House Agriculture Committee’s Farm Bill Is That Bad

The draft Farm Bill the House Agriculture Committee co-chairs released last week makes the Senate’s $4.5 billion cut in the food stamp program look like a nick.

The bill would reduce food stamp spending by about $16 billion over the same 10-year period — more than 45% of the estimated total saved.

By far and away the biggest bite — about $11.5 billion — comes from a “common-sense” reform that was among the crippling amendments the Senate defeated.

This so-called reform does away with what’s called broad-based categorical eligibility — an option that 40 states and the District of Columbia have adopted to extend food stamp benefits to more people in need.

With this option, households automatically qualify for food stamps if they receive a benefit funded by the state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program — so long as their gross income is at or below a threshold the state chooses.

Federal law says it can’t be higher than 200% of the federal poverty line — currently $3,182 a month for a family of three. Most states, however, set the threshold lower.

The option doesn’t only allow households with somewhat higher incomes to participate. It also exempts them from the program’s regular assets test — if states decide to go this route. Not all states with categorical eligibility have.

The assets test is a separate part of the standard eligibility assessment. It disqualifies households if they have more than $2,000 in liquid assets, e.g., money in the bank — or $3,250 if a member is elderly or disabled.

The test also screens out households that have a car worth more than $4,650, even if they owe some port of it to the finance company. An exception if the car is used to earn income, e.g., as a taxi, but not if the breadwinner needs it to get to work.

The co-chairs draft wouldn’t just wipe out broad-based categorical eligibility. It would also nullify a modified form some states have adopted.

Households would automatically qualify for food stamps only if they receive cash assistance from TANF, the federal Supplemental Social Security Income program or a state’s general assistance program.

These are, by and large, households with incomes way below the poverty line.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities observes, households with gross incomes above the regular 130% food stamp cut-off often have disposable incomes, i.e., money they can spend on things like food, that fall below the line after deductions for costs they must pay in order to work — notably child care.

No matter. The co-chairs see a “loophole” to close — or maybe just a way to get to their savings target while still preserving generous farm subsidies.

This shouldn’t surprise us. The Committee earlier offered the same savings as part of its contribution to the House budget reconciliation bill, i.e., the Republican majority’s alternative to the across-the-board cuts that are still on the horizon.

What’s noteworthy, however, is that Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) reportedly wanted to replace categorical eligibility with a higher income cut-off and asset maximum than the current law establishes, plus an exclusion for one car.

But his Tea Party-type colleagues would have none of it. So the Committee will instead vote on — and almost surely pass — a measure that excludes even more people from the food stamp program than the Lucas proposal would have.

We don’t yet have a fix on how many people would lose their benefits.

When the Committee proposed the same provision for the budget reconciliation bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimated an average of 1.8 million a year.

The Office of Management and Budget put the figure at more than 3 million in 2013 — about two-thirds of them in households where at least one adult works.

We have a window of opportunity to save these folks from having to choose between eating and earning — or in  the case of the elderly, between eating and spending down money they’ve put aside for expected costs like medical co-pays.

Some are saying the House may not vote on a Farm Bill at all — at least not before the current law expires at the end of September.

If it does, the Senate’s Democratic majority will almost surely balk at the food stamp cut, as well as some other provisions, e.g., its extraneous attack on environmental regulations.

So like as not, we’ll have one of those kick-the-can-down-the-road extensions.

But that may be a short-term reprieve for low-income families who’ve had the prudence to save for a rainy day — or a car that’s not a 10 year old clunker.

Senate Passes Major Bipartisan Bill With Harmful Food Stamp Cut

The Senate has achieved a modern-day miracle. It has passed a second major piece of legislation — and on a bipartisan basis too.

The legislation is the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012, i.e., the Farm Bill. It’s the source of, among other things, a variety of subsidies for farm businesses and of the policies that govern SNAP (the food stamp program).

Like all such federal laws, it’s supposed to be reauthorized every five years. This year is one of them.

Anti-hunger advocates are not happy because the Senate bill changes a provision commonly known as “heat and eat,” which states have used to boost food stamp benefits.

The provision allows states to use their maximum standard utility allowance when they deduct allowable costs from income if the household receives a LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) benefit.

The maximum SUA can make households eligible for food stamps and/or make them eligible for higher benefits than their actual out-of-pocket energy costs would.

It works this way because they qualify for a higher deduction when their shelter costs reach 50% of their income, less other deductions. This so-called excess shelter deduction is capped for most households, but not for those with an elderly or disabled family member.

The benefits boost seems to be what Congress intended, i.e., to keep low-income households from having to choose between staying warm and having enough food on the table.

What apparently got some members of the Senate Agriculture Committee upset is that a number of states have been giving applicants a token LIHEAP benefit — sometimes, as in the District of Columbia, a $1 a year.

How many states do this is unclear. Committee Chair Debby Stabenow (D-MI) says 16 states do.

A recent Congressional Research Service memo says that a preliminary survey indicates that 14 states and the District have implemented or will soon implement “heat and eat.”

In any event, the Committee decided that states are exploiting a loophole which ought to be closed. Or perhaps it just saw a good opportunity to save an estimated $4.5 billion by 2022.

So the bill it produced would restrict the “heat and eat” option to cases where the annual LIHEAP benefit is at least $10 a year.

The House budget reconciliation bill, i.e., the Republican majority’s alternative to sequestration, would blow away “heat and eat” altogether, saving close to $14 billion over the same 10-year time period.

One can see, I think, why some members of Congress could decide that the provision, as written, allows states to “game the system,” as House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) claims.

But — and it’s a big but — eliminating “heat and eat,” as House Republicans want, would reduce benefits for 1.3 million households, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Nearly 500,000 households would get lower benefits under the less radical change in the Senate’s Farm Bill.

In both cases, the average per household benefits loss would be $90 a month — this on top of the 10% or so benefits loss already enacted.

Low-income seniors and people with disabilities would be hardest hit because of the uncapped shelter cost deduction I mentioned.

The Food Research and Action Center warns that some could be left with only the minimum food stamp benefit — a pathetic $16 a month.

What’s so upsetting about this latest raid on the food stamp program is that benefits are already well below what most families need for a healthful diet. We’ve got ample evidence of this, including:

• Reports on individuals’ experiences with the Food Stamp Challenge — even some from members of Congress.
• Local studies showing how far benefits fall short of covering the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s cheapest food plan.
• USDA’s latest food security survey, which found that 52% of households that received food stamps year round didn’t always have the resources to buy “enough food for an active, healthy life.”

States have adopted “heat and eat” in part because they recognize the benefits problem. Also because food stamps deliver a great “bang for the buck” to their economies — thus create and preserve those jobs we need so badly now.

The Senate could have done the same, but chose not to when it defeated, also on a bipartisan basis, an amendment that would have kept “heat and eat” intact.

Now the $4.5 billion saved becomes the starting point for negotiations with the House.

The Republican majority there has already passed vastly larger food stamp cuts. So it’s unlikely to settle for even its own “heat and eat” savings.