The Republican-written farm bill awaiting a vote in the House effectively eliminates the USDA’s already-weak limits on farm subsidy payments, said two economists on a think tank panel on Thursday. Separately, two free-market groups said that the bill was “rife with corporate welfare” and that “badly needed reforms here are entirely absent.”
“Reforms are needed on both sides of the farm bill — not just SNAP,” said Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity in a letter to lawmakers that declared strong opposition to the legislation, which costs about $87 billion a year. Both groups are affiliated with wealthy conservatives David and Charles Koch.
Although the retooling of SNAP is the lightning rod for criticism of the bill by Democrats and anti-hunger groups, anti-spending and small-government groups are increasing the volume of complaints about its farm subsidy provisions. The bill written by House Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway would expand the list of relatives eligible for farm subsidies, nominally capped at $125,000 a person per year, and would remove limits on some forms of corporate farming.
“The illusion of payment limits has been really set aside,” said economist Barry Goodwin of North Carolina State University during a panel discussion sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. Under the farm bill, he said, there would be no binding limit on payments, and attempts to bar the wealthiest operators from collecting crop supports would end. Economist Dan Sumner of UC-Davis said, “It [payment limits] has been a fiction for some time.” Vincent Smith, a Montana State University economist, said the federally subsidized crop insurance program was too generous to growers and needed reform: “You make money off of crop insurance — that’s what you do.”
The House will probably vote on the farm bill during the week of May 14, said Conaway during an AgriTalk interview. The chairman said he expects to spend next week canvassing for votes among Republicans, given the strong Democratic opposition to the bill.
“I think I can get it done just with Republicans,” said Conaway. “I think I’ll wind up having to do this with just Republicans in the House.” Republicans control the House 237-193, with seven vacancies. A simple majority is required to pass a bill, so Conaway needs 218 votes. That means he would need to have near-unanimous GOP support if Democrats vote against the bill.
“My focus right now is to get the very best SNAP reform bill out of the House that I can,” said Conaway.
He said he hoped to avoid divisive amendments, such as elimination of the sugar program, during floor debate. If a poison pill amendment is adopted, he said, “then all bets are off” for the bill’s survival.
Conaway would require up to 9 million “work-capable” adults to work 20 hours a week or spend an equal amount of time in job training or workfare in order to receive SNAP benefits. His bill also would tighten eligibility standards. The states would receive $1 billion a year to run the job-training programs.
“These programs have a poor track record for delivering results to help prospective workers gain employment or increase their earnings and improve their well-being,” said Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity.