Move afoot to cut food programs for poor

[Guest guest]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7163199/print/1/displaymode/1098/

 

Move afoot to cut food programs for poor

Offered as alternative to Bush plan to reduce farm subsidies

The Associated Press

Updated: 10:08 p.m. ET March 11, 2005

 

WASHINGTON - Cuts in food programs for the poor are getting support in

Congress as an alternative to President Bush's idea of slicing

billions of dollars from the payments that go to large farm operations.

 

Senior Republicans in both the House and Senate are open to small

reductions in farm subsidies, but they adamantly oppose the deep cuts

sought by Bush to hold down future federal deficits.

 

The president wants to lower the maximum subsidies that can be

collected each year by any one farm operation from $360,000 to

$250,000. He also asked Congress to cut by 5 percent all farm

payments, and he wants to close loopholes that enable some growers to

annually collect millions of dollars in subsidies.

 

Land conservation programs also targeted

Instead, Republican committee chairmen are looking to carve savings

from nutrition and land conservation programs that are also run by the

Agriculture Department. The government is projected to spend $52

billion this year on nutrition programs like food stamps, school

lunches and special aid to low-income pregnant women and children.

Farm subsidies will total less than half that, $24 billion.

 

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said the

$36 billion food stamp program is a good place to look for savings.

 

" There's not the waste, fraud and abuse in food stamps that we used to

see. ... That number is down to a little over 6 percent now, " he said.

" But there is a way, just by utilizing the president's numbers, that

we can come up with a significant number there. "

 

Bush is proposing to withdraw food stamps for certain families already

receiving other government assistance. The administration estimates

that plan would remove more than 300,000 people from the rolls and

save $113 million annually.

 

Seeking to reduce impact on farmers

Chambliss said minimal changes in all three areas of agriculture

spending — nutrition, farm supports and conservation — could save

what's needed. " I want this to be as painless to every farmer in

America as we can make it, " he said.

 

House budget writers this week reduced Agriculture Department spending

for 2006 by $5.3 billion. Their counterparts in the Senate cut it by

$2.8 billion. Bush's proposals would cut farm spending by $8 billion

as calculated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

 

The House and Senate plan to vote on initial versions of the budget

next week.

 

Anti-hunger and environmental groups are worried.

 

" Particularly in the House, the members are talking about taking all

or most of it from nutrition, " said Jim Weill, president of the

Washington-based Food Research and Action Center. " There isn't a way

to do it that doesn't hurt, because the program's very lean and

doesn't give people enough anyhow. The benefits are less than people

need. The program's not reaching even three-fifths of the people who

are eligible. And the abuse rate is very low and is going down further. "

 

Eric Bost, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food,

nutrition and consumer programs, told a House appropriations panel

this week the programs are so efficient now it would be difficult to

save money by targeting waste and fraud.

 

`There are ways to save money'

Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said food stamps are vital to many

Americans, " but like all government programs, there are ways to save

money. "

 

Chambliss and other Republicans say they are open to modest cuts in

farm programs, such as a small across-the-board cut in all payments to

growers. While budget writers and lawmakers from farm states oppose

the deep cuts Bush wants, they still are very much on the table.

 

Before finalizing its budget plan, the Senate Budget Committee

approved language saying Congress should follow Bush's plan for

cutting the maximum payments any one farmer can receive. That would

hurt cotton and rice growers in the South and California much more

than wheat, soybean and corn growers in the farm belt.

 

" This amendment just makes sense, " said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa,

who sponsored the measure with Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. " Any reduction

in farm spending should be achieved by better targeting farm program

payments to small- and medium-sized farmers. "

 

According to Agriculture Department estimates, 78 percent of subsidies

go to 8 percent of producers.

 

Support for subsidies cap

There is wide support for a cap on subsidies. Both the House and

Senate voted in favor of a strict $275,000 cap when lawmakers debated

the 2002 farm bill. In an election-year compromise, House and Senate

negotiators raised the ceiling to $360,000 and left loopholes intact.

 

" If you took a vote tomorrow, you'd have overwhelming support for the

payment limit proposal, " said Scott Faber, spokesman for the group

Environmental Defense. " The overwhelming majority of farmers get less

than $250,000 a year. "

 

But the chairmen of the Senate and House agriculture committee are

both Southerners, as is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations

Committee, where the actual spending decisions will be made. The

appropriations chairman in the House is a Californian.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may

not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7163199/