FarmPolicy

April 26, 2019

Budget Issues Move to the Front Burner- Potential Farm Bill Implications

Categories: Budget /Farm Bill

Kristina Peterson reported on Thursday evening at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “The Senate Republican budget slated for release next week is expected to generate savings by turning more responsibility for Medicaid and food-stamp programs over to states, GOP lawmakers and aides said Thursday.

“While details of the document aren’t final, Republicans would propose turning funding for those programs into something similar to a block grant, said Senate Budget Committee Member Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.). That approach would call for the federal government to pay states a lump sum, instead of a percentage of the program’s costs. States would have more control over the program and would be responsible for footing the rest of the bill.”

Ms. Peterson explained that, “To get a sense of potential savings, under last year’s House GOP budget, converting the food-stamp programs into a block grant starting in 2019 would have saved $125 billion over 10 years.”

The Journal article added that, “Not all Republicans support the idea of turning food stamps into a block grant-type program.

“‘The governors would love the money, but they don’t want to be in charge of food stamps,’ said Sen. Pat Roberts (R., Kansas), the Agriculture Committee chairman.”

Recall that President Obama released the executive branch budget outline in February.  With respect to SNAP, Alan Bjerga reported at the time that, “The biggest spending item in the USDA budget, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which distributes food stamps, would decline 0.1 percent to $78.7 billion.”

In other areas of the President’s budget, DTN writers Chris Clayton and Todd Neeley explained back in February that, “‘The White House budget proposal for 2016 seeks to cut crop insurance under the argument that such cuts are needed to offset higher projected direct farm-program subsidies.”

The DTN article explained that, “The crop-insurance cut is smaller than in earlier budget proposals, but it would take an average of $1.6 billion a year out of crop insurance, or $16 billion over the next decade. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a discussion Monday [Feb. 2] with reporters that the crop-insurance proposal was a way to help keep projected farm-bill savings on track.

“Vilsack said one of the challenges of passing the farm bill was how to create sufficient savings. Lower commodity prices indicate higher spending for the new commodity programs — Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage.” [Note that projected commodity program spending has risen since February].

On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office released its estimate of the executive branch agricultural related budget proposals.

And earlier this week, an update at the National Sustainable Agriculture (NSAC) Blog (“Budget Time on Capitol Hill- Farm Bill to be Re-Opened?”) indicated that, “With the new CBO projections as backdrop, the House and Senate Budget Committees plan to markup their respective version of the congressional budget resolution for fiscal year 2016 next week. The budget resolutions will then go to the House and Senate floor, and if passed, will be negotiated into a final budget resolution to guide spending decisions for fiscal year 2016.

“In addition to setting the overall size of the spending pie for annual appropriations bills which dictate government discretionary spending, the budget resolution is occasionally also used to send budget reconciliation instructions to House and Senate authorizing committees with jurisdiction over mandatory spending. Those instructions are in essence directives to cut spending in mandatory-spending programs under a committee’s control by a specific dollar amount. Budget reconciliation is most often used as a procedure for deficit reduction.

According to the Capitol Hill rumor mill, there is a strong possibility that the draft budget resolutions to be introduced by the Budget Committee chairmen next week will include reconciliation instructions and that those instructions may include a directive to the Agriculture Committees to cut farm bill spending by a designated amount. Should that happen, a farm bill that took three years to create and that was signed into law just over a year ago for what was presumed to be a five-year period will be open for debate all over again.”

The NSAC Blog update pointed out that, “A broad coalition of farm, anti-hunger, conservation, and rural groups with a stake in the farm bill, including NSAC, wrote to both budget committees several weeks ago urging them not to re-open the farm bill through the budget reconciliation process. That farm bill coalition will very likely mobilize in opposition to any moves by the Budget Committees to re-open the farm bill.

Whether such moves are forthcoming remain to be seen, though the situation should become clear one way or the other in the coming week. NSAC will work against farm bill reconciliation instructions.”

And earlier this week, a Texas newspaper reported that, “[House Ag Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R., Tex.)] said Monday that [House Ag Committee] review [of the SNAP program] is underway and that he does not want his fellow legislators to make cuts to the program before he is finished.

“‘I’m trying to maintain this idea that we don’t have any preconceived reforms in mind right this second, and we want to let those percolate out of the review itself,’ Conaway said. ‘One of the fights I’m having with the budget is to make sure they don’t do things there that would taint the water.’”

kg

Comments are closed.