March 3, 2015

The Honorable Mike Enzi, Chairman                                        The Honorable Tom Price, Chairman
Senate Committee on the Budget                                             House Committee on the Budget
Dirksen Senate Office Building                                                 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510                                                           Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Bernie Sanders, Ranking Member                   The Honorable Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Budget                                             House Committee on the Budget
Dirksen Senate Office Building                                                 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510                                                           Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Sanders, Chairman Price, and Ranking Member Van Hollen:

The undersigned organizations urge you to ensure that the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Resolution requires Senate and House Agricultural Committees make good on their promise to produce deficit reduction from programs within their jurisdiction. As fiscal conservatives repeatedly warned throughout the recent farm bill debate, the Agriculture Committees have a history of severely underselling the actual costs of programs created in farm bills. Just one year into implementation of the supposedly $956 billion Agricultural Act of 2014, it appears this one is no different.      

On January 28, 2014 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined enacting the Agricultural Act of 2014 would lower budget deficits by $16.6 billion over a 10-year period. This represented a mere 1.7% reduction from the spending baseline for programs under the jurisdictions of the Agriculture Committees. Of this, $8.0 billion would come from nutrition programs and $8.6 would derive from the rest of the bill, primarily through less spending on commodity subsidies for agricultural businesses.

Cost estimates released this January reveal that taxpayers are unlikely to realize the predicted savings due to burgeoning costs for newly created agricultural income subsidy programs. Most notably the combined tab for the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs is now $9.5 billion (35%) higher than originally projected. Supplemental disaster programs are projected to cost more in FY14 and FY15 than in the entire original 10-year score. Taxpayers are on-the-hook for an un-scored $300 million payoff to Brazilian cotton growers. And higher than anticipated FY14 costs in federally subsidized crop insurance have also chipped away at the $16.6 billion 10-year savings claim. While farm bill apologists point to future savings from other portions of the farm bill, the fact remains newly created income entitlement programs are much more costly than advertised.  

Taxpayers deserve a more cost-effective, accountable, transparent, and responsive farm safety net. We, therefore, support re-opening the commodities and crop insurance titles of the Farm Bill during the consideration of the 2016 Budget Resolution and strongly urge you to direct the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and House Committee on Agriculture reform agricultural income subsidy programs to produce the deficit reduction they promised would occur.

If you would like to discuss this further, please contact Joshua Sewell, josh [at] taxpayer.net or 202-546-8500 x116.

Sincerely,

Campaign for Liberty
Coalition to Reduce Spending
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
FreedomWorks
National Taxpayers Union
R Street Institute
Taxpayers for Common Sense