In negotiations, both parties put the best light on the prospects for a deal this year. The farm bill: A Dickens tale

There’s a touch of Dickens to the farm bill these days: The best of times, the worst of times, we are all going direct to Heaven, we are all going direct the other way.

But nowhere is this “Tale of Two Cities” more true than in the real life gap between Washington’s all-consuming food stamp debate and what lawmakers face at home in their states.


House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) is being asked to defend a Republican plan to permanently repeal waivers allowing able-bodied, jobless adults to continue to get aid in periods of high unemployment. Yet back home in Oklahoma, his own state already passed a law ending its waiver effective last month—without requiring any action by Congress.

( Also on POLITICO: Obamacare could increase food stamp rolls)

Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the ranking Democrat on Lucas’ panel, has the opposite task of trying to preserve, as best he can, the current nutrition program. But Peterson’s Seventh Congressional district butts up against North and South Dakota counties which operate under wildly different income eligibility rules than Minnesota’s.

In Minnesota, the gross income limit for households getting food stamps is set at 165 percent of poverty—about $32,224 for a family of three. In North Dakota, it’s higher: 200 percent or $39,060 for the same family. In South Dakota it’s lower: 130 percent of poverty or about $25,389.

In a matter of miles, that translates into a swing of more than $13,600 or $262 per week—all for the same federally-financed poverty program.

The picture is no more consistent for conservative critics of food stamps—formally titled the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.

( Also on POLITICO: Farm bill negotiators resume talks)

Rep. Steve Southerland is a Bible-quoting Florida conservative who has been tapped by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to be the Republican point man on SNAP work requirements in the farm bill talks.

“We in the federal government would be far better off if we took the time to learn from these incubators known as our states,” Southerland told POLITICO. “To have these governors out there, who think outside the box, is positive.”

But many of the changes championed by the House GOP go in the opposite direction.

States like Texas, which have updated their SNAP asset tests to reflect inflation and the need for working poor families to have more access to cars, would be overruled. In the name of promoting tougher work requirements, Southerland’s own food stamp amendment imposes a one-size-fits-all regimen that risks harming job training programs in New York City and the state of Washington.

At the opening session of the House-Senate farm bill conference last week, both parties put the best light on the prospects for a deal this year. Peterson and Lucas cut short their recess to resume talks Wednesday. But there’s no denying the gap over food stamp funding is huge.

In writing her farm bill, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) came in low, proposing just $4 billion in 10 year SNAP savings. And it was always assumed that she could at least double that in conference by cracking down harder on the so-called “heat-and-eat” schemes used by states to pump up SNAP benefit levels at federal expense.

But to get a deal, more will likely be needed now. Floor votes in the House in September pushed the whole nutrition debate dramatically to the right, doubling the level of SNAP savings from what Lucas had first proposed in June to what’s now $39 billion over 10 years.

Peterson suggested last week that SNAP is one area where President Barack Obama could be useful in brokering a deal which Democrats could accept. Stabenow was decidedly cool to that idea Tuesday in a short interview with POLITICO. And at a time when food stamp benefits are already being cut –because of prior legislation—the Michigan Democrat is defiant and draws a parallel between SNAP and crop insurance.

“I’m not interested in taking food away from folks who have had an economic disaster,” she said, “Just as I’m not interested in cutting crop insurance for farmers who have had economic disasters.”

One potential path to compromise would be for Democrats to move toward some of the policy changes sought by Republicans—but also insist that a portion of the savings be plowed back into job training programs for food stamp beneficiaries.

For example, Stabenow appears determined to preserve the “categorical eligibility” flexibility given to states in administering SNAP. But the field could be narrowed by requiring a minimum asset test or capping the income thresholds allowed.

Indeed a proposal by freshman Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), which sets a national gross income standard of 160 percent of poverty and a $4,000 asset test, could become a starting point for discussions. This is stricter than current SNAP rules in about half the states but a portion of the resulting savings could be plowed back into increased federal support for job training.

Again the state experience is relevant — as seen in the case of Wisconsin.

Not waiting for Washington, Republican Gov. Scott Walker is pushing ahead with a plan to cut off food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents who fail to work at least 20 hours a week. But Walker is taking a measured approach that allows continued exemptions for very high unemployment areas and he has been willing to commit state funds to provide training opportunities for those not able to find work.

The most recent estimates are that Wisconsin’s SNAP program, known as FoodShare, currently enrolls 103,100 individuals listed as Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD).. Of this number, an estimated 62,700 are expected to not meet the 20 hour a week work requirement, and the assumption is about half these will take advantage of training slots.

In August, Wisconsin budgeted $16.8 million for the program which would begin to kick in next summer. Kitty Rhoades, Walker’s secretary of human services, said her hope is to provide a set of job search, education, and work experience options but implicit in her total $35.8 million plan is that Washington will provide funds matching the state commitment.

“We’re out here doing our own thing,” Rhoades told POLITICO. And the former state legislator shrugged off any linkage between Wisconsin’s initiative and the debate back in Congress. “You mentioned a senator, Southerland?” she asked. “I don’t know that name.”

Wisconsin’s support for employment training stands out when compared to some other states such as Oklahoma and Ohio which are also ending the recession-era waivers.

Oklahoma appears to be going cold turkey: an estimated 233,000 beneficiaries in the ABAWD category will be evaluated over the coming months but no additional funding is provided for training, according to the state’s Department of Human Services.

Ohio’s counties, which administer the SNAP program on behalf of the state, are expected to have about $8.2 million in federal and state funds available to them. But Ohio has not made the same training pledge as Wisconsin—this despite the fact that it was Gov. John Kasich who authored the ABAWD work rules as a Republican congressman in 1996.

The great Catch-22 in all this is that the same pledge funds pursued by Wisconsin are now capped at just $20 million annually. And six states already consume this account: New York, Texas, South Dakota, Utah, Delaware and Colorado.

That helps illustrate the stakes in the farm bill: could Congress increase this and other employment and training aid as part of a compromise on food stamps?

“This is about more than numbers,” said Peterson. “Everybody is focused on how many dollars it saves and not looking at the policy.”