Both the House and Senate passed their budget proposals on Thursday before heading home for a two-week Easter recess. The House passed a proposal similar to the President's proposal, but the Senate's decisions threaten the possibility of a final budget being approved this year.
The House budget included steep cuts in Medicaid, while the Senate voted to block Medicaid cuts. The Senate proposed to slash $2.8 billion in agriculture funds, but will do it without opening the 2002 Farm Bill.
The N.Y. Times also notes that, "In a surprise move, the Senate also voted to approve a total of $134 billion in tax cuts, $34 billion more than President Bush requested and $64 billion more than the Senate Republican leadership had initially proposed."
The surprise could make it difficult for the House and Senate to reach a compromise now that both have passed their budgets. The Los Angeles Times reports that "A budget breakdown would be an embarrassment for the GOP leadership, which had expected that the larger Republican majorities in both chambers — and particularly in the Senate — would allow easy passage of the president's proposals."
In agriculture, the President requested $9 billion cuts over 5 years in the President's 2006-2010 budget request. The Senate approved the counter-proposal by Ag Chairman Saxby Chambliss of a smaller $2.8 billion share within a government-wide five-year deficit reduction plan.
Chambliss, R-Ga., says the Senate's vote maintains authority for the Senate Agriculture Committee to look for deficit reduction along five years and within many different areas of agriculture spending without changing the current Farm Bill.
"I was at the table when the 2002 Farm Bill was negotiated for our farmers, and we are going to keep the current policy of the Farm Bill in place," says Chambliss in Senate debate on the budget resolution. "I would rather not have any cuts, but being fiscally responsible is just as important as writing a good Farm Bill. We are going to be fair and equitable in every area."
Chambliss notes that the benefit to farmers and ranchers from agriculture's $2.8 billion share out of all federal spending cuts means less government borrowing which can lead to favorable interest rates for farmers and ranchers. In all probability, says Chambliss, the $2.8 billion share could be returned to them in interest savings alone.