2008 Federal Budget

Quick Analysis of President's 2008 Budget

On Monday, February 5th, President Bush released his 2008 Federal Budget Proposal. CFPA staff have done a "cut and paste" analysis of the proposal's impact on nutrition. Though not much detail is yet available, we have provided the anticipated issues and impacts on California when possible.

Overview

President George W. Bush released his 2008 Federal Budget proposal. You can find press releases, interactive media as well as budget summaries at http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/budget/2008/ As you'll see, this budget proposal is touted as fiscally responsible. However, Bob Greenstein and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities believe the budget proposal would make the country's fiscal problems worse and actually increase the already widening inequality gap. You read CBPP's analysis here: http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07bud.htm

Impact on Nutrition

Despite rising challenges and the rising costs of poor nutrition, the President's Budget Proposal fails to invest in new efforts to improve nutrition and health.

Given that our country's most powerful and promising programs to improve nutrition are found in the Department of Agriculture, some folks may find it surprising that we begin this analysis elsewhere. Over at the Center for Disease Control, you'll see that the Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity is proposed to be level funded for 2008.This lack of investment is hard to understand given the growing epidemic in California.

This item in the budget is comparatively small, but we chose to point itout because it is symbolic of the lack of attention paid to improved health and nutrition. As most readers know, our country's greatest investment in nutrition comes in the federal nutrition programs. These programs too, failed to receive the investment and attention needed.

Department of Agriculture, Nutrition Programs

The Department of Agriculture's Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services has three objectives toward the goal of improving the Nation's nutrition and health. The first of these objectives is ensuring access to nutritious food. In the absence of wages that cover basic needs such as nutritious food and in the absence of a strong safety net for the elderly and disabled, the nutrition programs operating in the Department of Agriculture provide access to nutritious food. But with so many families struggling to put food on the table here in California, we can't have the status quo. With so many families headed for a lifetime of health care costs as a result of diet related disease, we must have increased attention and investment in nutrition. However, as you see below (in orange boxes), the Administration's proposal most nutrition programs are flat funded while a few significant cuts are proposed.

Food Stamps

The budget proposal would actually serve fewer participants in the Food Stamp Program in 2008. The overall budget for food stamps would increase due to an increase in food price inflation. Families, too are dealing with the increased cost of food, especially the 2 million Californians eligible but not receiving food stamps but also those families in other states who will now be cut off food stamps under the President's plan.

As indicated below, the administration will continue to focus on encouraging all eligible persons to take advantage of food stamps. However, it doesn't appear that any new policies or investments are included to support that focus. California has the nation's worst food stamp participation rate for all families but especially for working families. This budget does little to improve that situation.

A few policy proposals were referenced in the budget. These are the same proposals released earlier in the administration's Farm Bill proposal. When taken together, these policy actions would "save" money by cutting low-income individuals from the program. The proposal to eliminate food stamp eligibility for certain TANF participants would hit other states very hard. However, because California has yet to exercise the expanded categorical eligibility option, we wouldn't feel the effects of this specific proposal - yet. Legislation requiring California to pursue this option is being introduced. It is essential that this tool remain available for California's use. Why? Because low-income people in California shouldn't have to waste so much time and energy applying for separate programs - once you prove need for one program why should a family have to go through it again? We need more efforts to connect public assistance programs - not fewer. Expanded categorical eligibility must remain an option and USDA should explore connecting additional programs to food stamps beyond cash assistance, especially health care programs.

The budget does make investments in two positive policy changes. It would exclude retirement and education savings from the food stamp asset tests when determining food stamp eligibility. This is a great step and we encourage the Administration to go further to remove other asset barriers that discourage savings and require that families hit rock bottom before they can get help. The proposal on military personnel certainly makes sense, and given our large population in the military in California, some families here should benefit from the $1 million investment.

The administration will continue to focus on encouraging all eligible persons to take advantage of food stamps. However, it doesn't appear that any new policies or investments are included to support that focus. California has the nation's worst food stamp participation rate for all families but especially for working families, this budget does little to improve that situation.

WIC

The WIC program has tremendous reach. Given the program's ability to provide good nutrition and its potential to start kids on a path of healthy eating, one might expect more than level funding.

Commodity Supplemental Food Program

Once again, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program is targeted for elimination. As in the past, removing resources to address senior hunger does not make sense, especially in California with its SSI cash out policy. While the budget proposal suggests overlap of CSFP and food stamps, many seniors in California are ineligible for food stamps. So the proposal clearly would have a detrimental impact on senior nutrition in California, not only because CSFP operates in several locations in the state but also because of our unique food stamp situation.

School Nutrition
While a press release from the White House did highlight School Breakfast as an "item of interest" for California, it does not appear to be connected to a new initiative to improve student health and nutrition.

Instead, it appears that the increases are a result of more students and the rising cost of food. Again, given the importance of child nutrition programs to student health, we should expect more than what has been proposed.

And while, child nutrition reauthorization is still a few years away, the administration and Congress should look to California for direction on how to improve school meal reimbursement. As many Californians know, our Governor has committed to establishing better school meal standards which would be linked to and supported by increased federal reimbursement. As you'll see below, low reimbursement may make preparing healthy meals challenging. Congress should follow this lead.

Conclusion
We hope Congress does not make the same mistakes as the administration's proposal by not seizing the opportunity to improve the nation's health and nutrition by investing now.