Think Allen Quist lost the 2012 congressional race in 2012 and will ride his dinosaur off into the sunset?
Think again.
Quist slams Food Stamps again
In Walz cannot have bill both ways, a letter to the editor of the Albert Lea Tribune, the Norseland farmer writes:
Tim Walz is at it again. He’s again saying we need to pass the farm bill now.
But during the latter part of the recent campaign, he said we needed to control federal spending.
So which is it?
The last farm bill, in 2008, had a price tag of $286 billion. This farm bill’s price tag is almost twice that at $500 billion — half a trillion.
You can’t control federal spending and double spending on the farm bill at the same time, obviously.
And none of that spending increase is for farm programs. The increase is entirely for food stamps — a program run so poorly that we have no way of knowing if the benefits go to people who actually need them.
Actually 80 percent of the spending in the farm bill is for food stamps. It’s not really a farm bill at all. It’s a food stamp bill with a farm bill rider. . . . .
Heard it before from Quist? Of course we all have--again and again, along with nonsense about Food Stamps being an important contributing factor for the nation's divorce rate.
Enough already. Let's take this bullshit apart.
The real cost of the 2008 Farm Bill
Quist writes:
The last farm bill, in 2008, had a price tag of $286 billion. This farm bill’s price tag is almost twice that at $500 billion — half a trillion.
Nice try, dude. What the new price tag reflects are estimates created from program baseline spending--and the increased spending on food support that occurred because of the recession. In April the Congressional Budget Office reported:
On average, 45 million people received SNAP benefits each month in fiscal year 2011, which represents a 70 percent increase over the roughly 26 million people (or one of every 11) who received benefits in 2007. Outlays for SNAP benefits (not including administrative costs) more than doubled during that period, from about $30 billion to $72 billion.
Thus, the increased (and actual) expense creates the baseline for the new bill. Quist has never acknowledged provisions in the House version of the bill--which Walz helped craft as a member of the House Agriculture Committee-- that change eligibility rules and create other cost-saving measures.
Instead, Quist writes:
The increase is entirely for food stamps — a program run so poorly that we have no way of knowing if the benefits go to people who actually need them.
This malarkey echoes nonsense from Fox News that Media Matter dismantled earlier this year in Fox News Botches Basic Facts About Food Stamp Program. Marcus Feldman, Andy Newbold and Zachart Pleat write:
But Fraud, Which Is Declining, Accounts For 1 Percent Of All Benefits
Reuters: Fraud "Accounts For Just 1 Percent Of Food Stamp Benefits." From a February 6 Reuters article titled "U.S. targets food stamp fraud as election looms":
Kevin Concannon, U.S. Department of Agriculture undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, said his agency was doubling efforts to prevent fraud, which accounts for just 1 percent of food stamp benefits, but equals about $750 million each year.
"This is $750 million that isn't being used to provide food to individuals and families and that issue isn't lost on us," Concannon said in a recent phone interview.
"We want to maintain the confidence of American taxpayers because everyone is challenged in this economy - the payers as well as the folks who are benefiting from the program," he said. [Reuters, 2/6/12]
CBPP: "SNAP Payment Error Rates At All-Time Lows." The Center on Budget and Policy Report stated:
Despite the recent rapid caseload growth, USDA reports that states achieved a record-low SNAP error rate in fiscal year 2010 (see Figure 4.) Only 3 percent of all SNAP benefits represented overpayments, meaning they either went to ineligible households or went to eligible households but in excessive amounts, and more than 98 percent of SNAP benefits were issued to eligible households.
CBPP's report included the following graph:
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/18/12]
Fiscal Times: The USDA Has "Has Aggressively Implemented A Number Of Measures To Reduce The Prevalence Of Trafficking ... From 4 Percent Down To 1 Percent." A May 24 article from The Fiscal Times reported that the Obama administration "took steps to go after merchants and beneficiaries" who illegally "traffic in food stamp debit cards." The article continued:
Trafficking is an illegal activity punishable by disqualification from the program, fines, and even criminal prosecution. Over the last 15 years, the department has aggressively implemented a number of measures to reduce the prevalence of trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as it is now called, from 4 percent down to 1 percent. [The Fiscal Times, 5/24/12]
And the eligibility issues that Quist raise during the campaign? Changed in the House version of the bill. Bluestem took this up during the summer:
Nor is Quist honest about the status of "categorical eligiblity" in the House version of the Farm Bill. Current law allows flexibility on the asset test for families on food support, but the final House version eliminates the problem Quist spend most of the interview venting about.
In July, Minnpost's Devin Henry reported in House debates deep cuts to food stamps in farm bill:
. . .The bill, co-authored by Minnesota Democrat Rep. Collin Peterson and eventually approved by the House Agriculture Committee, cuts $16.5 billion from the federal food stamps program over the next 10 years, though Minnesota officials can’t yet say what effect such a cut would have on the state’s 500,000 food stamp recipients.
. . .The brunt of the House bill’s savings come from ending a program called “categorical eligibility,” which allows states to deem individuals who qualify for state welfare programs also eligible for food stamps. Forty states use the option, and in some cases, including Minnesota’s, categorical eligibility increases the income level at which individuals are able to receive food stamps.In 2010, the Minnesota Legislature expanded the state's food stamp eligibility limits, opening the program up to anyone making less than 165 percent of the federal poverty level (or $38,032.50 for a family of four) and removing a required review of an individual’s assets (such as a savings account). The House’s bill would revert that standard to 130 percent of the poverty level and reinstate the asset test.
The 2012 Farm Bill and the Fiscal Cliff
So what are people in touch with reality saying about the Farm Bill? The news that seems to have gotten Quist going is probably a report on MPR, Walz presses for lame-duck farm bill as 'fiscal cliff' looms, where the Mankato Democrat noted:
As President Barack Obama and congressional leaders begin to negotiate over the series of automatic spending cuts and tax hikes known as the fiscal cliff, some members of Congress say a bill to extend food stamps and farm subsidy programs could help bridge the impasse.
The farm bill expired earlier this year because of House Republican infighting over how deeply to cut food stamp spending.
But the House Agriculture Committee approved a bill that cuts spending by more than $30 billion over the next decade. . . .
The new farm bill would create a national eligibility standard for food stamps, end direct payments to farmers and expand federally subsidized crop insurance programs. . . .
Other congressional leaders told Forum Communications' political reporter Don Davis in Farm bill could get nation off its 'cliff':
. . .The farm bill and impending “fiscal cliff” are being linked because new federal farm policy could produce billions of dollars in savings.
“There is a growing recognition that this could be part of the puzzle,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who leads the Senate Budget Committee and is a key player in fiscal cliff negotiations.
Added U.S. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Senate Republican: “I think the farm bill can contribute to solving the fiscal cliff because it can achieve savings.”
Washington insiders say the farm bill, which really is 80 percent nutrition programs such as food stamps, could save $23 billion to $50 billion over the next decade. While the government faces a “fiscal cliff” problem topping $2 trillion, many farm-state legislators say the farm bill would be a good down payment. . . .
The 2012 Farm Bill isn't seen as a problem in budget talks. It's seen a part of the solution, however much Allen Quist wants to fantasize about people on food assistance driving Rolls Royces to their divorce proceedings.
Quist should be encouraged to send out letters at least twice a week to remind First District residents why they so resoundingly rejected him on Election Day.
Cartoon: Allen Quist rides off into the sunset on his favorite cryptozoological steed. By Ken Avidor.
Comments