Guest column
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said last week that Congress will seek $35 billion in cuts over the next five years from benefit programs for poor families. He called such programs "popular but rife with waste."
Among the programs on the list for cuts is the Food Stamp Program, called the Basic Food Program here in Washington. Nearly 20,000 Spokane households rely on Basic Food benefits each month. Rep. DeLay is not the first to name the Food Stamp Program as a target; earlier congressional leaders sought to allay fears of farm subsidy cuts by saying all agriculture cuts could come from reducing Food Stamps' "fraud, waste and abuse."
Since a major drop in families receiving food stamps in the late '90s, USDA, lawmakers and state agencies have worked hard to "modernize" the Food Stamp Program to meet the needs of today's poor families. The program originally designed for families on fixed incomes simply did not fit with the realities of the working but poor in America. Working families were required to reapply for benefits every three months, including resubmitting detailed paperwork and verification of residency and employment. This would be like filing your income taxes four times per year, plus humiliating yourself by asking your landlord and boss to verify your information.
Program administrators and advocates looked for ways to update the program so that it was accessible to low-income families in an economy where variable hours of low-wage work each week was often the norm and where owning a reliable car was essential. Changes made included the move to electronic benefit transfer (Quest cards here in Washington), simplified reporting requirements and vehicle and asset policies reflecting current realities and supporting savings. Once these changes were made to modernize the program, the number or errors dropped too.
Despite the changes, it isn't "easy" to apply and receive food stamps today: Lengthy office visits are still the norm, though telephone interviews are increasing and streamlined reporting processes have reduced lost paperwork. Since 2001, Washington's Food Stamp Program participation has increased by nearly 60 percent. Yes, it's the economy, but it's also a program that is more responsive to the realities of today's low-income families.
What do we have to lose in the congressional budget resolution? The first thing to go will likely be the state's flexibility to set realistic vehicle and asset limits. Any cuts will undermine the value of the Food Stamp Program as one of the country's most important countercyclical programs, second only to unemployment insurance in assisting families in tough economic times. And the economic impact should not be underestimated – food stamps bring more than $40 million per year into Spokane County grocery stores.
Now that the budget resolution is in place, the action in Congress moves to each committee to determine specific cuts. The Bush administration proposed $9 billion in cuts to programs under the agriculture committees, with the overwhelming majority to be taken from farm subsidies. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., plans to target food stamps for deep cuts, while Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., promises to balance the $3 billion in cuts that have been assigned to his committee among farm subsidies, conservation and nutrition programs.
Like the rest of the budget resolution, the "balance" is likely to come at the expense of the poor. Already, Congress is pushing tax cuts in excess of $100 billion, funded partially by the $35 billion mandatory spending cut and an increase in the deficit of $150 billion more over the next five years. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, 53 percent of the tax cuts in 2005 are going to households with incomes over $1 million.
Make no mistake, the $3 billion cut Congress has mandated for agriculture programs will have an impact right here at home. Concerned citizens need to know the truth about the impact of the work Congress has done and not be deceived into thinking there will not be harm. When the "balance" must come from farmers or poor families – has Congress really made the right choices?