Page 79 - Farm Bill Series_The 7 Things You Should Know

nutrition title. At the same time, there were moderate Republicans who would resist cuts in
nutrition spending.

“That placed limitations on how far you go as Republicans, and it gave you a chance to pick up
Democratic votes,” said Bill O’Conner, who was GOP policy director for the House Agriculture
Committee at the time. “You could count on 50 to 60 Democrats who would die to pass a farm
bill because it was important to them,” O’Conner said.

What hadn’t changed is that the Republicans sent to Washington in 2010 and 2012 had
recaptured much of the budget-cutting, anti-government fervor that had driven the 1996 Contract
with America. As in 1996, they had an ally in the House GOP leadership, Majority Leader Eric
Cantor, R-Va., who had his eyes set on reining in SNAP.
In the wake of the Tea Party rebellion, Republicans forced President Obama to cut a deal on a
landmark agreement in 2011, the Budget Control Act, to rein in spending and cut the deficit. The
agreement created a “Super Committee” to recommend a grand plan for reducing spending.

The super-committee ultimately failed to reach a deal, but the leaders of the House and Senate
Agriculture committees used the process to agree on a plan to make $23 billion in farm bill cuts,
which was one of the super-committee’s targets. Under the lawmakers’ plan, $15 billion would
come out of commodity programs with the rest split between conservation programs and SNAP.

The plan provided the framework for the farm bills that would emerge from the House and
Senate Agriculture committees in 2012 and the legislation that would eventually be enacted in
2014. But the cut to nutrition assistance that was proposed during the super-committee process
didn’t go nearly as far as many conservatives wanted, and these conservatives increasingly
viewed the urban-rural farm bill coalition as an impediment to reform.

Conservatives not only wanted to cut the cost of SNAP they also wanted to tighten or eliminate
provisions that they believed allowed too many undeserving people to get benefits or inflated
benefits. Their targets included a provision known as “categorical eligibility,” which made
people automatically eligible for SNAP if they received other types of public assistance. Also at
issue was the SNAP utility allowance. Some states were increasing SNAP benefits by sending
just $1 in heating assistance to households, a provision known as “heat and eat.”

Conservatives also were frustrated that the work requirement for able-bodied adults without
dependents, or ABAWDs, which was enacted in 1996 had largely been eliminated because of
waivers that the welfare reform law permitted governors to issue during economic downturns.

The Heritage Foundation, a think tank that is especially influential with House conservatives,
released a report calling for sweeping changes to farm and nutrition policy and decrying the
coalition that had historically provided support for the legislation. “Opportunities for reform are
hindered by the sprawling scope of previous farm bills, which have encompassed food stamps,
child nutrition, forestry, telecommunications, energy, and rural-development. This concentration
of special interests constitutes a powerful force for the status quo,” Heritage said.

Progressives were frustrated with the new attack on SNAP spending, but their influence was
waning. The benefit increase provided by the 2009 stimulus bill was set to expire, and the Center
for Budget and Policy Priorities, run by Robert Greenstein, who was President Carter’s food

www.Agri-Pulse.com 77