Families drawing on food stamps could see large cuts in aid. Republicans to slash food stamps

From food stamps to child tax credits and Social Service block grants, House Republicans began rolling out a new wave of domestic budget cuts Monday but less for debt reduction — and more to sustain future Pentagon spending without relying on new taxes.

Going into November’s election, President Barack Obama’s signature health care and financial market reforms are again favorite targets. And with as many as six House committees involved, the whole budget drill can resemble “Casablanca” with Claude Rains’s Captain Renault ordering his men: “Round up the usual suspects!”


But what’s more explicit in this round is the real shift of resources from the domestic side of the ledger to military spending. Caught in the middle are not just Obama’s ideas but the working poor and long-term unemployed forced for the first time to rely on programs like food stamps in the current recession.

At one level, the pro-Pentagon, anti-tax stance fits traditional Republican doctrine. And the whole goal is to come up with enough savings to forestall automatic spending cuts that will fall most heavily on the Defense Department in January.

But what’s also driving the latest cuts is a newer narrative, voiced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), that the social safety net is at risk of becoming a “hammock.” And even as the unemployment rate has begun to fall, conservatives are alarmed that the level of income-related government benefits continues to rise.

Nothing better illustrates this perhaps than the renewed focus on food stamps — now titled SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). And the estimated $33.2 billion in 10-year savings there could have an immediate impact on the farm bill debate and come November, the 2012 elections.

An average family of four would face an 11 percent cut in monthly benefits after Sept. 1 and, even more important, tighter enforcement of rules would require that households exhaust most of their liquid assets before qualifying for help. This hits hardest among the long-term unemployed, who would be forced off the rolls until they have spent down their savings to less than $2,000 in many cases.

Indeed, food stamp enrollment and costs have exploded since the financial collapse four years ago, making SNAP a target for the right — but also a far bigger political issue in swing states like Florida, Nevada and Ohio.

National enrollment reached 46.4 million people in January 2012, a nearly two-thirds increase from the average monthly participation in fiscal 2008. The annual costs — now running in excess of $80 billion — have more than doubled in the same period. And even the most ardent food stamp proponents will sometimes say SNAP is a program “asked to do too much.”

The White House deliberately increased monthly benefits in 2009 by about $20 per person as a way to pump stimulus dollars into the economy. And in this post welfare-reform crisis, strapped governors have sought to maximize food stamp dollars as a cheap way to help families without tapping state funds.

The higher costs and visibility — especially as more businesses advertise that they will honor the electronic benefit cards introduced in the 1980s — are what’s driving the Republican push.

The Recovery Act boost in benefits is already phasing out and will be gone entirely by November 2013. But the GOP package now would cut them off this summer, hitting families Sept. 1, and saving about $5.9 billion in 2012 and 2013.

In addition, $26 billion in longer-term savings are attributed to tougher eligibility rules affecting what assets a family can retain and the standard deduction allowed for utility costs. In the second case, conservatives complain that about 16 states are now abusing the system by distributing token federal low-income energy assistance in order to maximize the food stamp benefits allowed their citizens. But the large savings, $14.3 billion, indicates the language goes much further than that considered last fall and would require even genuinely qualified families to go through more paperwork to keep their benefits.

In fact, the severity of the proposed House cuts could be an overreach for two reasons.

First, they are all coming from the House Agriculture Committee in the context of rich farm subsidies that are themselves a “hammock” amid record income for producers. Even in the commodity lobby, there is broad consensus that the current system of cash payments to growers can no longer be politically defended. And by not striking more of a balance, the committee risks real damage to the coalition that has supported farm and food programs together for decades.

Caught most in the middle is Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, who will take up the cuts Wednesday.

The Oklahoma Republican has shown a genuine commitment to reforming the current farm program and last fall drafted a bipartisan bill that ended direct payments and demanded fewer cuts from nutrition programs. In interviews with farm state radio stations — as well as POLITICO — Lucas has never hidden his skepticism about the budget task at hand. And Lucas appears to have made a calculated decision to go hard right, assuming that the budget process will be a partisan exercise in any case.

The affable Oklahoman is clearly gambling that he can move back to the center later this spring and summer when he wants to work with Democrats on farm legislation. “We have a process in place to move forward with a bipartisan farm and we will do so accordingly,” said Tamara Hinton, Luca’s press secretary on the committee. “We expect to announce the next set of farm bill hearings this week.”

Inside his committee, he has kept up good ties with Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the ranking Democrat and former chairman. And Lucas knows that SNAP cuts of this scale have been rejected before not just by Democrats but also by a surprisingly diverse set of Republicans in the Senate.

No less than Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a hero of the tea party movement mentioned as a potential vice presidential nominee, opposed some of the same cuts on a 58-41 Senate vote last October. And with 29 electoral votes in November, Florida’s experience with food stamps is telling.

Hard hit by unemployment, the state has more than doubled its participation in the program, from 1.45 million persons in 2008 to 3.29 million this past January. And in the same period, the dollar value of the benefits received has almost tripled from $1.78 billion in 2008 to $5.15 billion in fiscal 2011, ending last September.

The White House has estimated that as many as 234,000 Floridians could lose their access to food stamps in the coming year under the Republican budget plan. At the same time, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) let out a cry recently, protesting what he saw as a rush by gas stations and restaurants to cash in on food sales paid for under the program.

“This program has expanded well beyond its original intent and expanded to a far greater percentage of Americans,” West said. “Now we see a growing number of businesses in this country, including sit-down and fast-food restaurants, standalone and gas station convenience markets, and even pharmacies eager to accept SNAP benefits. … This is a highly disturbing trend.”

“As more and more Americans rely on handouts from the government,” West added, in what seemed a nod toward Ryan, “we see how the safety net has become a comfortable hammock.”

This article tagged under: Food Stamps