Family farm advocates are pushing for major changes in the new Farm Bill, including reduced subsidies for large factory farms, mandatory beef country-of-origin labels and measures to boost competition.

Proposals also include creating a meatpacking special investigator position at the USDA, and requiring meatpackers to purchase a set amount of livestock in cash markets.

Noah Earle, a member of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, a farmer and co-owner of Clovers Natural Markets, explained country-of-origin labeling for beef is not controversial among Missourians.

"Regardless of political affiliation, in Missouri you talk to cattle farmers or just citizens who consume beef, everyone agrees that we should have country-of-origin labeling for beef," Earle observed. "That's not controversial here on the ground."

Earle argued not labeling beef lets big meat companies sell foreign beef as American, harming local farmers and shoppers. Advocates want the Farm Bill to boost competition, help small farms and curb big corporations' control.

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee approved its Farm Bill version, but passing the full House is uncertain. Senate Democrats have outlined their version, while Senate Republicans have not yet. The current Farm Bill is an extension from 2018 and ends on Sept. 30. Differences persist in items such as SNAP funding and climate program funds from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Earle criticized the House bill for cutting funds for vital programs.

"The current version of the House farm bill that's been put forward is regressive," Earle contended. "One of the main ways that it's regressive is it's trying to take away funding to feed people that need to eat and the reason they need help with that is because of massive wealth extraction from their communities."

Earle added Congress has had ample time to work on the Farm Bill, yet family farm advocates feel the proposed measures do not go far enough. They called for meaningful changes to foster competition, reduce corporate control and address harmful agricultural practices. The status quo is not sufficient, and they urged Congress to take substantial steps toward a more equitable and sustainable food system.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress is joining advocates for energy assistance across the country to warn a dangerous situation is brewing for low-income households.

Federal staffing cuts have stalled the distribution of key funding. The Trump administration's layoffs of 10,000 Health and Human Services workers include the entire office overseeing the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, which gives eligible households a break on their monthly bills to avoid utility shutoffs.

Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which works with states on the issue, said the layoffs have blocked the latest round of aid from getting to them.

"Many states have told us that they've either run out of money or they're very close to it," Wolfe reported. "They need these additional funds to help families pay off the remaining winter heating bills or get ready for summer cooling programs, or both."

Minnesota is among the states to report an imminent "zero balance" if action is not taken soon. It has been more than two weeks since the layoffs were announced and Wolfe noted there is no word on funding status. Congress had authorized $378 million to round out the current cycle.

Thirteen U.S. senators have signed a letter asking the administration to get LIHEAP staff back in place and the money moving again.

Wolfe stressed keeping energy bills current is about more than staying cool when the temperature spikes. He noted utility shutoffs can produce dire consequences for some households.

"The loss of access to refrigeration, for example, you can't keep your food safe, or some medications need to be refrigerated," Wolfe outlined.

There was added pressure this past winter on some state programs where there were much colder temperatures. Each year, LIHEAP helps more than 6 million low-income households and seniors on fixed incomes across the country cover their energy bills.


get more stories like this via email

According to state data, as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, face cuts, Michigan's most vulnerable stand to lose the most.

In the Great Lakes state, more than 2 million people count on Medicaid, and more than 1 million of them are kids. When it comes to putting food on the table, more than 1 million Michiganders rely on SNAP benefits, including one in four children.

Amber Bellazaire, senior policy analyst with the Michigan League for Public Policy, emphasized the ripple effects of these proposed cuts could create widespread challenges, even for those not directly enrolled in Medicaid or SNAP.

"If a rural hospital closes because they're operating on razor-thin margins and have lost a significant amount of their funding, because of Medicaid cuts, that hospital closes not just for Medicaid enrollees but for all folks in that community," she explained.

Supporters of the cuts contend that these programs place a heavy burden on the federal budget, discourage work and self-reliance, and are susceptible to fraud and abuse.

MLPP reports that Medicaid is relied on across all Michigan counties and congressional districts, especially in rural and northern areas. The state also ranks high for SNAP participation among veterans, with 41,000 enrolled.

Bellazaire noted that the proposed cuts won't make health care more efficient or affordable - and if she had a seat at the table where budget decisions are made, she'd offer a more balanced perspective.

"I think that there is opportunity to discuss the balance between fiscal responsibility and protecting and improving upon the successes that we've seen come from the Medicaid program and Medicaid expansion," she continued.

Those in favor of the cuts maintain that private markets and local solutions are more effective than government run programs - and states should have more control over program management, rather than relying on the federal government.

Maryland state lawmakers ended this year's session addressing a major budget shortfall and countless other issues in the state. But their work might not be over for the year.

Through a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, lawmakers passed a balanced budget, despite a $3.3 billion budget deficit. Maryland taxpayers who make more than $500,000 a year will pay more in taxes, along with higher taxes on sports betting and marijuana sales.

Brenda Wintrode, state politics reporter with the Baltimore Banner, said lawmakers had to tackle multiple pressing issues for the state.

"The budget took the oxygen out of the session," she said. "It took up all the space. They had an energy crisis to resolve, which they did pass a sweeping energy package to try to make some room for more energy production in the state."

The legislature passed a major energy initiative meant to ramp up energy production through nuclear, natural gas, solar power and battery storage, along with a small rebate for electric bills. Lawmakers also made more than $2 billion in spending cuts.

Republicans in the state, however, objected to tax hikes to balance the budget. But despite the end of the regular session, Wintrode says there might be more work to do this year. All eyes are on Washington as President Donald Trump's cuts to the federal workforce and spending could impact the state.

"They have a balanced budget that is going to meet where we are as a state in this moment to get us through the end of the federal government's fiscal year. They are not ruling out having a special session, possibly coming back in October after the federal government looks at what it's going to be doing," she continued.

A report by Moody's Ratings finds Maryland faces the greatest risks of any state from federal spending cuts.


get more stories like this via email