PORK BARREL FARM BILL 2014

 

The debate in Congress over the 2014 version of the farm bill is now history. The bill has passed and been signed by the President into law. The $8 billion dollar cut to the “food stamp” portion of the bill is being decried by Democrats as the worst kind of Republican indifference to the plight of the poor. Republicans meanwhile are telling every available microphone about the serious reforms built into the House bill that have been stripped away by the Senate in conference committee meetings.

I think that the time is right to look at what the bill actually does. The Democrats are upset that the $266 billion dollar increase in SNAP (food stamp) projected benefits was reduced to an increase of only $258 billion dollars. Yes the $8 billion dollar “cut” in food stamp benefits is a Washington D.C. cut that is in fact a 37% increase. Virtually every tightening of the qualifications for food stamp benefits included in the House version of the bill was stripped out in conference without any real objections being raised. House members can point at their attempts to reform the law without suffering any public backlash. The House version included eliminating the “broad based categorical” qualification back door for participants but it was gone in the final version. I include an excerpt from one of my earlier posts:

“Means-tested welfare is the fastest growing component of the federal budget. Note that means-tested excludes Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is second fastest growing part of the means-tested welfare. The idea of means-testing a person prior to granting benefits is meant to prohibit fraudulent claims and to withdraw benefits once a person is again able to take care of themselves. This notion of means-testing is why most states administer their food stamp (SNAP) programs in the same departments that administer the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. For purposes of our discussion I would like to call particular attention to the word temporary in the acronym. These programs are intended to help individuals and families temporarily and then sunset the benefits once they get back on their feet. The problem with the whole concept is that virtually no ongoing means-testing occurs and that Welfare benefits including (SNAP) now exceed minimum wages for a full time job in 33 states. 13 states already pay benefits in excess of the proposed new minimum wage of $15/hour. The pre-tax welfare “salary” in some states exceeds $60,000/year. In 2000 the Clinton administration changed the eligibility rules to include “broad based categorical eligibility”. To understand the shift you must first understand that most people can qualify in one way or another under categorical eligibility rules for non-cash aid. The new broad based categorical eligibility allowed states to grant cash benefits like food stamps to anyone that qualified for non-cash benefits. This almost complete lack of real means-testing initially and no follow-up means-testing combine to grow the program and eliminates any sun-setting of benefits.”

The House bill included provisions for requiring work for benefits, drug testing and combined household income thresholds. These reforms were all eliminated from the bill before it went to the President for signature. The farm bill included only 18% of its content and expenditure for farm related issues. Why then do we not call it a welfare bill with some farm allocation? The answer is obvious to see, the bill is more palatable to the public when the legislature calls it the “farm bill”.

The 2014 version of the farm bill will still include price support for sugar and milk along with subsidies for rice, wheat, corn, soybeans and cotton among others. We, the taxpayers, will be paying 62% of the crop insurance premiums for farmers and a full 1/3 of the subsidies will be paid out to the wealthiest 4% of the farmers. The majority of the bill, that is farm related, is pork-barrel spending headed back into congressional districts as usual. One provision included by the House that never had any chance of seeing final inclusion was the transparency clause. This little inclusion would have made congress members make public exactly how much they themselves were getting and how much their family members were getting of the payouts.

The double edged sword of corporate welfare and higher food prices cut the taxpayer on both edges. For example, we have the highest sugar prices in the world and have driven sugar industry jobs offshore while maintaining import restrictions. I personally support the farmers in this country but this perversion of the farm bill is yet another example of the government destroying a free market with regulations and buying votes with tax dollars.