USA - Trump ag budget meets outpouring of criticism
It didn’t matter who it was in Congress or the farm group whose proverbial ox was being gored, President Donald Trump’s proposed budget plan for deep spending cuts met a flurry of criticism.
The fiscal year 2018 budget proposal calls for $194 billion in cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by restricting eligibility and by requiring states to pay 25 percent of benefits. The proposal also calls for $28 billion in cuts in federally subsidized crop insurance and $6 billion in cuts over 10 years for conservation programs, as well as eliminating many rural development programs.
Even Trump’s own secretary of agriculture could offer only a half-hearted endorsement of the proposed reductions to farm programs and food assistance, as Sonny Perdue was lukewarm in defending Trump’s proposed budget to Democrats and some Republicans who rejected the cuts.
“Many in agriculture and rural America are likely to find little to celebrate within the budget request,” Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-AL, chairman of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, told Perdue at a subcommittee hearing May 24.
Trump’s budget would cut government help to farmers for purchasing popular crop insurance policies. Perdue said the nation has a dilemma in how to “right-size the budget’’ but acknowledged the concerns.
“I don’t know that your priorities are much different from my priorities for USDA,’’ he told Aderholt.
Democrats criticized a proposal for the almost 30 percent cut in SNAP. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-CT, called the budget “cruel,’’ “heartless,’’ “evil’’ and “inhumane.’’ Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-GA, said the cuts “fail the test of basic human decency.’’
The Trump budget proposal would also eliminate the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and PL 480 Food Aid programs that ship American commodities to hungry people abroad. Aderholt said that program “is something we should be proud of’” and eliminating it “runs entirely counter to the idea of buy American, hire American’’ that Trump has championed.
Perdue had no defense.
“I think your comments are essentially irrefutable,’’ he said.
The comments also ran in the negative from a gamut of agricultural organizations. “The American Farm Bureau Federation and its members are concerned about the federal budget deficit,” President Zippy Duvall said. “However, we also know that agriculture has done its fair share to help reduce the deficit. Going back to the early 1980s, agriculture often has been targeted to generate budget savings, from the reconciliation bills in the late 1980s and 1990s to farm bill reforms as recently as 2014.”
The proposed budget “would gut federal crop insurance, one of the nation’s most important farm safety-net programs. It would drastically reshape important voluntary conservation programs and negatively impact consumer confidence in critical meat and poultry inspection,” Duvall said.
Duvall said the cuts, while drastic at first glance, are even more worrisome when considered in light of the current farm economy.
“Farm income is down substantially since Congress passed the last farm bill. USDA cuts of this magnitude in the current economic cycle would be unwarranted and unwise,” Duvall said.
National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said, “The president’s proposed budget is an assault on the programs and personnel that provide vital services, research and a safety net to America’s family farmers, rural residents and consumers. It is deeply disappointing that the president would propose such cuts, especially in the midst of a farm crisis that has family farmers and ranchers enduring a drastic, four-year slide in farm prices and a 50 percent drop in net farm income.”
David Senter, national president of the American Agriculture Movement, said, “If adopted these budget cuts would destroy farm programs, leave rural America in ruins and undo years of conservation efforts. This budget reminds me of the budget that President Reagan’s OMB director, David Stockman, sent to Congress in the early 1980s. The good thing is, it’s not going to be adopted but it does run the risk of cuts that will adversely hurt producers and rural communities.”
The American Association of Crop Insurers, Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau, Crop Insurance Professionals Association, Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and National Crop Insurance Services said, "Weakening crop insurance and making it more difficult for farmers to bounce back during tough times will jeopardize rural jobs and will find little support in rural America or on Capitol Hill.
“The rural economy is already suffering through a period of low prices and a multitude of spring weather disasters. Yet, the administration's budget proposal targets the primary tool farmers use to handle these risks.”
Ken McCauley, president of the Kansas Corn Growers Association and former president of the National Corn Growers Association, said, “The proposed budget's impact on agriculture is comprehensive in the negative impact it would have on agriculture and rural economies. Basically, it's a direct hit on the ability of farmers to manage risk, develop markets and farm more sustainably. The proposed budget would be bad for business for rural America.”
National Association of Wheat Growers President David Schemm said, “Proposing significant restrictions on crop insurance, commodity, conservation, trade, nutrition, and economic development programs is short-sighted and ignores the needs of rural America.
“The Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs offer a safety net to producers when there is a substantial drop in prices or revenues. Recent events such as the late season blizzard in the Midwest, proves that these programs are working and need to be upheld in the 2018 farm bill.
“Any reduction in the discount for crop insurance will increase the cost of crop insurance to farmers. As commodity prices decline and farmers’ budgets tighten, an increase in the cost of crop insurance is only more likely to result in less participation and higher premiums for all farmers.
“In the trade title, the Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development are two government programs that have proven to have tremendous return on investment and yet funding for these programs has eroded. MAP and FMD strengthen export market development, meriting an increase in federal funding, not elimination as proposed in this budget request.
“The rural vote was a key factor in the last election. Budget proposals should support rural America and U.S. farmers but this current budget misses that mark. NAWG will actively work to make sure these proposals aren’t enacted by Congress.”
The president is required by law to submit a budget to Congress for each fiscal year, which runs Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. However, it is congressional lawmakers who draft and ultimately enact the federal government’s budget.
Andrew Taylor of The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source - http://www.hpj.com
