SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
farm bill
The GOP's Sneaky and Destructive Plan to Privatize Anti-Hunger Program
Privatization is often touted as a solution to bureaucratic red tape or cutting “wasteful” government spending, but in practice, it can mean cutting the experienced public workforce who administer complicated government programs.
Nov 28, 2024
The country’s largest and most important government anti-hunger program faces a renewed threat as Congress returns from recess next week: privatization.
Congress needs to reauthorize the now-expired Farm Bill—the enormous legislative package that includes funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps)—but a privatization scheme was attached to the bill.
Congress should not be using much-needed disaster relief as a back door to privatize the SNAP program’s workforce.
Earlier this Congress, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced the “SNAP Staffing Flexibility Act,” which was also adopted as an amendment to the current version of the Farm Bill. The bill would allow state agencies to hire outside contractors to administer key requirements of the SNAP program under certain conditions, such as in the aftermath of natural disasters or during pandemics and public health emergencies. Rep. Bacon and supporters of this proposal now aim to tack this provision onto the emergency disaster relief package under consideration this year. Make no mistake: This is an attempt to use emergency disaster relief as cover to privatize the SNAP program and workforce, instead of giving the SNAP program enough money to operate effectively.
Privatization is often touted as a solution to bureaucratic red tape or cutting “wasteful” government spending, but in practice, it can mean cutting the experienced public workforce who administer complicated government programs. This can result in prolonged delays, more people wrongly denied benefits, and ultimately worse outcomes for people who need the benefits most.
SNAP Is Our Most Important Anti-Hunger Program, But It Is Facing Renewed Privatization Threats
SNAP serves tens of millions of low-paid working families and other households with low incomes (including disabled and older adults). Like unemployment insurance, SNAP is responsive to the business cycle—meaning SNAP is particularly important during economic downturns when poverty and food insecurity rise. Between fiscal years 1980 and 2008, anywhere from 7 to 11% of U.S. households received SNAP. Participation grew dramatically during the Great Recession, peaking at 18.8% in fiscal year 2013 (47.6 million people).
Participation spiked again during the Covid-19 pandemic amid increased poverty and food insecurity. In fiscal year 2022, although total participation was lower than during the Great Recession (12.4% of all U.S. households participated in the program), SNAP saw a record-high participation rate among eligible individuals, equivalent to 41.2 million people receiving benefits in an average month. Expanded SNAP eligibility—alongside other relief measures such as Child Tax Credit expansions, universal free school lunches, and federal stimulus payments—kept food insecurity at bay during the height of the pandemic in 2021. However, as those programs expired—and the shocks of pandemic reopening and the Russian invasion of Ukraine led to food prices growing at an unprecedented rate—food insecurity increased in 2022.
As part of the SNAP quality control process, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) examines each state’s application processing timeliness (APT). The rate is calculated by dividing the number of SNAP applications processed by the number of applications that were expected to be processed during that period, typically 30 days since the application was submitted. In fiscal year 2023, APT rates ranged from a low of 39% in Alaska to a high of 98% in Idaho, with a median rate of 85% across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In 2023, only four states met the FNS benchmark rate of 95%. Failure to meet this benchmark is not a new phenomenon. Based on available data, no more than a third of all states have ever met the 95% timeliness standard in any given year.
Proponents of SNAP privatization often point to slow application processing rates as evidence that the existing program is inefficient and in need of “reform.” However, this argument ignores important context on these rates and its connection to declining federal funding for SNAP and shrinking public-sector employment.
Chronic Underfunding of SNAP Strains Workers and Delays Processing of Essential Benefits
SNAP is a federal-state partnership, so the federal government pays the full cost of nutrition benefits and splits the costs of administration with states, but federal spending on SNAP administration has declined over time. Meanwhile, SNAP administrators’ caseloads have grown dramatically. Many states point to administrative problems—including low staffing, hiring freezes, and high turnover—as one of the biggest barriers to improving slow processing times and backlogs.
To be clear, low APT rates are a cause for concern because they indicate that many eligible households in need of food assistance are not quickly receiving those benefits. But the solution to ensuring applicants receive their benefits quickly is simple: Policymakers must increase funding for SNAP and restore sufficient staffing levels so that case workers can process applications effectively and efficiently.
Starving SNAP of Funding Serves the Long-Term, Right-Wing Privatization Agenda
The push to privatize SNAP eligibility determinations is decades-old and has produced serious problems in states that have contracted out these services or automated certain functions of the process. When Texas outsourced its SNAP eligibility determinations to a for-profit company in 2006, thousands of people were unable to apply or were given incorrect information and many were wrongly denied benefits. Public-sector staff were then forced to fix mistakes, and eligible SNAP participants were subject to long delays to receive benefits.
Efforts to defraud the SNAP program, including misuse of benefits or selling them for cash, is very rare. However, attention to purported fraud has increased in recent years, and SNAP workers have been forced to take on additional anti-fraud measures, further delaying processing and potentially contributing to low APT rates.
The SNAP Program Needs Support, Not a License to Cut More Corners
Congress should not be using much-needed disaster relief as a back door to privatize the SNAP program’s workforce. There are other real and urgent problems with the SNAP program this year—for instance, families have had their SNAP benefits stolen by card “skimmers” when they swipe their cards at grocery store cash registers. In 2022, Congress passed a provision that would allow states to pay back the stolen benefits to victims of theft, but that has since expired.
Farm Bill reauthorization should focus on preserving nutrition assistance benefits without cuts and on reducing administrative burdens and red tape for SNAP recipients, applicants, and staff—all of which could help reduce backlogs and improve how quickly people can receive their benefits. And disaster relief spending should focus on providing aid to vulnerable communities trying to rebuild after storms—not opportunistically trying to cut corners and privatize vital services.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New GM Wheat Is a Phony Climate Solution That Threatens Farmers and Wildlife
if we really want safety—for farmers’ finances and the environment—we ought to work more on promoting regional and local seed varieties instead of looking to multinational corporations for guidance.
Oct 13, 2024
The precautionary principle—the ethical equivalent of the common sense notion that it’s “better to be safe than sorry”—means that when some economic or policy change may endanger the public, business and government leaders ought to thoroughly conduct research so as to avoid exposing anyone to unnecessary risks.
Unfortunately, with our food system, our government continues to ignore ethics and common sense, recently approving as “safe for breeding and growing” a new genetically modified (GM) variety of wheat—HB4. Copying and combining certain genes from sunflowers to create this new variety, HB4 is not only pitched to farmers as a tool they could use to battle our ever increasingly dire climate crisis, but also to increase yields.
The truth is another, as this latest proposed tech solution to address our climate crisis stands to improve the financial situation of agribusiness corporations more than farmers, while also likely harming our environment instead of helping it. Not only should the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rethink their decision, but our officials ought to instead support publicly financing regional and local varieties of seed. Strengthening key provisions of the Farm Bill that is currently in Congress could make such proposals a reality.
We need to develop diverse kinds of seeds that suit different ecosystems instead of global “one size fits all” varieties like we find with GM options.
The overarching problem with HB4—particularly for U.S. farmers—is economic.
According to USDA data from the past 25 years, operating costs for wheat farmers have more than tripled in terms of dollars spent per acre—increasing from just over $57 in 1998, to more than $187 in 2023. Also during this time, while the input cost of seed has more than doubled, going from $7 to $16, chemicals have tripled, climbing from $7 to $22. Fertilizer expenses have risen the most—going from $18 to over $78—representing nearly half of what farmers spend per acre.
Wheat is more than a crop, or ingredient that ends up in bread, but an industry, with chemical, fertilizer, and seed companies each clawing for a share.
Meanwhile, wheat prices in our global marketplace have been volatile. The 28% price jump that farmers experienced in the first months of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 quickly stabilized thanks to the Black Sea Grain Initiative—the plan that allowed grain to leave the region for a time until Russia left the agreement in 2023—and different countries easing their export restrictions. Prices then fell, as Ukraine, regularly one of the world’s top wheat exporters, saw its production rebound to pre-invasion levels. Russia’s 2023-2024 exports also exceeded expectations, increasing by 7% over the prior year, making this country the world’s leader in export sales by far.
Meanwhile, the U.S.’ share of wheat exports has steadily fallen for decades, from about 45% in 1980 to just over 15% in 2014. With worldwide production increasing, U.S. wheat farmers may take a loss in 2024.
Maintaining open export markets for wheat can spell the difference between financial life or death for U.S. farmers. On this point, there is no indication that world markets are currently willing to accept HB4, as major international buyers of U.S. wheat have not approved it. With contamination of non-GM wheat a problem that we have been aware of for years, we need to be careful as U.S. farmers can only sell what importers will accept.
The other issue with HB4 wheat is that the seed not only resists drought, but also glufosinate herbicides. Farmers who purchase the seed will have to buy this chemical, in addition to fertilizer. And despite what the USDA claims about safety, studies show that this class of herbicides is toxic to wildlife and humans.
Overall, in addition to potential environmental harm, we have a case of the “price-cost” squeeze that farmers suffer too often, with the inputs that they need taking a significant chunk of their earnings, while the prices that they receive for their labor either shrinking or fluctuating in ways that are largely out of their control.
Accordingly, if we really want safety—for farmers’ finances and the environment—we ought to work more on promoting regional and local seed varieties instead of looking to multinational corporations for guidance.
Both versions of our beleaguered Farm Bill contain such provisions, with the House and Senate versions of the legislation dedicating grant funding to the development of regional seed varieties (referred to as “cultivars” in the legislation).
The operative word here is “regional,” as grant funding may lead to the creation of new seed varieties that would be suited to particular areas and climates. Droughts in general entail a lack of water; but soil conditions and weather patterns vary significantly by region. As a result, we need to develop diverse kinds of seeds that suit different ecosystems instead of global “one size fits all” varieties like we find with GM options.
When the USDA decided that HB4 was “safe,” they must have left out considerations for farmer financial well-being and the environment. But our legislators can make up for this mistake with the Farm Bill—whether it emerges in a lame duck session this year following the elections in November or awaits our next Congress—taking heed of the risks that GM crops pose, and supporting more local and regional food system development.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bipartisan Support for Small-Scale Farmers Could Advance the Farm Bill
Supporting such farmers would keep working people on the land while also showing what political maturity could look like as partisan squabbling too often stymies serious work from getting done in D.C.
May 28, 2024
Much has been made about how the U.S. House’s draft of the Farm Bill—that massive omnibus legislation that governs our food system—stands little chance of advancing. Whether the potential cuts to food assistance, or its lack of attention to climate change, the 900 page-plus bill moving through the House is being slammed by Democrats in the Senate and House alike.
Posturing from both sides aside, Democrats and Republicans should work across differences and pass a Farm Bill before electoral campaigns in the fall put legislative activities on hiatus.
Furthermore, the opportunity for bipartisan work exists as both parties acknowledge the importance of small-scale producers. Supporting such farmers would keep working people on the land while also showing what political maturity could look like as partisan squabbling too often stymies serious work from getting done in D.C.
Let’s be clear—there is more than enough in both the Senate and House proposals for our legislators to find common cause.
Before parsing details, it’s worth noting how Farm Bill negotiations are on borrowed time. Originally set to expire last September, U.S. President Joe Biden signed a one year extension as negotiations stalled amid the government shutdown debate.
Kicking the legislative can down the road, so to speak, may also have been part of each party’s respective legislative strategies. Basically, the idea is that if one party could win the presidency, and also earn majorities in both houses of Congress this fall, then legislative work would be easy in 2025 and beyond.
But the reality of our divided body politic will most likely dash such naive hopes of legislative smooth sailing.
Specifically, polls show the race for the White House in a dead heat, as control in the Senate and the House could go to either party. Moreover, there is no path for either party to garner 60 seats to create a filibuster-proof supermajority that is needed to pass legislation without opposition in the Senate.
Given that divided government is more than likely, our legislators should pass legislation to govern our food system instead of continuing to procrastinate.
Furthermore, such work is needed, as the 2022 Agricultural Census showed farm exits picking up pace. From 2012 to 2022, over 200,000 farms—nearly 10% of operations from just 10 years ago—went out of business. Meanwhile, farmers are aging out of the profession, with the average age ticking up from 57.5 to 58.1 since 2017, as operations consolidate and increase in size.
Enduring the brunt of these changes are small-scale operations, which in general are the most vulnerable financially speaking and at risk of leaving the industry. Keeping them in operation is key for supporting local economies, as well as protecting natural resources.
In terms of the legislation that would keep small-scale farmers on the land, while we do not have full text of the Senate version, there is a list of proposals that most likely will appear in some bill text. One provision dedicates 10% of Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funds—a program that specializes in sustainable agriculture—for small-scale producers. The Senate also establishes a program for the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to small meat processing establishments for local markets and producers.
The Senate proposal also creates the Office of Small Farms.
For this proposal, a newly appointed director would advise the Secretary of Agriculture and coordinate U.S. Department of Agriculture activities concerning programs, policies, and issues relating to small-scale farmers and ranchers. Each state would also have a coordinator from this office, along with $5 million for microgrants.
On the House side, similar language in support of small-scale operators is found in supporting local processing establishments with the inclusion of the H.R.2814—the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act or the PRIME Act. There is also H.R.4873—the Food Supply Chain Capacity and Resiliency Act—which would support new investments in food processing, storage, and distribution.
While the House does not earmark EQIP resources for small-scale producers, leaders in the lower chamber in their summary note how they intend to keep the program farmer-led and local.
Let’s be clear—there is more than enough in both the Senate and House proposals for our legislators to find common cause. As with all serious legislation, compromises will be made. Republicans will most likely budge on food assistance, as Democrats may pare down some of their asks for new offices and resources. But such deals are made in a world where differences exist. Our Farm Bill could serve to illustrate that point, not only for those interested in the future of agriculture, but for how to move past gridlock and get things done.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular