: "Under the existing program, farmers can buy insurance that covers poor yields, declines in prices or both, allowing them to guarantee about 85 percent of their income," but the new bill would "guarantee about 90 percent of their income." Thomas Bond, a cotton grower whose onetime 8,500-acre partnership of farms has received $4 million in federal subsidies in the last seven years, said, "Farming is risky business. Farmers need a safety net." Some groups, such as the liberal Environmental Working Group and the conservative Heritage Foundation, have criticized the crop-insurance program, saying it mainly benefits insurance companies and well-to-do farmers.
All arguments aside, Bond wants Congress to pass the bill because without it, farmers find it difficult to plan for the future. "There's a lot of uncertainty, and that's not good when you're a farmer," he said. "Banks are reluctant to loan us anything when they don't know how they are going to get their money back." Uncertainly works both ways. Monica Stokes, a clerk at a local store, was cut off from $167 per month in food stamps because her income rose slightly. "People are uncertain about where their next meal might come from," she said. (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment