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

A budget plan taking shape in Congress is getting attention for tax cuts and reductions for safety-net programs. Policy experts in South Dakota also track what changes would mean for state government spending.

The GOP-led proposal cleared the House this week by a slim margin, with all eyes now on the Senate for action.

Programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, would be overhauled to offset proposed tax-cut extensions. Advocates have said new work requirements would reduce access to benefits. States would also have to absorb more program costs, and Ed Gerrish, associate professor of public administration at the University of South Dakota, said there's a key factor to consider.

"The states, of course, have a balanced-budget requirement, whereas the federal government does not," he said, "so the overall package that was passed will add trillions to the national deficit and debt. [The] federal government can do that, but states can't."

This means that if states have to contribute more to cover SNAP but don't have the money, their budgets would have to be cut elsewhere. Gerrish said it depends on the state, but he predicts South Dakota would simply reduce the scope of its SNAP program.

South Dakota just passed a budget slightly smaller than the previous spending plan due partly to dwindling sales-tax revenue.

There's also proposed Medicaid changes, and the Congressional Budget Office has said several million people could lose health coverage over time. Gerrish said if those people were to file for bankruptcy because of unpaid medical bills, the state would likely have more court expenses on its hands.

"So, that's what we saw prior to the Affordable Care Act was high levels of medical bankruptcies, and I expect we'll see a higher level of medical bankruptcies here in the next," he said. "It's not going to wind through immediately, right? But it might be three or four years."

Some provisions wouldn't take effect until at least 2026. With a sunset date looming, backers of extending and expanding tax cuts from 2017 cite urgency in generating economic activity. Gerrish said that could help with South Dakota's sales-tax collections, but noted that these moves prevent income taxes from increasing again. Provisions that would enhance tax cuts are mostly temporary.


get more stories like this via email

A guaranteed income pilot program in Oakland improved housing stability and employment among its recipients, according to a new report from the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Guaranteed Income Research.

Starting in 2021, 300 low-income families in Oakland received $500 a month in cash for 18 months.

Jesus Gerena is the CEO and president of UpTogether, a nonprofit based in Concord that administered the program alongside the group Oakland Thrives.

"The income guidelines are at or below the federal poverty line," said Gerena. "They had to have at least one child under the age of 18, and then the average age for participants was 38 years old. Eighty-four percent of them were women."

The report showed that participants often made significant gains. Participating adults were 44% less likely to experience homelessness after one year in the program.

And contrary to popular belief, the extra money did not hurt employment. Full-time employment rose 11% for those in the program, compared to a 4% increase in a control group.

Gerena said even though the pilot program is now over, he hopes its success will convince authorities that poverty is a policy choice.

"If we trust and invest directly in people and their abilities, who are facing financial hardship," said Gerena, "they're more than capable to be able to identify goals and figure out what they need to do to be able to find success in their lives."

Researchers also found that families receiving the cash also reported an increase in their children's academic performance.

The program was funded by private donations. Once it ended, many of the gains receded.






get more stories like this via email

Minnesota is in the top half of states when linking Medicaid coverage with needs for maternal care in rural areas.

That's according to a new report from the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.

In rural Minnesota, more than 23% of women of child-bearing age are covered by Medicaid. That's in line with the national average and 4% higher than the state's metro counties.

The University of Minnesota Professor in the School of Public Health Dr. Katy Kozhimannil is part of the broader research community looking at this issue.

She said these numbers come amid a continued decline of obstetric care in these communities.

"More than a decade into a maternal health crisis in this country," said Kozhimannil. "Fewer and fewer U.S. hospitals provide obstetrics every year with rural hospitals experiencing the greatest losses."

Researchers say this care is expensive and big Medicaid adjustments create more harm for rural providers, putting the health of mothers and babies at risk.

House Republicans are considering program reforms, including work requirements, to help pay for tax cuts.

The GOP says streamlining services keeps the program strong for vulnerable people, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates nearly 8 million people would lose coverage.

With that CBO forecast, Democrats and health advocates contend the proposed changes amount to massive cuts.

The Georgetown Center's Executive Director and Co-founder Joan Alker said the current debate over Medicaid is one of the more consequential ones she has seen in her time tracking federal policy.

"And the reality is that these cuts," said Alker, "could be extremely pernicious and dangerous for rural communities."

The report says in 2023, Medicaid covered 41% of births nationwide, but nearly half of all births in rural areas.

As for the chance of increased health risks, these researchers note that rates of infants with low-birthweight in rural counties tend to be higher than those in urban settings.