The “cuts” in the new-and-improved farm bill… aren’t, really.

posted at 7:21 pm on January 27, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The House GOP was originally looking for around a 5 percent cut to the almost $80 billion/year federal food-stamp program in the latest iteration of the long-overdue farm bill. The Senate Democrats were appalled by such — uhm — “excess,” preferring an obviously much more responsible cut of half of one percent. This, evidently, is what compromise looks like:

A House plan to make major cuts to food stamps would be scaled back under a bipartisan agreement on a massive farm bill, a near end to a more than two-year fight that has threatened to hurt rural lawmakers in an election year.

The measure announced Monday by the House and Senate Agriculture committees preserves food stamp benefits for most Americans who receive them and continues generous subsidies for farmers. The House could vote on the bill as soon as Wednesday.

The compromise was expected to cut food stamps by about $800 million a year, or around 1 percent.

The final bill released Monday would cost almost $100 billion a year over five years, with a cut of around $2.3 billion a year from current spending.

A $2 billion cut in spending (whoop-de-doo) from our absolutely current spending levels, perhaps, but it wasn’t so very long ago that we were spending drastically less than that on the omnibus whopper that is the farm bill’s marriage of political convenience between food stamps and agriculture subsides. 2008, in fact. Chris Edwards at Cato explains:

It looks like the final farm bill will be expected to cost about $950 billion over 10 years. CRS has details on bill versions from the Fall, but I adjusted those numbers based on the reported GOP cave-in on food stamps.

If the final number is $950 billion, the 2014 farm bill will cost 48 percent more than the $640 billion farm bill passed in 2008. Farm bill supporters claim that the new bill includes “savings” and “cuts,” but that is a myth created by the rising CBO baseline. The reality is that Congress is set to impose a huge, damaging, and unaffordable burden on taxpayers and the economy.

Even though the Congressional conferees are finally inking their “compromise,” however, the rest of the week will likely determine whether or not it finally makes a peaceful and uncontested journey through both chambers of Congress, or if Democrats and/or Republicans decide to raise another legislative ruckus (just look at Politico‘s report on the afternoon’s development for an idea of the absurdly complex degree to which various agriculture lobbies are frantically tightening their cronyish, rent-seeking grips on maintaining even the marginal cuts to their precious subsidies that the conferees’ version managed to make). If any Republicans do make some noise over the (pitifully small) cuts to the ever-burgeoning food-stamp program, you can count on Democrats to fully exploit it as another opportunity to tout their favored populist messaging, but I would riddle the Democrats this: In what world is this a sign of an economic “recovery”?

In a first, working-age people now make up the majority in U.S. households that rely on food stamps — a switch from a few years ago, when children and the elderly were the main recipients.

Some of the change is due to demographics, such as the trend toward having fewer children. But a slow economic recovery with high unemployment, stagnant wages and an increasing gulf between low-wage and high-skill jobs also plays a big role. It suggests that government spending on the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program — twice what it cost five years ago — may not subside significantly anytime soon.

Food stamp participation since 1980 has grown the fastest among workers with some college training, a sign that the safety net has stretched further to cover America’s former middle class, according to an analysis of government data for The Associated Press by economists at the University of Kentucky. Formally called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, or SNAP, the program now covers 1 in 7 Americans.

Answer: It isn’t, and Democrats’ big-spending, big-government policies are not succeeding in helping provide Americans with the opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty, nor in generating the real level of economic growth necessary for them to do so.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Relax, this bill requires the planting of thousands of acres of new money trees.

Bishop on January 27, 2014 at 7:29 PM

It is absolutely pathetic what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have done to this country.

Hope and Change? Cynical jerks.

Murphy9 on January 27, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Farm Bill Food Stamp Bill

portlandon on January 27, 2014 at 7:41 PM

has threatened to hurt rural lawmakers in an election year.

This is why you will never see any real cuts anywhere. I really think the only solution is to pass a Balanced Budget Agreement that limits federal spending to 18% of GDP. Hopefully, it would get ratified before everyone realized that it was going to mean a lot of slashing and burning.

It is absolutely pathetic what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have done to this country.

Hope and Change? Cynical jerks.

Murphy9 on January 27, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Sorry, you can’t blame them this time. This has been going on since at least FDR. Republicans and Democrats alike have been doing it. See above for the reason. Once you start giving money away, you can’t stop. The ancient Romans were badass mofos would think nothing of running you through with a sword and they couldn’t stop it once it had started.

Kafir on January 27, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Example #145,907 why we can’t have nice things.

rbj on January 27, 2014 at 8:05 PM

There are MANY farms(mostly cotton) in west Texas. Any pol that dares to come out against the farm bill won’t get elected/re-elected.
Pathetic.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 27, 2014 at 8:13 PM

It’s the monied, corrupt elite against the rest of us. We aren’t governed by peers, but ruled by plutocrats.

p0s3r on January 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM

It is absolutely pathetic what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have done to this country.

Hope and Change? Cynical jerks.

Murphy9 on January 27, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Boehner, McConnell, McCain and Ryan aren’t much better.

bw222 on January 27, 2014 at 8:39 PM

This is what cuts look like, when you have no leadership. In October, that’s what government shutdowns look like when you have no leadership. Last year, during the debt ceiling negotiations, that’s what debt ceiling negotiations look like when you have no leadership.

If the Republicans are lucky enough to retain the House, they’d better get a new leadership team because this one, from top to bottom, is pathetic. I’m not sure they’ve done enough to allow a transition to Republican leadership in the Senate because voters can look at what they’ve accomplished and think they have no clue and couldn’t do more if they had the Senate too.

It doesn’t take a whiz kid to figure out what you can accomplish with a Harry Reid in the Senate. When you make it look unreasonable, the Democrats look like heroes for stopping you. These cuts would have been fine, with a Republican Senate, and could have been justified, no, not this group. They have to give Reid and Company a way out.

Does anyone believe Newt would allow a Reid to do what he’s done to Boehner? I really have the feeling Obama and Reid would have paid, had someone like Newt been the Speaker of the House. To be honest about it, I’m not completely sure Boehner and company haven’t purposely not accomplished much because they didn’t want to give the tea party credit for their being in power.

bflat879 on January 27, 2014 at 9:02 PM

…WTF?…What a JOKE!

KOOLAID2 on January 27, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Quite a case-study in irresponsible government!

This is an example of when it is better for the government to to precisely nothing than what they ended up doing.

If only we could get Washington to do nothing on more fronts, what a great stimulus that would be!

We want them to do nothing on immigration, nothing on health-care, nothing on banking and nothing on energy or the environment. If they can just do that, their salaries can be more than justified.

virgo on January 28, 2014 at 1:25 AM