BOISE, Idaho - and Anne Nesse (NESS-see), director of Raiseidaho.org.

The House Business Committee in the Idaho Legislature moved Monday to make sure cities and counties won't be able to raise their minimum wage, even though so far they have refused to consider a bill to raise it statewide.

House Bill 463 forbids local governments from raising the wage, which stands at $7.25 an hour and $3.35 for workers who receive tips.

It passed the Business Committee 15-to-three along party lines, with Republicans voting in favor. Aaron White, Idaho AFL-CIO president, calls the decision "hypocritical."

"Our State Legislature constantly talks about the need to keep the federal government out of our business," says White. "And at the same time, they have decided to impose their control on municipalities and voters when it comes to minimum wage."

Idaho's minimum wage is among the lowest in the country. Labor groups support raising it to $9.25 an hour. They say low wages drive Idaho's young people to look for work in other states, keep many people in poverty, and slow the economy by driving down workers' purchasing power.

Supporters of House Bill 463 argue raising the minimum wage would cost jobs.

Anne Nesse with the advocacy group Raise Idaho says the bill is similar to others around the country supported by the ultra-conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

"There's a ton of research that proves there was no ill effects from raising the minimum wage," says Nesse. "But our legislature and ALEC try to spread fear - that, 'Oh, no, no, you're going to lose your jobs.'"

Democrats in the Statehouse have introduced bills to raise the minimum wage statewide, last year and again this session, but the Republican majority has refused to bring them up for a vote.


get more stories like this via email

The Trump administration announces its new wave of tariffs Wednesday, and with U.S. Department of Agriculture funding still a question mark, Minnesota farmers are having trouble planning ahead.

Ag economists say the latest tariffs and retaliatory moves by trade partners could be blows felt by farmers and ranchers, especially for beef and pork.

Cindy VanDerPol and her husband, owners of Pastures A Plenty Farm in western Minnesota, are monitoring market upheavals due to tariffs and just saw a one-year pause in federal grants to help supply locally grown food to schools. She said it makes it hard to map out what they need to buy for the year.

"Do we go and purchase more laying hens? Do we purchase broiler chickens to be processed later on?" VanDerPol asked. "Those all are uncertainties right now."

She pointed out they would already have made such moves. VanDerPol added the uncertainty does not just potentially limit her farm's output but also demand for local meat processors. As in the first Trump administration, the USDA is weighing emergency aid for farmers if needed. But economists warned countries like Brazil are bigger ag competitors now and if a trade war heats up, foreign markets could just look there.

Federal officials have released some agriculture funding initially frozen during downsizing efforts led by the White House.

Jennifer Fahy, communications director for Farm Aid, said there are still not enough details about grants seeing movement again, leaving farmers in the lurch.

"The very fact that this money that is legally due to them is being held up and they're not getting any answers on when they might receive it, if at all, it's creating inordinate stress that really is completely unnecessary and damaging to our entire food system," Fahy contended.

Fahy noted it also could mean layoffs for farmworkers, as some operations downsize or close.

Gary Wertish, president of the Minnesota Farmers Union, said when other things like rising interest rates are factored in, farmers face a crisis similar to the 1980s, when the nation lost millions of farms.

"That's where we're fearful of, that we could very easily be back into that '80s crisis time frame," Wertish cautioned.

Minnesota lawmakers this session are emphasizing new protocols to shield state agencies from fraud. A watchdog group says so far, it appears they're on the right track.

The motivation to address this issue is tied to the high-profile "Feeding our Future" case, when dozens of people were accused of stealing pandemic relief money intended for kids' meals. It's estimated roughly $250 million was misspent, and dozens of convictions have since followed.

At the state Capitol, both Republicans and Democrats have openly discussed the need for tighter controls, which is encouraging to Matt Ehling, a board member for Minnesotans for Open Government.

"It's been a growing problem for quite a few years now," he said, "so it's nice to see that both sides of the aisle are focused on this issue this year."

One bill calls for a new state Office of Inspector General to get ahead of suspicious behavior. Ehling said the Office of Legislative Auditor does good work, but sees the need for another arm that goes beyond reviewing problems after the fact.

A separate proposal could stir backlash by no longer awarding some grants to nonprofits without a bidding process. Backers of keeping that option have argued it helps smaller groups in underserved areas get access to funding.

The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits has said it agrees that state funds must be used for their intended purpose, but worries some restrictions would make inequities worse.

Ehling said it's unfortunate that, at the height of the pandemic, federal relief packages meant to help people in need were targeted by fraudsters.

"Bad actors were able to take advantage of that, because the money was coming in so fast," he said, "and the resources to oversee the money were simply not appropriately put in place."

When those COVID spending packages were approved, states were tasked with distributing aid. Ehling's group hopes that if there's a new Office of Inspector General, it will operate with transparency. And a bipartisan group of lawmakers has said that with grant reforms, there should be assurances that smaller community groups are given a fair shot.


get more stories like this via email

AARP says it's getting thousands of phone calls from seniors worried about getting through to Social Security, as program operations are dramatically overhauled by the Trump administration. The concern is being felt in North Dakota. From staffing cuts to pursuing the closure of nearly 50 regional field offices, the White House and top advisor Elon Musk are seeing backlash over these moves. There are reports of wait times stretching several hours. It comes amid a new requirement that says beneficiaries can no longer verify their identity by phone. They have to do it in person or online.

Josh Askvig, state director of AARP North Dakota, says that could be tough in a largely rural state.

"It would be possible that folks would have to drive three to four hours or more to get to a location. And if you're not comfortable working with apps on your iPhone or Android device, you're looking at potentially a full day of driving, and that's a significant barrier," he explained.

The national AARP says it's fighting to protect these services, so that monthly payments aren't disrupted. It also calls on the administration to scrap the new verification rule and restore the phone option.

The White House says it's trying to root out fraud while insisting benefits won't be cut. But Democrats argue these changes will lead to missed or late checks for beneficiaries.

Askvig said the chaos that's unfolding could lead to another problem lurking in the shadows.

"We're also concerned that this change will lead to scammers using the confusion the agency has created around this to potentially exploit and prey on Americans as well," he added.

AARP and other senior advocates hope their allies reach out to Congress to intervene. They say Social Security operations have been under-resourced for some time, and they hope their renewed calls for service improvements turn more heads amid public frustration. Nearly one in six North Dakota residents receive Social Security benefits.