Aff - Politics DA Supplement - Michigan 7 2023 CPSW

Supplement - Aff Politics DA Updates - CPSW
Thank you to Charlotte, Corrine, Maha, Raman, Skye, and Tyler for their work on this supplement file.
Farm Bill Updates
2AC/1AR - Won’t Pass – Republicans
Farm bill won’t pass – GOP hardliners angry after debt ceiling and SNAP
Guebert 7/4 – Alan Guebert is a syndicated columnist and free-lance agricultural journalist, B.S. in Agriculture from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, “Comment: ‘Appeasing hardliners’ all but promises Farm Bill failure,” July 4, 2023, https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/comment/comment-appeasing-hardliners-all-but-promises-farm-bill-failure/)//CG
Members of the U.S. Congress are facing down two enormous tasks, with little time to complete them. As of Sept. 30 of this year, the 2018 Farm Bill will expire. Simultaneously, the American government needs a new budget in place to open its doors Oct. 1.
It will take a mighty effort for either to get done. In the three months between July 1 and Oct. 1, the House of Representatives is scheduled to be in session just 24 days, while the Senate will sit for 30.
The biggest, most difficult fight will be passing the 2024 U.S. federal budget. In a good year, much of that work goes on behind the scenes as key committee chairs, ranking members and staff debate, schmooze and compromise to hammer out a spending plan that few like, but most can swallow.
In a bad year, it can be hand-to-hand combat that often turns into a multi-trillion-dollar game of chicken, with a government shutdown as the ultimate threat.
This year is a bad year, but not for the usual partisan reasons.
Instead, this battle features House Republicans warring with other House Republicans over how deep to cut 2024 federal spending, despite the debt-raising deal hammered out between Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden in late May.
“Mr. McCarthy and his leadership team,” reported the New York Times June 15, “blindsided Democrats… by setting allocations for the 12 annual spending bills at 2022 levels, about [US]$119 billion less than the $1.59 trillion allowed for in the [May] agreement to raise the debt ceiling.”
McCarthy also blindsided most Republicans – especially in the Senate – who thought they had a deal with the White House that gave Congress the green light to get both a budget bill and Farm Bill done before the Oct. 1 deadline. Not so.
Now everyone is stuck as moderate Republicans try to remove the monkey wrench that was thrown by a handful of hard-right House Republicans into the already-creaky gears of a deeply divided government. There are no easy wrench-removal ideas floating around. In fact, reported Politico recently, “GOP hardliners are still fuming over the deal… McCarthy struck with… Biden to raise the debt limit earlier this month, especially a provision that could expand the number of people on federal food aid.”
Ah, yes, food aid, or SNAP — the Supplemental Food Assistance Program that now gobbles up 80 per cent of all Farm Bill dollars.
Democrats see it as an integral part of federal programming to support families in need; hardline Republicans view it as a too-costly, fraud-ridden program (despite lack of confirming fraud evidence) that promotes government dependency.
Pragmatic Congress members across party lines — not to mention almost every farm and commodity group — see SNAP as the political bridge to bring broad urban support to government farm programs. Without those non-farm votes, most political handicappers agree, there would be no Farm Bill.
The anti-food aid tactic currently emerging was also used by Republican hardliners during the fight to settle on the 2018 Farm Bill. The results, reminds Politico, “helped to sink a partisan House GOP farm bill on the floor. It took another seven months to get the final bill” done.
Importantly, it wasn’t Democrats that propelled the 2018 bill to victory; it was the “Republican-majority Senate [that] eventually stripped the House GOP’s steep SNAP restrictions from the final legislation” that delivered its eventual passage.
This time around, however, the Democrats run the Senate and their ag committee boss, Debbie Stabenow, recently announced that “Congress is ‘done’ discussing SNAP work requirements in the wake of the [McCarthy-Biden] debt limit talks.”
Stabenow’s message didn’t register with McCarthy. “In private,” reported Politico in mid-June, “the speaker has told fellow Republicans that… to appease hardliners, the party will need to at least push for stricter work requirements.”
Appeasing “hardliners” may allow McCarthy to maintain his tenuous grip on his job, but it won’t make any farmer or rancher’s job any easier if there’s no Farm Bill come Oct. 1.
Farm bill won’t pass – lack of bipartisan support over SNAP
Choi 7/7 – Matthew Choi is a Washington correspondent for The Texas Tribune, he graduated from Northwestern University where he studied journalism and political science and was managing editor of The Daily Northwestern, “With new federal food stamp limits coming, advocates mobilize to inform Texas recipients,” 7/7/23, https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/07/congress-food-stamps-work-requirement/)//CG
Food advocates and lawmakers are mobilizing to inform lower-income residents about new rules that could cut their access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. Under legislation brokered between Congress and the White House, starting this summer more middle-aged SNAP participants will have to find jobs to continue with the program.
Democrats are also hoping to stave off efforts from the right to further restrict access to the program as Congress tackles the farm bill, the massive legislative package that includes a wide range of food and agricultural priorities, from food security to trade protections to keep U.S. farmers internationally competitive.
Under the new work requirements, SNAP participants ages 51 and under without dependents or disabilities will have to work at least 80 hours a month beginning in early September to continue using food stamps. The age increases to 53 in October and 55 in 2024.
SNAP already has federal work requirements — generally at least 80 hours a month — for adults under 49 who don’t have disabilities or dependents to receive full-time benefits. Although there are plenty of exceptions to the work requirements, 44,000 Texans could see their SNAP access vanish if they don’t work the required hours, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Democrats condemned the work requirement as unnecessary, ineffective and aimed at undermining the SNAP program. Texans in that age range who can’t work or have to work irregularly to take care of older relatives or disabled adult children would not be exempt from the work requirements, and many will be blindsided by the change, they say.
“Taking some 50- to 55-year-olds off SNAP is just wrong. And it’s nuts to me, that that’s the price that Republicans wanted paid to get the debt ceiling raised,” said U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, D-Austin. Casar is a labor activist who voted against the debt ceiling agreement because of the work requirement, though he acknowledged the economic need to raise the debt ceiling.
Despite the ire from the left, there’s slim political chance of rehashing the work requirement. Republicans won’t entertain rescinding one of their long-term policy priorities, and most Democrats have little interest in relitigating a deal brokered by their president.
Groups that work with food-insecure Texans say the byzantine system for food-assistance programs makes it difficult for participants to keep up with new rules.
“There’s definitely people who are on SNAP right now who will be affected by this, and they may not know that this is coming,” said Kathy Green, director of state and federal strategy at AARP.
Green said AARP will likely work with food banks and other food-security groups to make sure participants are aware of policy changes made hundreds of miles away in Washington.
But regardless of outreach efforts, Katherine Byers, government relations officer at the Houston Food Bank, said “of course” many participants will be blindsided when the new work requirement takes effect and their benefits get slashed.
Republicans argue that work requirements are necessary to ensure that SNAP benefits don’t get abused and that participants can wean off the program and get back on their feet. To Republicans, 54 is a perfectly workable age, and there are ample exemptions in place to protect those who have legitimate reasons not to work.
“An expanded work requirement for working-age, able-bodied adults is a reasonable condition for receiving SNAP benefits,” said U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-McAllen, who sits on the Agriculture Committee, which oversees food-assistance programs. “Getting South Texans back in the workforce is a win.”
As part of the debt ceiling deal, the work requirement does not apply to SNAP participants who are experiencing homelessness. Military veterans could also be exempt, as well as adults 24 and under who were in foster care on their 18th birthday.
But Democrats and food-security advocates point out that the majority of SNAP participants already work, and those who don’t may be exempt because they’re caring for elderly or disabled family members. Almost 80% of SNAP-participating households had at least one income earner before the pandemic, according to the Census Bureau.
“Unpaid caregivers who are taking care of aging parents, maybe children with extreme special needs that they have not been able to help them function in a school environment, these folks can’t go to work,” Byers said. “Or if they are working, they’re losing hours, they don’t have PTO. So if they take off enough work for their illness or the person they’re caring for, they’re going to get fired.”
The increased paperwork to report working hours could deter participants, endangering their benefits, said Casar, who was dismayed that Republicans used the debt ceiling negotiations to push work requirements — using the U.S. economy’s health as leverage.
Congress generally issues major changes to SNAP in the farm bill, which is up for renewal this year.
The farm bill usually passes with bipartisan support, and the House Agriculture Committee’s Republican chair, Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania, said he wants to continue that tradition. Although Thompson supports work requirements, last month he defended food stamps during a committee hearing as necessary to helping the most vulnerable Americans bounce back from hard times.
But the nation is more politically divided than the last time Congress passed the farm bill, in 2018, and more than 200 members of the House have never voted on a farm bill. None of the four Texans on the Agriculture Committee — Casar; De La Cruz; Republican Ronny Jackson, of Amarillo; and Democrat Jasmine Crockett, of Dallas — were in Congress in 2018.
And with several far-right Republicans demonstrating a willingness to bring Congress to a standstill to rein in federal spending, a multibillion-dollar agriculture and social services package could be politically bitter for some newer members. Programs normally covered by the farm bill are expected to cost $725 billion over the next five years at current baseline spending, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The majority of that spending would go toward the package’s nutrition title, particularly SNAP.
Unlike federal spending that is doled out on an annual basis, SNAP funding depends on how many eligible participants have signed up. Cutting SNAP funding would mean limiting new sign-ups or reducing the benefits each participant can receive. The average Texas SNAP participant gets $265 per month — or just under $9 per day.
Under Thompson, Republicans on the committee are hoping to improve the program’s efficiency with new technology, encourage healthier eating habits by restricting junk food purchases and target criminal organizations that steal SNAP benefits from participants.
Casar agrees with the need to tackle criminal organizations scamming SNAP participants and hopes to expand eligibility to workers while they are on strike. Food advocates also want benefits to include hot, ready-made meals. They oppose Republican efforts to limit eligible foods to promote healthier eating, arguing that better access to low-cost, healthy food is a more effective way to encourage nutritious diets.
“Just creating a list of things that folks can’t buy with SNAP is not going to help them eat more nutritiously. Period,” Byers said.
But expanding benefits could be challenging as House Republicans use their majority to demand more reductions in federal spending. The debt ceiling deal capped future federal discretionary spending for the next fiscal year at current levels, and House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, said she’d try to drop spending down to fiscal year 2022 levels.
“A cost-neutral bill will mean that any new spending has to come from cutting other parts of the farm bill, and I think lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are really resisting the idea of cuts to farm bill funding,” said Celia Cole, CEO of Feeding Texas.
Congress has until the end of September to renew the farm bill before funding begins to peter out.
Won’t pass – SNAP partisan controversy
Elbein 7/17 – Saul Elbein reports for The Hill from Austin, Texas, where he covers farming, energy, water and climate finance and also co-authors its Sustainability newsletter, (“Majority of voters want SNAP increased, not cut: poll”, 7/17/23, https://www.wfxrtv.com/hill-politics/majority-of-voters-want-snap-increased-not-cut-poll/)//CG
The majority of Americans want even higher amounts of food aid for struggling families, according to a new poll from the Save the Children Action Network.
The survey, shared exclusively to The Hill, could be a warning sign for conservatives seeking to cut payments under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as part of the discussion on a new farm bill this year.
“It’s important to note: If anything, most people would opt to increase benefits. Only 4 percent wanted to decrease them,” said Lori Weigel, who runs the polling firm New Bridge Strategy, which interviewed Republicans for the bipartisan results.
Liberal polling firm Hart Research rounded out the survey on the Democratic side.
Weigel said that the “vast majority of people — across party lines for basically every policy that we tested [to increase the reach of SNAP] was saying, ‘Yeah, that sounds like common sense and something we should be doing.’”
“This is not partisan in the eyes of voters,” she added.
SNAP makes up 80 percent of the spending for the Farm Bill, which also provides crop insurance and conservation programs for farmers. Conservatives eyeing reductions in spending have discussed cuts to all those programs.
Tougher work requirements for SNAP were included in the debt ceiling deal approved by Congress and signed into law by President Biden. Polls do show support for such requirements, and the Save the Children Action Network poll suggests cuts could spark a backlash.
About 85 percent of voters surveyed said that the government should do more to help those struggling to pay for groceries, including 53 percent who said policymakers should do “much more.”
Perhaps most strikingly, the respondents support bolstering SNAP even while they overestimate how generous the program’s payments are currently. On average, respondents thought recipients get $50 per day for food — with the median estimate being $20. The actual number is more like $6 per person.
Other research suggests that this money doesn’t go far enough. In 78 percent of counties, SNAP benefits don’t cover the cost of a “moderately-priced meal” cooked at home, according to the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson foundation. Such a meal costs $3.14 nationwide, that report found — while SNAP benefits top out at $2.75 per meal.
Weigel said the broad sympathy for SNAP recipients came from the surprising number of respondents who had friends or families who had benefited from the program, and widespread concern over rising food prices — something that 85 percent of people see as a serious issue.
Weigel’s polling found that support for SNAP was significantly stronger among Democrats — but that a majority of Republicans nonetheless supported the program and opposed cuts in benefits.
More than 50 percent of Republicans told the pollsters that SNAP benefits were too low — and said they would look unfavorably upon representatives who sought to reduce them further.
And about two-thirds of white men without college degrees and rural residents — both key Republican constituencies — said they would “feel less favorable” toward even their own representatives if they voted to reduce SNAP.
The poll also found widespread support for programs to help SNAP recipients make their dollars go further — including one that doubles recipients’ money if they spent it on fruits, vegetables and healthy foods, an idea that 94 percent of recipients supported.
Meanwhile, 87 percent supported policies making it easier to apply for SNAP benefits remotely; 83 percent supported the existing programs that allow doctors to “prescribe” free fruits and vegetables, and 70 percent would like to see SNAP recipients have to fill out less paperwork.
The poll results suggest that opposition to SNAP could hurt Republicans, and Democrats have already begun to target “many of those vulnerable Republicans for their support of the debt deal and the new SNAP restrictions in it,” according to Politico.
GOP derails farm bill passing—current GOP hardliners’ anger delays progress.
Philip Brasher and Noah Wicks 6/21/23, Philip is the editor for CQ roll Call, a unit of the Economist Group, and has been covering food and agriculture policy and reported on the issue for the Associated Press and is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and North American Agricultural Journalists. Noah is an associate editor for Agri-Pulse and does deep research on food and agricultural topics. “GOP hardliners’ anger could delay imperil new farm bill”, Agri-Pulse, https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/19583-gop-hardliners-anger-could-delay-imperil-new-farm-bill) Zulfiqar
House Republicans were arguing not long ago that a deal on the debt ceiling could make it easier to pass a farm bill. Instead, many conservatives are angry over the debt agreement and demanding cuts to nutrition assistance and other programs that could delay the development of a new farm bill and even threaten its passage.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., affirmed in February that he intended to see a new farm bill passed before the end of the year with bipartisan support. But the conservatives’ outrage over the debt ceiling agreement, which is expected to increase, not reduce, the number of people getting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, and new demands for deep cuts in domestic spending will further test McCarthy’s command of the GOP conference heading into the farm bill debate.
That anger poses several challenges for farm bill writers: Getting Democratic support for the bill would mean SNAP can’t be cut, but leaving SNAP alone could risk inflaming conservatives further. Trying to pass a GOP-only bill wouldn't be easy either, since the GOP majority is so thin that any five Republicans could vote with Democrats to scuttle the legislation.
At the very least, McCarthy will be under pressure to allow a wide array of amendments to be considered that, if adopted, could undermine support for the legislation. That’s happened in the past: A farm bill was defeated on the House floor in 2013 after a GOP SNAP amendment drove away Democratic support.
What’s clear for now is some GOP conservatives are still determined to tighten SNAP work requirements.
“I wouldn’t categorize anything as a red line i

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.