Apr 7, 2007

Presidential Budget A Raw Deal

Make no mistake about it – this Budget Resolution is still a raw deal for our farmers, a raw deal for rural America, and a raw deal for many Americans in greatest need of our nation’s abundant and nutritious agricultural products. It is more harmful to agriculture and nutrition than it seems. It is unfair, it is unnecessary, and most Americans don’t understand that it makes our deficit situation even worse.

Some will be eager to suggest that the $3 billion reconciliation instruction given to the agriculture committees is a good thing because the cuts are much lower than what were first requested by the White House. But, let’s be honest, this is not the modest reduction some would have us believe. In fact, the $3 billion cut is only part of the story.

The president and some in Congress have said that all areas of government must make tough budget decisions to control federal spending. But this is not the first time that agriculture has been asked to make large cuts. For the past two years, Farm Bill programs have been cut in appropriations acts, by $650 million in 2004 and by $1.3 billion in 2005. To make up for these losses, essential conservation, research, and rural development programs have suffered.

Under this Budget Resolution, funding for the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill will likely be $1.4 billion below the 2005 level, as the president recommended. To meet the 2006 budget requirements, the Agriculture Appropriations bill will have to cut another $1.4 billion on top of last year’s $1.3 billion for a total cut of $2.7 billion in Farm Bill spending. In total, this Budget Resolution demands that we cut Farm Bill spending through appropriations and reconciliation by nearly $6 billion over the next five years.

These cuts are unfair, especially when you consider how fiscally sound the 2002 Farm Bill has been. The 2002 Farm Bill has cost $15 billion less than we thought it would when we passed the bill. When was the last time that you heard of a government program spending less than expected? American farmers are already doing their part to control federal spending, but farm-spending programs are still being attacked in the budget debate. Why is agriculture being singled out again for cuts – cuts that are disproportionately higher than what is expected from any other spending category?

The budget also turns its back on other critical needs in rural America, including access to health care. The budget would cut Medicaid by $10 billion to $15 billion over the next five years, which would have a devastating impact on the 60 million children, elderly and individuals with disabilities who really need this program. In rural areas where high quality health care is more expensive and more difficult to find, these cuts would have even more damaging effects.

And what’s more, these cuts are unnecessary. The goal of the White House and this budget is to cut the deficit in half from 2004 to 2009. That will happen if we do nothing. The Congressional Budget Office’s January 2005 Baseline Projections show the deficit declining by more than 50 percent from 2004 to 2009. At the end of the day, these unfortunate cuts are part of a Budget Resolution that does not reduce the deficit, but instead increases it by $206 billion over five years. Agriculture and rural America have already done their fair share to reduce the federal deficit and the debt burden on future generations.

Make no mistake, only in Washington can you claim victory for a deal that cuts essential programs for rural America while increasing the deficit. The American people deserve better than the raw deal that this budget provides. They want cost-effective programs that work, and they want a balanced federal budget, and I believe that we can have both, but this budget fails on all counts.

Peterson is the ranking Democrat on the House Committee of Agriculture. He represents Minnesota’s seventh district.