With this extension (PL 112-24) expiring on September 30, Congress is deeply enmeshed in work on the new farm bill. Both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees have approved legislation, and now the Senate bill (S. 954) has been taken up on the Senate floor. Most disturbing to nutrition advocates is the fact that both bills cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) substantially, meaning added hardship for low-income people, including families, the elderly, and people with disabilities, who rely on nutrition assistance to get by.

The Farm Bill in the Senate

The full Senate took up the farm bill in the week before the Memorial Day recess, and voted on many of the nearly 200 amendments filed.  They were unable to complete their work but hope to wrap up consideration of the bill in the week after they return, starting June 3.

The Senate Agriculture Committee’s bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013 (S. 954), includes a $4.1 billion cut to SNAP over ten years. While a smaller cut than the one proposed in the House plan, the cut would restrict the coordination of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) with SNAP.   Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have opted to provide SNAP households with a nominal LIHEAP payment, so that instead of having to provide burdensome monthly documentation of their shelter and heating/utility bills, they can deduct a standard allowance from their income, thereby increasing the amount of SNAP benefits they qualify for.  This “Heat and Eat” approach disproportionately helps seniors and those with disabilities, who pay a high proportion of their income on shelter costs. Without this coordinated approach, such households may lose $50 – $75 a month in SNAP benefits. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D –NY) spearheaded a failed effort to eliminate the cuts (see below).

SNAP-related Amendments to the Senate Farm Bill

The Senate rejected a number of amendments before the Memorial Day recess that attempted to make SNAP cuts as bad or worse as those in the House Agriculture Committee’s bill (see House bill description below).

Roberts Amendment (#948):  This would have increased the cut to SNAP from $4.1 billion to more than $30 billion. It was defeated by a vote of 40 to 58.

Inhofe Amendment (#960): This amendment would have converted SNAP into a block grant, similar to the extreme proposal in the House-passed Budget Resolution. The amendment was defeated 36 to 60.

Vitter Amendment (#1056): The Vitter Amendment bans for life convicted pedophiles, sex offenders and murderers from receiving SNAP benefits. It also requires SNAP applicants to submit a written statement of whether any member of the household has been convicted of any of these crimes.  If a household member has been convicted of any of these offenses, even decades before, his or her income counts in determining the family’s eligibility for SNAP, but the family’s total benefit will be reduced.  The amendment passed by unanimous consent.  Although constructed to exclude the most unpopular individuals, the amendment’s likely victims include children and other family members, as the household’s total food budget is reduced.  Asking applicants for a written statement about each household member could also have a chilling effect, deterring some families from completing an application despite need.

Franken/Blunt Amendment (#992): This amendment improves the bill by allowing homebound seniors and individuals with disabilities to use their SNAP benefits for home-delivery services, as long as the home-delivery service includes no additional costs over in-store service. This language is also included in the House farm bill and therefore should make it into the final bill. The amendment was approved by unanimous consent.

Gillibrand Amendment (#931): The Gillibrand Amendment would have dropped the $4.1 billion SNAP cut in the bill, replacing the lost savings by making cuts to crop insurance. The amendment was defeated, 26 to 70.

Many amendments to cut SNAP remain to be considered.  Among them are a Johanns Amendment (#1070), which limits categorical eligibility (“Cat-El”), in which families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) become eligible for SNAP as well; a Roberts Amendment (#949) that restricts the coordination of SNAP and LIHEAP well beyond the approach now in the Senate bill, and a Thune Amendment (#991) which cuts funds for SNAP nutrition education and obesity prevention.

The Farm Bill in the House

The House Agriculture Committee backed a five-year farm bill (H.R. 1947) that slashes $20.5 billion from SNAP over ten years. This cut is even deeper than last year’s House version, which cut $16.5 billion from SNAP. The total savings from the proposed House farm bill equals $39.7 billion, with over half coming from SNAP.

The bill passed out of Committee on a 30-10 vote, with 13 Democrats and all Republicans in favor.  An amendment by Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) to eliminate the $20.5 billion SNAP cut in the bill failed by a vote of 17-27. All committee Republicans voted against it, as well as three Democrats: Ranking Member Collin Peterson (MN), Representative Sean Patrick Maloney (NY) and Representative Mike McIntyre (NC).

Nutrition advocates and most House Democrats are firmly set against H.R. 1947, however, motivated by the belief that nutrition benefits should be upheld for America’s low-income people.

Sixty percent of the $20.5 billion cut to SNAP would come from ending categorical eligibility as an option for states.; If the House bill were to become law, 2 million people would lose SNAP benefits and 280,000 children would lose access to free school meals because states would be unable to align their TANF and SNAP eligibility requirements. Low-income working families would be especially hard-hit by this cut.  Additionally, these reductions come on top of the across-the-board reduction that every SNAP recipient will have to endure starting in November 2013, when the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s short-term SNAP boost expires. For a family of three, this loss will likely mean $20-$25 less a month for a family of three, making the average benefit only $1.40 per person per meal. See more here from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

As in the Senate, the Heat and Eat cut included in the House bill is very troubling for nutrition advocates. The House bill is harsher, creating a steeper requirement for maintaining Heat and Eat eligibility, mandating that households must receive at least $20 in LIHEAP funding in order to qualify for the standard deduction for shelter/utilities. About 850,000 low-income households, a total of about 1.7 million individuals, would lose an average of $90 a month in SNAP benefits as a result of this House Agriculture Committee provision.

The House bill does include some reinvestments, including:

• $217 million to TEFAP (emergency food) (in comparison to $250 last year)
• Community Food Projects are level-funded at $100 million
• $50 million is afforded for SNAP retailer trafficking prevention

The House will likely bring its bill to the floor in June – thus allowing the House and Senate to start conferencing the bill over the Independence Day recess.  However, the House bill is opposed by some on the right and the left; it is not clear yet whether there are enough votes to enact it.  For nutrition advocates, failure to pass a bill with such extreme SNAP cuts would be good news.

The post CHN: House and Senate Agriculture Committees Back Farm Bills with Significant Cuts to SNAP appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The House Goes Home for Christmas: Its Top Priorities: Slash Health Care, Nutrition, and Federal Pay, Raise Taxes on Working Families, Preserve Pentagon Spending, and No Fingerprints on Tax Increases Even for the Very Rich

If you are reading this, the world did not come to an end on December 21.  Congressional action did, though, at least through Christmas.  Despite predictions by Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Cantor (R-VA) that there would be enough Republican votes for Boehner’s plan to raise tax rates on income over $1 million, their caucus rebelled.  Without enough votes for passage, Speaker Boehner cancelled the vote, and the House went home.  They might come back before New Year’s, if a deal can be put together to avert the spending cuts, tax increases, and loss of unemployment benefits for 2 million long-term jobless people that will mark the start of 2013.

The House did cast votes on Thursday evening.  They re-adopted a bill they had passed last spring, which replaced the $110 billion in automatic spending cuts scheduled to start January 1 with a large number of domestic cuts.  That bill went nowhere last spring, and the President and Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) confirmed its fate will be the same now.  The new-old bill, The Spending Reduction Act of 2012 (H.R. 6684), passed 215-209, with no Democrats voting for it and 21 Republicans joining all 188 Democrats to oppose.

The bill was not originally part of Speaker Boehner’s plan for Thursday.  He had hoped there would be enough support to pass an amendment he called “Plan B”, continuing the current tax rates for everybody except millionaires, whose income tax rates would rise to where they were before the Bush tax cuts were enacted.  Because other favorable treatment for millionaires and multi-million dollar estates would remain, those with incomes over $1 million would still get tax cuts averaging $50,000 each.  Treatment of 25 million low-income working families with children was not so favorable – they would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,000 each.  (For more detail, see below.)  Even Grover Norquist, originator of the anti-tax pledge that has a stranglehold on most Republicans, said that passing Boehner’s “Plan B” would be okay, because it would be preventing a tax increase on everybody else.  But that wasn’t enough to gather the near-unanimity among Republicans necessary to pass Boehner’s bill with little or no Democratic support.

Republican House members either objected to raising any taxes on anyone, balked at passing something that did nothing to stop the looming Pentagon and domestic spending cuts, or both.  To mollify enough of them, the Speaker agreed to let the House vote again on the bill to replace the “sequester,” or automatic spending cuts.  In voting for this, the majority made its priorities clear.  The bill would eliminate all the $55 billion in Pentagon sequestration cuts in 2013 and would replace about $38.5 billion in across-the-board cuts to domestic appropriations, in part by substituting $19.1 billion in spending reductions to be achieved by lowering the total cap on appropriations for FY 2013.  Medicare cuts of about $16 billion that were originally included in sequestration would stay in place.   The money lost by stopping the Pentagon cuts and some of the domestic reductions would be made up (and then some) by more than $217 billion in cuts over 10 years  to SNAP/food stamps, Medicaid, premium subsidies and other funding for the new health care law, the Child Tax Credit, and several consumer protection measures.  It also raised nearly $88 billion in revenues over 10 years by requiring federal employees to pay more of their retirement costs.  (More details about these provisions below.)

But although the House passed these spending cuts, it did not win over enough Republicans to get a majority for the Plan B increase in millionaire tax rates.

So what’s next?  Despite repeated assertions on the House floor by House Budget Committee Chair Ryan (R-WI) and others that President Obama has not come out with specific spending cut proposals in his deficit reduction plan, the President has put forth several offers in his negotiations with Speaker Boehner.  The President’s most recent proposal includes tax cuts for everyone, but reduces the tax breaks at the top, for a new revenue total of $1.2 trillion over ten years, and cuts spending by $930 billion, plus another $290 billion in debt interest savings.  Some of the savings are highly controversial among Democrats (see below).  If a solution is to be found, either before or soon after the beginning of the new year, it appears less likely to be achieved by legislation that can draw majority Republican support in the House.  Another option – passing a plan in the House with bipartisan support (lots of Democrats and some Republicans.  It remains to be seen whether Speaker Boehner will exercise leadership in pressing for that, or leave it to others to work around him.  In announcing the House’s departure, the Speaker did not seem to be signing up for a renewed battle to win over his caucus.  Instead, he said “Now it is up to the president to work with Sen. Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff.”

Taxes

Taxes were a major issue during the Presidential campaign with a focus on the ’01 and ’03 Bush-era income tax rates set to expire at the end of this year.  On November 14, newly off an election victory where he campaigned for higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 and with opinion polls solidly favoring his position, the President at his first post-election news conference reiterated his position on income tax rates and pressed for $1.6 trillion in revenue as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction deal.  Democrats were buoyed by the President’s approach.  Republicans had strongly resisted any increase in personal income tax rates but some conceded that the election results would likely mean rates for high-income taxpayers would go up.  Others pressed for no rate increases and instead talked in vague terms about tax reform that included closing unspecified tax loopholes and ending some tax deductions.  In return they also wanted deep cuts in spending.

The President presented a more detailed deficit reduction plan on November 29, outlining nearly $1.6 trillion in addition tax revenue over 10 years.   Tax rates for income of less than $250,000 would remain the same while the two top rates of 33 and 35 percent would revert back to 36 and 39.6 percent; the rate on capital gains would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent and dividends from 15 percent to the ordinary income tax rate; the maximum value of tax deductions would be lowered to 28 percent (someone in the 35 percent tax bracket can currently deduct up to 35 cents for every dollar in deductions) and additional limits would be placed on itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers; and the estate tax would revert back from its current $5 million exemption level and maximum rate of 35 percent to its 2009 exemption level of $3.5 million and 45 percent maximum rate .  The tax package would also continue the expansions made in the 2009 economic recovery act to the refundable Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income working families; extend for one year the 2 percent payroll tax cut for individuals; provide a one-year fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax (ATM), keeping new taxpayers from being hit with an average income tax increase of $2,250 according to the Tax Policy Center; and extend a number of business tax breaks.

In response to the President’s plan Speaker Boehner, the Republicans’ lead negotiator in deficit reduction talks with the President, offered $800 billion in revenue through limiting tax expenditures in tax reform that would occur next year.  His plan did not specify which tax expenditures would be limited.  Many of the most costly expenditures in terms of lost revenue are very popular and have powerful lobby shops supporting them, for example the home mortgage interest deduction, making them politically difficult to reduce significantly.

Under earlier House Republican tax proposals and plans proposed by Speaker Boehner, the 2009 improvements in the Child Tax Credit and EITC would be allowed to expire.  This means that 12 million families benefiting from the Child Tax Credit would see their taxes go up by $800, on average.  Six million families would pay an average $500 tax increase because of cuts to the EITC.

In early December deficit reduction talks between Speaker Boehner and the President continued.  On December 17, the President presented a new proposal containing both new savings on the spending side and a reduction in revenue.  The proposal reduced revenue by increasing from $250,000 to $400,000 the income threshold at which the lower tax rates would be extended.   The 33 percent income tax rate would be extended rather than reverting back to 36 percent.

Speaker Boehner seemed to be making a significant move toward the President on revenue when he indicated that he would let tax rates on income over $1 million expire.  However, coupled with extending the Bush-era tax rates on income up to $1 million, extending limits on certain tax deductions set to end on January 1, taxing dividends at 20 percent rather than at the rate of regular income, and continuing the current generous estate tax provisions, people with incomes of over $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $108,500 according to the Tax Policy Center.

In a high-risk strategy Speaker Boehner decided to take this so-called “Plan B” to floor of the House for a vote on December 20.  When conservative Republicans revolted, Speaker Boehner pulled the bill knowing that it would not pass.  It is not yet clear what the impact of his failure to pass the bill will have on future talks with the President.  Democrats and the White House are urging him to return to the negotiating table with the President.

See Citizens for Tax Justice report from December 20 comparing Speaker Boehner’s “Plan B” and the President’s original and December 17 proposals at: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/latestfiscalcliff.pdf.

The Real Cliff:  Unemployment Insurance About to Expire, Leaving 2 Million With No Help

The House spectacle before the abrupt departure was remarkable both in showing what the majority wanted to do and what it didn’t care to tackle.  Although 4 in 10 of the unemployed today have been out of work for more than six months (most for more than a year), and have run out of state unemployment benefits, the House took no action to continue the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program for the long-term jobless.  It will expire at the end of December.  Two million will be denied unemployment benefits right away, followed by another million by the end of the March in 2013.  The proportion of the long-term unemployed has risen dramatically over the years.  After the 1980’s recession, 26 percent of the unemployed were out of work six months or more.  The President’s plan includes the extension of unemployment benefits for a year, at a cost of $33 billion.

Shrinking the Adjustment for Inflation:  “The Chained CPI”

One of the most controversial provisions in President Obama’s deficit reduction package is a change in the way the Consumer Price Index (CPI) would be calculated for purposes of calculating benefits for Social Security, and also affecting many other low-income programs that rely on annual inflation adjustments for eligibility or benefit levels.  In what ultimately turned out to be abortive negotiations with Speaker Boehner, the President responded to the demand that benefits to entitlement programs be cut by agreeing to this change, which is called the “chained CPI.”  It reduces the inflation rate by assuming that when certain prices go up, consumers are likely to switch to other comparable but cheaper products.  Some research questions whether the elderly, or low-income people generally are able to make such substitutions as easily as the population as a whole.  According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, after 10 years, the Chained CPI would result in a 3 percent cut in Social Security benefits, about 6 percent after 20 years, and nearly 9 percent after 30 years.  For an average worker retiring at 65, this reduced measure of inflation would result in benefits being cut $1,130 a year at age 85.  Women would be disproportionately affected, because they live longer and are more likely to be poor.  The Administration’s Chained CPI proposal, which is estimated to save $130 billion over 10 years, does provide exemptions for low-income elderly and disabled making use of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), but that alone does not offer adequate protection to low-income people.  If the revised calculation is applied to the federal poverty guidelines, it will lower the annual increases in the poverty line, which would be likely to reduce benefits or shrink eligibility for means-tested programs.  Many progressive groups, including labor, have strenuously opposed making use of the Chained CPI.

SNAP in Farm Bill and House Bill 

Prospects for a 5-year reauthorization of a farm bill including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) before this Congress ends on January 2 has all but disappeared. There is not time for action on a separate bill and prospects for attaching it to the elusive larger deficit reduction package are fading.  The full Senate passed a 5- year farm bill extension in June with $23 billion in savings over 10 years, including $4.5 billion in cuts to SNAP.  In July the House Agriculture Committee approved bipartisan farm bill legislation with $35 billion in savings over 10 years, including $16 billion in cuts to SNAP.  The House Republican leadership has refused to allow a floor vote to happen because some Republicans want deeper cuts to SNAP while many Democrats do not support any cuts to the program.  The commodities provisions in the two bills that subsidize farmers also split members, more along geographic than party lines.  The Senate bill tends to favor northern commodities like corn and soybeans and the House bill rice, peanuts and wheat grown in the southern states.

Absent a full reauthorization, there is faint hope that a shorter-term extension of the current farm bill might pass.  The SNAP program will continue to operate uninterrupted without an extension of the full bill because the rules governing the program will not expire and funding was included in the continuing resolution through March 2013.  However, some programs would be affected.  Dairy subsidies would revert back to a 1949 law, likely doubling milk prices.  Dairy products are a large portion of the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) federally-funded nutrition program, and the price increase would lessen the buying power of WIC recipients.

The Spending Reduction Act passed by the House on Thursday night included $32.3 billion in cuts to SNAP/food stamps.  The House majority would return SNAP benefits to their old level of about $1.30 per meal, an amount judged by nutrition experts to be inadequate.  While current law would have started that reduction in November of 2013, this bill moves it up to February.  Recent analysis estimates that this cut will result in a loss of $8 – $10 per person per month.  The House will also deny SNAP to 2 million people who now get benefits because their low incomes qualify them for programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.  This change will also result in 280,000 low-income children losing free school meals.  In addition, the House agreed to make it harder to streamline eligibility for SNAP benefits, which now can be received without additional documentation if certain households already qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (expected to cut assistance to 1.8 million individuals).  This change will also result in 280,000 low-income children losing free school meals.  These restrictions were estimated last spring to save $11.7 billion over 10 years.  Further, this bill would reduce SNAP benefits to people who now receive a small benefit from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, said last spring to reduce SNAP spending by over $14 billion.  Despite this time of high unemployment, the House would drop certain federal spending for SNAP employment and training programs (saving about $3.1 billion over 10 years) and would end federal bonus payments to states to encourage good performance in administering SNAP.

Health Care Spending Reductions

The President’s most recent offer calls for $400 billion in savings in health care programs over 10 years, said to come mainly from Medicare, with relatively little from Medicaid (although details were not available).  The House Spending Reduction Act keeps the $16 billion in Medicare cuts scheduled to take place as part of the automatic FY 2013 cuts imposed by the Budget Control Act ( 2011 legislation that set up the “sequestration” cuts to start in January 2013 if Congress could not agree on a deficit reduction plan).  In addition, the House bill slashes health care premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act for 350,000 people, and cut Medicaid funding to Puerto Rico and other territories even though Puerto Rico, despite its disproportionate poverty, receives far lower federal Medicaid payments than any state (a high of 35 percent in 2010; states receive no less than 50 percent of Medicaid costs).  The amendment also allows states to make cuts in their Medicaid programs below the levels in place when the Affordable Care Act passed, which could reduce eligibility or benefits for millions of people.  Further, it includes a number of funding cuts aimed at undermining the Affordable Care Act (the major new health care legislation now being implemented).  These savings are estimated at $47.3 billion over ten years by the Congressional Budget Office.

The President’s plan is said to assume at least one-year funding for continued higher payment levels to physicians under Medicare.  Their payments were supposed to be cut by Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) reductions passed by Congress some years ago, but Congress has not been willing to implement these cuts.

Debt Ceiling

President Obama has been emphatic in not wanting to undergo another crisis negotiation in which Republicans insist on spending reductions commensurate with increases in the debt ceiling.  The debt ceiling is expected to be reached within the next month or two.  If Congress does not authorize continued borrowing, the crisis would stall spending, spook federal bond-holders, with threats of catastrophe for our economy, according to people like Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke.  Holding spending on domestic priorities hostage to deeper and deeper cuts to get the debt ceiling increased would be very dangerous to human needs programs.  Obama’s position initially would have reduced Congress’ role in debt ceiling increases permanently; more recent proposals have called for a two-year debt ceiling increase.

Appropriations

The President’s most recent offer called for cuts of $100 billion to defense and $100 billion to non-defense appropriations over 10 years, beyond the $1.5 trillion in cuts to these programs already set in motion over the next decade.  These cuts are much lower than the approximately $1 trillion in additional Pentagon, domestic, and international program cuts that are now scheduled to start in January and continue over 10 years.  Still, domestic appropriations are being cut deeply already, affecting education, housing, child care, WIC, Head Start, home energy assistance, and much more, and many groups oppose any further cuts.  On the other hand, many military spending experts believe that much more could be cut from military spending than the $100 billion called for in the President’s plan.

As noted above, the House spending reduction bill cuts appropriations by another $19.1 billion in FY 2013 by lowering the appropriations cap by that amount.  The bill also prohibits further military cuts.

The post CHN: The House Goes Home for Christmas appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Congress left for the August recess without coming to agreement on a Farm Bill.  The current 5-year bill is set to expire on September 30th. That leaves the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) funding and other farm programs unresolved until Congress returns in September. On August 2nd, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told Congressional Quarterly reporters that “the House is pretty well divided” because of proposed cuts to SNAP. The farm bill contained over $16 billion in cuts to SNAP and the free school lunch program over 10 years.  Conservatives want that number to go higher and Democrats would prefer it to go lower.

Nutrition cuts weren’t the only thing dividing Congress on the Farm Bill. Despite a severe drought and sense of urgency to deal with disaster relief aid for farmers, the House and Senate also failed to agree on an aid package for drought relief. House Republicans proposed a one-year extension (H.R. 6228) in order to move the Farm Bill forward before the August recess, but did not get support from farmers or nutrition advocates for the plan. On July 26, House Republicans decoupled the farm bill from the disaster relief aid, pushing the Farm Bill to the sidelines and passing an aid-only bill instead (H.R. 6233). This House tactic could have forced the Senate to pass a bill before recess began, but Senate Democrats refused to take up the stand-alone bill because of many dividing factors. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said that she would not pass a bill that only covers help for some producers. In particular she was concerned that the aid package did not include fruit and vegetable growers and dairy producers, many of whom are her constituents. The House-passed aid bill would cut the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program by $639 million, providing $383 million to disaster aid and using the remainder for deficit reduction. Farm groups are concerned that this would just add to the cuts they are already expecting in a new Farm Bill. Some were also concerned that passing a short-term measure might delay a long-term, comprehensive bill.

It is unclear how the House and Senate will come to agreement on an extension of the Farm Bill before it expires but Chairwoman Stabenow has reiterated her commitment to working out a deal before the end of September. Agriculture Committee leaders could bypass House floor action, write their own compromise bill and attach it to “must-pass” legislation, but it is unlikely that this process will occur because Stabenow has said that the House must take action on the Farm Bill before a deal can be struck.

The post CHN: Congress Leaves Without Passing Farm Bill appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

S. 3307 passed the Senate by unanimous consent in early August, but the bill faced major hurdles in the House where members took issue with various parts of the bill. House members had supported legislation with more funding and greater expansion of summer food and school breakfast programs and more streamlined procedures to simplify children’s access to food programs. Another major sticking point for some Democrats was the Senate’s use of future SNAP/food stamp cuts to pay for provisions in the bill. S. 3307 terminates in 2013 a temporary boost in SNAP benefits that was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This is the second cut to the program. The boost was originally supposed to phase out gradually and, if it were not for the two cuts, the increased benefits would have remained in place through 2018. With assurances from the Administration that they will help to restore the SNAP funds, and given widespread recognition that the prospects of passing a child nutrition bill in a Republican-controlled House next year were not good, Democratic leaders managed to secure the votes for passage. On December 2, the House passed the Senate bill, 264-157. Seventeen Republicans voted for the bill and four Democrats voted against it.

Surrounded by House leaders, Senate sponsors, Cabinet members, the First Lady, and in the presence of students and teachers at Harriet Tubman Elementary School in Washington, DC, President Obama signed the bill on December 13.

The post CHN: Child Nutrition Programs Reauthorized appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Taxes
The stakes will be high as Congress decides which provisions in the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire on December 31, which will be extended, and whether the extensions will be permanent or temporary.  There is broad agreement among Democrats, Republicans and the Administration that the tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent of taxpayers should be extended. At issue are the tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent. Most Democrats believe those should be allowed to expire.  Republicans under the leadership of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) want to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.  Allowing the top marginal income tax rates for wealthy taxpayers, currently set at 33 and 35 percent, to remain in place – for income above approximately $210,000 and $375,000 – rather than reverting to 36 and 39.6 percent rates, and retaining the 15 percent rate on capital gains and dividends rather than the pre-2001 rate of 20 percent, carries a $700 billion price tag over 10 years.  If the two top rates are not extended, those same taxpayers would still benefit from retaining the lower 10, 15, 25, and 28 rates on their initial income.  Proponents of extending tax breaks for the wealthiest argue that this will lead to job creation and economic growth, but there is little evidence to support their position.  There is considerable evidence that spending a small fraction of that amount on unemployment benefits, for example, would provide a far more effective boost to the economy.

Advocates will be working to ensure that the improvements to the refundable Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit included in ARRA passed in 2009 are linked with the extension or permanency of the middle-class tax cuts.  For low-income families who receive the refundable credits the national average per-family benefit of retaining the improvements is $1,330, according to a Citizen for Tax Justice report.   President Obama’s plan, supported by most Democrats, extends all of the Bush tax cuts for individuals making up to $200,000 and couples up to $250,000, including the improvements in the refundable credits.  The Republican plan forwarded by Senator McConnell does not call for extending the refundable credits and extends all tax cuts for the wealthiest.  Under the Republican plan, the bottom 60 percent of U.S. taxpayers would pay $124 more and the richest one percent would pay $45,893 less in 2011, on average, then they would under President Obama’s plan, according to a Citizens for Tax Justice report.

Prior to Thanksgiving break Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated that he would schedule a vote on extending tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent and hoped that Minority Leader McConnell would agree not to block the vote if there is also a vote on his plan to extend all of the tax cuts.  Currently there are not 60 votes to pass either plan.  The majority of Democrats oppose extending the tax breaks for the upper two percent and Republicans, emboldened by election gains, are pressing for full extension.  It is unclear how this will get resolved, but if they do not act by January all taxpayers will face an increase in their taxes that will show up immediately in lower take-home pay.

Appropriations for FY 2011
After failing to pass any of the 12 appropriations bills that fund discretionary (annually appropriated) programs by October 1 when Fiscal Year 2011 began, Congress has passed two stopgap continuing resolutions (CR’s) to continue funding programs.  The current CR is set to expire on December 3.  The CR funds most appropriated programs at their FY 2010 levels.  Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees along with Senate Republicans have been working to come to agreement on funding levels for each of the twelve FY 2011 spending bills that would then be bundled into an omnibus package.  Initially Senator McConnell (R-KY) agreed to the plan that would provide overall funding for discretionary programs at $16 billion below the President’s FY 2011 budget which itself calls for freezing non-military, non-homeland security spending.  The agreed-upon level is consistent with an amendment sponsored by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) that narrowly failed earlier this year.  However, under pressure from House Republicans who want even steeper cuts in non-security spending and who will be in charge in the House in the next Congress, Senator McConnell is backing away from his agreement.

The House Republican’s “Pledge to America” campaign document calls for funding non-security discretionary programs in FY 2011 at $105 billion, or 21.7 percent, less than the $483 billion in the President’s budget.  This level is $101 billion less than what was provided in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.  If those austere cuts are passed, well-funded lobbyists will press for less aggressive cuts to politically well-connected programs like roads or medical research, which will result in even deeper cuts for programs that address the needs of low- and moderate-income people.  These cuts would fall hard on state and local governments already facing the largest deficits in recent history.  Programs affected may include K-12 education, low-income housing, job training and employment services, nutrition, and services for the elderly and disabled – all critical for vulnerable populations.  (See Center on Budget and Policy report including state-by-state cuts that could result if the Republican plan is adopted.)  Most economists have warned against cutting domestic spending for at least another year, since the job and business income losses sure to result will threaten the very fragile economic recovery.

Advocates are working for passage of an omnibus bill in the lame-duck session. Reaching final agreement on funding for discretionary programs will be difficult as newly elected Republicans are anxious to demonstrate their desire to cut spending regardless of economists’ warnings.

Dream Act
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has pledged to bring the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act for a vote in the Senate during the lame duck session. The DREAM Act is bipartisan legislation that would provide certain immigrant students who grew up in the U.S. an opportunity to obtain legal status if they go to college or serve in the U.S. military. Multiple versions of the DREAM Act have been introduced in Congress since 2001. Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL,) a longstanding champion of the bill, along with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the DREAM Act in the Senate, S. 729, in this Congress. Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) introduced a House companion bill, H.R. 1751.

In preparation for a vote on the bill in the Senate, Senator Durbin introduced two new versions of the bill, S. 3962 and S. 3963, before the Thanksgiving break. The difference between both bills has to do with the qualifying age of individuals. In S. 3962 individuals have to be less than 35 years old when the bill is enacted to qualify for adjustment of status. In S. 3963 the cut-off age is 30. Both bills eliminate a provision that was in earlier versions giving states the option to provide in-state tuition without regard to immigration status. These changes were made in an effort to build greater support for the legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has also indicated that she would like to bring the DREAM Act for a vote in the House during the lame duck session.

Child Nutrition Reauthorization 
House leaders may bring the Senate-approved Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill, S. 3307, for a vote on the floor when they return from the Thanksgiving break. Passage of a Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill stalled in Congress after some House members raised concerns over parts of the Senate bill. S. 3307 provides $4.5 billion over 10 years for better child nutrition through more afterschool and summer meals, higher reimbursements to school lunch providers, improved administration of WIC and meals programs, including easier enrollment of children, and more funding for WIC program improvements.  House members have supported legislation with more funding and greater expansion of summer food and school breakfast programs and more streamlined access provisions. But the biggest sticking point for some House members has been the Senate’s use of future SNAP/food stamp cuts to pay for provisions in the Senate bill.  In August, 106 Representatives sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi opposing SNAP cuts.  (To learn more about the House members objections see the October 5 Human Needs Report.) House proponents are working with the Administration to identify ways during the lame duck session to prevent SNAP cuts from taking effect.  Child nutrition programs are set to expire on December 3.

According to new data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 17.2 million children, or almost a quarter of all children in the U.S., struggled against hunger in 2009. The U.S. continues to experience high rates of food insecurity with 50 million Americans living in households struggling against hunger last year. However, worth noting is that while food insecurity grew significantly from 2007 to 2008, during the first year of the recession, in 2009 there was only a slight increase. This trend continued into 2010. An analysis by the Food Research and Action Center of data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index shows that food hardship actually declined slightly this year. It is significant that food hardship and insecurity did not rise significantly in 2009 and 2010 given the high rates of unemployment during these time periods. The leveling off of food insecurity rates coincides with the increase in SNAP benefits that were enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  This indicates the effectiveness of SNAP in ameliorating hunger and stresses the importance of maintaining a strong SNAP program, especially given the slow pace of recovery.

SSI Benefits
On October 1, up to 5,600 impoverished refugees and other immigrants in the U.S. on humanitarian grounds were cut off from their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that another 5,600 could be cut off over the next 13 months unless Congress acts. Advocates are pushing Congress for a one-year extension of SSI eligibility and are also working with the Administration to determine a long-term solution for this population.

In 1996, a seven-year time limit for SSI benefits was imposed on humanitarian immigrants. It was assumed that seven years would give individuals sufficient time to obtain citizenship, and thereby maintain their benefits. However, processing delays and other obstacles in the immigration system made it nearly impossible for people to naturalize within the seven-year time period. Two years ago Congress overwhelmingly approved a two-year extension of SSI benefits for refugees, lengthening the eligibility level from seven years to nine.

Qualified Individual Program
Unless Congress acts in the lame-duck session, two programs critical to low-income Medicare beneficiaries will be terminated, the Qualified Individual (QI) Program and the therapy caps exception process.  The QI program is a federal grant to states that pays the Medicare Part B premium (covering doctors’ services and outpatient care) for individuals with income between 120 and 135 percent of the federal poverty level (about $13,000 to $14,600 in 2010) who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid.  The program, currently serving 1.5 million low-income Medicare recipients, was created in 1997 and has been extended on a year-to-year basis since 2002.  If the QI program lapses these beneficiaries will lose approximately $1,100, the yearly cost of Part B premiums, forcing them to pay the premium out-of-pocket or drop coverage.

Also at risk is the therapy caps exception process, protecting low-income Medicare beneficiaries from being denied medically necessary services when they exceed limits on outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech-language services.  Treatment limitations include a combined $1,860 cap for speech and physical therapy services, and a separate $1,860 cap for occupational therapy.  Advocates are counting on Congress to extend these programs vital to low-income seniors.

The post CHN: Congress Returns to Lame-Duck Session Facing Full Plate of Unfinished Business appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The Senate bill took $2.2 billion from SNAP by advancing the cut to 2013, and also took $1.3 billion from SNAP nutrition education funding, to pay for most of the child nutrition provisions.  These offsetting sources of funding were seen as acceptable to Republicans who might otherwise have stood in the way of the Senate bill’s passage.

In the House, however, enough opposition arose to further cuts in SNAP that the House leadership saw it would be impossible to get the two-thirds needed to pass the bill.  One clear sign of House concerns was an August 13 letter to the Speaker signed by 106 Representatives opposing additional SNAP cuts.  The House leadership agreed to seek other offsets and to work towards expanded access to meals programs for low-income children in final negotiations with the Senate and the Administration, in hopes a final bill can be approved during the lame duck session.

The new poverty data released by the Census Bureau in September underscored the importance of adequate SNAP benefits.  According to the Census Bureau, in 2009 SNAP aid, if counted in the official poverty measure, would have lifted 3.6 million people out of poverty.  With nearly one in four children under age 5 living in poverty, SNAP benefits are particularly important, since children not yet in school do not benefit from school meals programs.  Advocates are hoping that Congress and the Administration can agree on a means of funding much-needed child nutrition improvements that does not come at the expense of child nutrition.

The post CHN: Child Nutrition Renewal Pushed into Lame Duck Session; House Objects to Cutting Food Stamps to Pay for It appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The $2.2 billion in SNAP money would reduce SNAP benefits in future years, taking away some of the increase enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  Earlier on August 5, the Senate also took $11.9 billion from the ARRA increase in SNAP benefits to help pay for aid to states in a bill that passed the Senate and later the full Congress.  (See article in this Human Needs Report.)  The SNAP cut providing some of the funding for state aid will reduce benefits for a family of four by $59 in 2014; under the Senate child nutrition bill, the SNAP cut would take effect in 2013. The double hit to SNAP is deeply troubling to anti-hunger advocates.

S. 3307 takes a number of important steps forward to ensure that low-income children have access to child nutrition programs and receive the meals they need.  The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) at-risk afterschool program, currently available in 13 states, would be expanded to all 50 states.  The bill also simplifies the application process for free meals for students, and will allow 115,000 more children to qualify for free school meals by certifying them as eligible if they are enrolled in Medicaid.  The legislation increases reimbursement rates for the National School Lunch Program and gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to establish national nutrition standards for all food sold on the school campus through the school day, assuring greater food quality.  The bill also simplifies administration of the Summer Food Service Program.

On July 15, the House Education and Labor Committee passed its version of the child nutrition reauthorization, The Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act (H.R. 5504), which contains these same provisions and makes a number of other improvements not in the Senate bill.  (See article in the July 26 Human Needs Report.)  The House has not yet identified offsets to pay for the $8 billion in improvements in its bill.

The post CHN: Senate Passes Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Child Nutrition Legislation Advances in the House

Significant improvements in child nutrition programs passed the House Education and Labor Committee on July 15. The Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act (H.R. 5504) received strong bipartisan support with a vote of 32-13.  The 10-year reauthorization bill comes at a critical time when the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 17 million, almost 1 in 4 American children, are hungry. Many children from low-income families do not have access to nutritious meals year-round. In FY 2009, 19.5 million children received reduced price or free lunches but only 2.2 million children participated in summer food programs.

The Senate Agriculture Committee passed its version of child nutrition reauthorization, the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act (S. 3307), on March 24. Both the House and Senate bills would reauthorize child nutrition programs for 10 years, improving the quality of nutrition provided to children, increasing the number of children who would be able to access nutrition programs, and simplifying involvement in the programs for both schools and caregivers. Both bills would include the nationwide expansion of the Afterschool Meal Program, which is now available in only 13 states. Paperless options, direct certification, and reductions in the amount of paperwork necessary in order for school nutrition programs to function would make administrative efforts more efficient. Improvements to the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program include the choice to certify children for the program for as long as a year instead of merely 6 months.  Both House and Senate bills would also permit WIC educational information to be utilized by the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) at the state and local level. Both bills include a performance-based increase in the federal reimbursement rate for school lunches (six cents per meal), allow only lower-fat milk to be served in schools, and give authority to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to set the nutritional qualifications for foods sold in schools across the nation. Click here to see the Food Research and Action Center’s full coverage of the House and Senate bills.

The House version of the bill (H.R. 5504) made a number of improvements not included in the Senate bill. H.R. 5504 would authorize five states to provide children with another meal or an extra snack through the CACFP programs if they have been in child care more than 8 hours. The House bill also improves access for children in rural areas to Summer Food programs by lowering the eligibility rate at which all children can be served from 50 to 40 percent of students eligible for free and reduced price school meals. H.R. 5504 provides the opportunity for 5 states to offer children Afterschool Supper Programs through the National School Lunch Program and for 10 states to utilize the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) by offering year-round programs.

Key to the passage of a child nutrition bill will be funding the improvements to the programs. To comply with the pay-as-you-go budget rules, the improvements must be paid for (offset) with program cuts or through additional revenues. The Senate bill identifies offsets for its $4.5 billion 10-year increase whereas the House bill does not indicate how its $8 billion increase would be funded. Advocates are hoping the full House and Senate will pass child nutrition reauthorization legislation before Congress adjourns in early October.

The post CHN: Child Nutrition Legislation Advances in the House appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

The summer food program is funded at $300.2 million and includes an expansion of the programs to Arizona, Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

The final bill puts a moratorium on WIC-only stores. Unlike an earlier version of the bill, the final bill does not include a cap on Medicaid adjunctive eligibility for WIC. The cap (as proposed in the President’s budget) would have prevented Medicaid recipients eligible individuals who had incomes above 250 percent of poverty from being automatically eligible for WIC. The cap would have affected families in six states.

The next step is for the Senate to approve the conference report before it goes to the President for his signature.

FRAC side-by-side comparison of Agriculture appropriations bill: http://www.frac.org/Legislative/Budget_06/07.01.05AgApprops.html

The post CHN: Final Conference Agreement on WIC Spending Approved In House appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Although some members of Congress continue to be uncomfortable making cuts to vital services, others justify cuts as a way to pay for the high costs of Katrina recovery. The original budget resolution set September deadlines for various committees to cut spending from mandatory programs by a total of $35 billion and for the tax writing committees to produce a bill cutting taxes by $70 billion. Mandatory programs include Medicaid, Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Earned Income Tax Credit and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

A group of 100 conservative House members released a report September 21 calling on Congress to find “offsets” for hurricane relief – in other words, cut spending to pay for the costs. Many of the offsets chosen by the Republican Study Committee (RSC) are not palatable politically and will not end up in any legislation. But it is worth noting that many of their options for place the burden on low-income families (such as Medicaid cuts).

Other members of Congress have raised the possibility of making steep across-the-board cuts to programs funded through the annual appropriations process. Education, child care, Head Start, veteran’s benefits, education for children with disabilities, certain nutrition programs, and many other services are funded through the appropriations bills – and would be at risk for deep cuts.

A number of advocates view with some surprise Congress’s newfound concern about spiraling deficits. The deep tax breaks of 2001 and 2003 that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest Americans were not paid for – and contributed mightily to the deficit. This year people earning more than $200,000 will get back more than $250 billion from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

The budget resolution would actually make the deficit worse – because the new tax breaks are twice the size of the spending cuts. Those tax breaks are expected to include extending the reduced capital gains and dividend rates for investors.

Advocates are gearing up to meet with their members of Congress during the District work period the week of October 10 through 14. The Coalition on Human Needs and other groups are organizing call-in days on October 17 and 18 to tell Congress to abandon its plans to cut services for the poor while cutting taxes for the rich.

Gene Sperling of the Center for American Progress writes with clarity about this topic: Deficits and Katrina: Right Topic, Wrong Question

The post CHN: Conservatives Continue to Press for Cuts to Low-Income Services and New Tax Breaks for the Wealthy appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.