12 mars 2005

Screw the poor! 

Pour prouver son sérieux en matière de réduction du déficit budgétaire, George Bush avait annoncé son intention de réduire les subventions agricoles dans le budget 2006 (l'année fiscale commence au 1er octobre aux Etats-Unis). Ce qui est, objectivement, une excellente idée, dans la mesure où le soutien public à l'agriculture bénéficie très majoritairement à l'agribusiness et que Bush avait fait empirer la situation avec le monstrueux Farm Bill de 2002.

Evidemment, de nombreux parlementaires républicains (et sûrement quelques démocrates) ne sont pas vraiment chauds à l'idée de se fâcher avec la grande agriculture, un lobby bien organisé et qui sait être généreux au moment des campagnes électorales. Ils ont donc eu une meilleure idée : faire des économies sur le dos des pauvres :
Congress Mulls Cutting Food Aid to Poor
By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Cuts in food programs for the poor are getting support in Congress as an alternative to President Bush's idea of slicing billions of dollars from the payments that go to large farm operations.

[...] The president wants to lower the maximum subsidies that can be collected each year by any one farm operation from $360,000 to $250,000. He also asked Congress to cut by 5 percent all farm payments, and he wants to close loopholes that enable some growers to annually collect millions of dollars in subsidies.

Instead, Republican committee chairmen are looking to carve savings from nutrition and land conservation programs that are also run by the Agriculture Department. The government is projected to spend $52 billion this year on nutrition programs like food stamps, school lunches and special aid to low-income pregnant women and children. Farm subsidies will total less than half that, $24 billion.
Quelle surprise! On sentait ça venir de très très loin. Ed Kilgore, 6 février 2005
The Bush budget will apparently include a "cap" on the maximum values of farm subsidies that any one producer can harvest, an idea that will (rightly) get some progressive support. But the proposal will run directly into already-announced opposition in Congress, especially from Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran of MS, who is mobilizing the powerful farm lobby to defeat it.

And that's where food stamps come in: Congress organizes its budget and appropriations work by federal department, and by a department-oriented system of budget "functions" that track the jurisdiction of congressional appropriations subcommittees. If the White House and the GOP congressional leadership can succeed in setting lower targets for USDA spending, then farm subsidies will be placed into a direct competition with food stamps for funding. I obviously can't prove it, but it may well be that the administration is deliberately planning a two-cushion shot to go after food stamps while shifting the blame to Congress.
En ces matières, comme l'expliquait Mark Schmitt l'année dernière, ce sont souvent les "weak claims" (les subventions objectivement indues à des groupes d'intérêts puissants) qui l'emportent sur les "weak clients" (les bénéficiaires des aides de l'Etat qui ne sont pas assez puissants et riches pour se faire entendre à Washington). Et la tendance est devenue systématique et caricaturale avec l'administration Bush.