Iowa Fiscal Partnership / Robert Greenstein
SHARE:
Policy Points from Iowa Fiscal Partners

Posts tagged Robert Greenstein

Tight margin — big difference

Posted June 22nd, 2018 to Blog

More Iowans than you might expect have a stake in what happens in Washington in the coming days on the Farm Bill. It’s not just farmers.

While the Farm Bill addresses conservation, commodities, rural development, and crop insurance, among other issues, it also carries reauthorization of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — formerly known as Food Stamps.

In the 2014 Farm Bill, SNAP constituted 80 percent of spending.[i] That investment makes a big difference to about 1 in 9 Iowans — and to the local stores where they use their SNAP benefit. About 350,000 Iowans received SNAP assistance in April of 2018.[ii]

The Senate proposal, which may come to a vote next week, differs markedly from the House bill, which passed 213-211 despite bipartisan opposition. The House bill would cut SNAP for 1 million households, imposing new and unnecessary work requirements on households where people are already working, or unable to work.[iii]

Robert Greenstein, president of the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, summarized the challenge for low-income working people under the House bill:

Robert Greenstein,
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Among those likely to lose food assistance are a considerable number of working people — including parents and older workers — who have low-wage jobs such as home health aides or cashiers and often face fluctuating hours and bouts of temporary unemployment that could put their SNAP benefits at risk. In addition, substantial numbers of people with serious physical or mental health conditions, as well as many caregivers, may struggle either to meet the monthly work-hours requirement or to provide sufficient documentation to prove they qualify for an exemption — and, consequently, may be at risk of losing nutrition assistance.[iv]

The Senate bill looks to improve the SNAP job training program by using feedback from local employers on the skills and opportunities needed in the area. It continues to invest in pilot testing of job training programs, while House-proposed work requirements have not been tested in such state-level pilots.[v]

The bill would also focus assistance on underserved populations, fund nutrition education initiatives, and reauthorize SNAP. It reduces verification barriers for elderly and disabled households by extending certification periods for two to three years.

SNAP is critically important for child development, educational attainment, preventing disease, and lifetime earnings.[vi]

The Senate and House Farm Bill proposals offer decidedly different directions for a proven anti-poverty program that already assures that thousands of Iowans receive nutrition assistance.

Natalie Veldhouse is a research associate for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. nveldhouse@iowapolicyproject.org

 

[i] United States Department of Agriculture, “Projected Spending Under the 2014 Farm Bill.” January 2018. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-commodity-policy/projected-spending-under-the-2014-farm-bill/
[ii] Iowa Department of Human Services, “F-1 Food Assistance Program State Summary – April 2018.” May 2018. http://publications.iowa.gov/27559/
[iii] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “House Agriculture Committee’s Farm Bill Would Increase Food Insecurity and Hardship.” April 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/chairman-conaways-farm-bill-would-increase-food-insecurity-and-hardship
[iv] Robert Greenstein, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Greenstein: Partisan House Farm Bill Would Turn Clock Back on Efforts to Reduce Hunger and Hardship.” June 21, 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/press/statements/greenstein-partisan-house-farm-bill-would-turn-clock-back-on-efforts-to-reduce
[v] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Senate Agriculture Committee’s Bill Strengthens SNAP and Avoids Harming SNAP Households.” June 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/senate-agriculture-committees-bipartisan-farm-bill-strengthens-snap-and
[vi] Feeding America, “Child Food Insecurity: The Economic Impact on our Nation.” 2009. https://www.nokidhungry.org/sites/default/files/child-economy-study.pdf

Comforting the comfortable

Posted July 25th, 2014 to Blog

Comfort the comfortable and penalize the poor. Like the idea? If so, you’ll really like legislation scheduled for consideration today in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House is scheduled to take up legislation that would gut improvements for low-income Americans in the Child Tax Credit (CTC), improvements passed originally in 2009, renewed in 2010 and 2012, the latter as part of the “fiscal cliff” package, where it was used as a bargaining chip to pass very expensive exemptions in the estate tax — a benefit only to America’s super-rich.

To put this in context, the House leadership bringing this new legislation to a vote will not even consider an increase in the minimum wage, now stagnant over five years nationally (6 1/2 in Iowa). The CTC, it must be noted, is one of the nation’s most effective anti-poverty tools, offsetting part of the cost of raising a child. So, as families earning at or below the minimum wage continue to lose ground, the CTC proposal will set them back even further. As noted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP):

But a single mother with two children who works full time throughout the year at the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour (which House leaders oppose raising) and earns just $14,500 would lose $1,725. Her CTC would disappear altogether.

A loss at lower incomes — yet a boost at higher incomes. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the Iowa impact of the new legislation would be:

  • a $285 loss on average to families with incomes below $40,000, and
  • a $696 benefit (tax cut) to families with income above $100,000.

Here’s how it works, according to a summary by CTJ:

The House Republican bill, H.R. 4935, would expand the CTC in three ways that do not help the working poor. First, it would index the $1,000 per-child credit amount for inflation, which would not help those who earn too little to receive the full credit. Second, it would increase the income level at which the CTC starts to phase out from $110,000 to $150,000 for married couples. Third, that $150,000 level for married couples and the existing $75,000 income level for single parents would both be indexed for inflation thereafter.

Adding insult to injury for low-income folks is that the improvements targeted for repeal came in the aforementioned “fiscal cliff” package, which made permanent big estate tax breaks for the rich, while extending improvements in the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit for only five years. CBPP’s Robert Greenstein at the time called that a “bitter pill.”

That was before these new proposals not only to cut back the CTC for lower-income families — but to expand access at higher incomes — and to adjust the high end for inflation, something lawmakers have refused to do for the minimum wage.

A bitter pill? At least. For some, all of this might seem to be an overdose.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director, Iowa Policy Project