U.S. Sen. Cory Booker Statement on Passage of the Farm Bill
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) today issued the following statement after Senate passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014, also known as the farm bill:
“I appreciate the bipartisan efforts that led to today’s Senate passage of the farm bill, and I want to single out Senators Debbie Stabenow and Thad Cochran for their tireless work to pass this legislation. The farm bill accomplishes some important goals, including new conservation investments that will protect farmlands from development and new incentives to encourage the growth of farmers markets and promote locally grown foods, as well as animal welfare measures.
“Regretfully, however, I could not vote for this legislation. During a time when many families continue to struggle and there are still three job seekers for every job available, the more than $8 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which disproportionately impacts New Jersey, is simply unacceptable. While subsidies to agribusiness remain largely intact in the farm bill, struggling families, seniors and disabled residents in my state are being asked to make sacrifices they can’t afford. This is deeply unfair. We need to be doing more to improve the economic security of the most vulnerable people in our communities, not less, and SNAP is a proven program for doing just that. It’s cost-effective and rigorously controlled.
“After meeting with so many New Jerseyans who have been struggling to find work for months on end – folks who already had their SNAP benefit reduced in November and who had their federal unemployment insurance cut off in December – I cannot support a bill that has the potential to cause further harm to people who desperately need our support.”
http://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=20
= new reply since forum marked as read
I wouldn't know anyway. I have all those types on ignore.
From 1994 to 1996, SNAP funding was flat. From 1996 through 2001, Welfare reform resulted in a 30 percent drop in funding.
In 2009, the stimulus increased funding and restored the program to a level equivalent to the pre-1992 trend.
Granted that participation went from 30 million to 46 million from 2008 to now. The stimulus increased the allocation and the benefits.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapsummary.htm
If the increases had remained at even the level from 1992 to 1993, 3.43 percent, the program would be at about $50 million in 2013.
From 2001 to 2013, participation increased times 2.75. Funding for the program increase about times 4.4 during the same period, driven by the stimulus increase.
From 2008 to 2009, participation increased 18.6 percent and funding increased 42.5 percent.
From 2008 to 2013, participation increased 68.7 percent and funding increased 111 percent.
I'd say the stimulus increased funding to an adequate level. It should have remained at that level and indexed to inflation.
