"Experts say the bill’s agriculture sections won’t have much of an impact on average consumers — only about 20 percent of the $500 billion bill goes to farming, as opposed to federal nutrition programs — but farmers themselves say they’re getting a good deal."He did a good job of noting that even though it is called a 5 year "Farm Bill", $80 billion/year goes to food programs and only $20 billion/year goes to "farming". Probably a $20 billion too much, but the point is that only 20% goes to farmers, and 80% goes to buy or subsidize food for people. (ie wealth transfer) And since it now emphasizes insurance more than direct payments, maybe the farm portion will be lower if commodity prices and the weather cooperate...
"Even though farmers are happy with the new bill, Olson said the changes are small enough that consumers won’t really feel the effects (at least not on the agriculture side: lawmakers did cut food stamp funding for some beneficiaries, but none in Minnesota)."
What really caught my attention was that he noted that the food stamp cuts did not impact any Minnesotans.... And that he called them "cuts"... I posted a comment asking why our citizens were not impacted, however no one has replied yet. So I did a little research of my own.
Mother Jones GOP Just Won Food Stamp War explains that:
"The cuts to the food stamp program come from closing a loophole that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed needed to be addressed. A household's level of monthly food stamps benefits is determined by how much disposable income a family has after rent, utilities, and other expenses are deducted. Some states allow beneficiaries to deduct a standard utility charge from their income if they qualify for a federal heating aid program called the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, even if they only receive a few dollars per year in heating aid. The arrangement results in about 850,000 households getting a utility deduction that is much larger than their actual utility bill. Because the deduction makes these families' disposable income appear to be lower than it actually is, they get more food stamp money each month. The farm bill that passed the House on Wednesday saves $9 billion by closing that loophole.So apparently Minnesota did not use this loop hole?
The savings from closing the heating aid loophole could have been returned to the food stamp program. Instead, Republicans succeeded in prodding Dems to accept $9 billion in new cuts on top of the $11 billion in expiring stimulus funds. That extra $9 billion in cuts means that close to a million households will see their benefits slashed by about $90 a month—enough to pay for a week's worth of cheap groceries for a family of four."
Now as for this being a draconian cut...
Wiki SNAP
Wiki SNAP Benefits Paid by Year
CBPP SNAP Basics
CBO SNAP
See the comments of Dan Burns from MPP for an example.
So is MJ correct about why MN citizens were not impacted by the draconian cuts? Were they really "cuts" or just a reduction in the "temporary" stimulus / support funding? Thoughts?
Ps. I just finished my 3rd glass of wine. ( ie my 13 yr old daughters sleepover Bday party w/ ~9 friends...) Sorry for any grammatical or spelling issues...
8 comments:
So, the fundamental lie here is that these "terrible cuts" always impact the "poorest of the poor" whereas like in this example, it is almost always a case that these "reductions in the increase" are achieved by reducing giveaways to the RICHEST of the poor-- those with the most income or resources. It isn't a case of oppressing all the poor equally, as liberals imply, and it isn't done for some evil purpose. It is merely a different assessment of where the "break point" is between those who need help and those that don't. And frankly, that break point needs to be a lot lower, or calculated with a lot more discernment.
I definitely agree with discernment point.
Pelosi Video
Stossel Video
Another interesting discussion from our friends at FOX News
So following up from Open Minds... Was this really a "CUT"?
If so what logic was used to reach that conclusion?
Here's my fundamental rule on legislation, and perhaps other things: "He who names a thing seals its fate." If liberals successfully paint something as a "terrible cut" in spending, despite the fact that this is an abominable lie, public opinion is against it. If it could be painted as "deficit reduction" public opinion would shift the other way.
Remember the recent poll when people were asked their opinion of ACA, and a majority appoved, while a majority DISapproved of "Obamacare" even though they are identical?
No, it's not a cut, but you will never hear that truth from the liberal media or liberal politicians.
I don't doubt that this was a cut in terms of it was less than it would have been if the farm bill had not passed. Meaning, when one compares only the "previous next year plan" to what will be "new next year actual". In that way they are logical in calling it a cut.
However it is the vehement denial that it was at incredibly high levels that were supposed to be temporary that I found interesting. Same old question, I can understand if Keynsians want to temporarily increase government spending during economic downturns. (preferably not from debt spending) However I have never heard a Liberal say that we should return spending to normal levels.
It seems to be a thermostat that can only be adjusted one way...
MPP Dan Had More Venting to Share
Did you see the follow-on comment? Raising the minimum wage is good for business because if people have more money they can buy stuff? You mean, if business had more money, they could buy the same number of workers?
Post a Comment