DENVER – The Trump administration's tax proposals would not benefit all taxpayers or states equally, according to new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Matt Gardner, a senior fellow with the institute, says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers would receive more than 60 percent of the tax benefits.

He adds that poorer states, largely in the South and Southeast, would get a portion of the tax cuts lower than their share of the U.S. population.

"Richer states tend to do better, poorer states tend to do worse – in a way that mirrors what's happening nationwide, with richer Americans getting the lion's share of the benefits and poorer Americans being comparatively left out in the cold," Gardner states.

Proponents of Trump's proposal say all Americans will see their taxes reduced, and maintain the move will boost revenues by stimulating economic growth.

Gardner disagrees, and notes the nation's top earners will get an average of $145,000 in tax breaks, compared with just $130 for the bottom 20 percent of earners.

Gardner adds there's no evidence to support the supply side argument that tax cuts can pay for themselves. He says the tradeoff on nearly $5 trillion in lost revenues would likely be cuts in health care, education and food assistance programs.

"Under any realistic view of the economic consequences of this plan, we're going to see larger budget deficits,” he stresses. “First on the chopping block would be federal aid to low-income Americans."

The White House also has proposed cutting SNAP benefits, the program formerly known as food stamps, by 25 percent over the next decade.

Orgul Ozturk, an associate professor of economics at the University of South Carolina, says in the wake of the last recession, and the continued drop in real wages, SNAP is a lifeline for the nation's working poor.

"There's this new group of SNAP recipients – not the elderly, not the children – but working poor, who just can't make enough,” she states. “Even though they are working, they cannot earn enough to be over the poverty threshold."

Ozturk says nearly 70 percent of SNAP recipients are children, seniors and people with disabilities, and more than 20 percent work full-time, are caretakers or are enrolled in training programs.





get more stories like this via email

The state Supreme Court has upheld a law giving Nebraskans with prior felony convictions the right to vote once they have completed their sentence.

Proponents of the measure are calling it a hard-fought victory to restore full rights to citizens who have paid their debt to society.

State lawmakers challenged a clause in the state's 1875 constitution disenfranchising people with felony convictions for life.

Steve Smith, director of communications with the group Civic Nebraska, said the ruling ends a decades-long legal battle.

"Had the court ruled the underlying statute is unconstitutional, those folks would have been out of luck," said Smith. "And so, the stakes were pretty high. In a state the size of Nebraska, that's close to 10% of the electorate. It's about 100,000 voters."

Smith said eligible people must register in person by 6 p.m. on Oct. 25 at their county's local elections office.

Smith said the ruling negates an order by the secretary of state blocking county officials from registering former felons despite a bipartisan bill that eliminated a two year waiting period for people with convictions.

He said the requirements to register have been simplified.

"It is fully completing your sentence. And so, the term is 'off-papers,'" said Smith. "And most folks who have been justice-impacted understand what off-papers mean. They've served any term of incarceration. They have completed any terms of parole, probation or supervised release, and they have not reoffended."

Smith said his organization and other are urging people who are now eligible to register and to vote, calling it both a civil right and a civic duty.

"For those of you going, 'I don't know if I want to do this,' know that the Supreme Court, the highest court in our state, has said, 'You are good to go, and you should vote with confidence,'" said Smith. "If you're on the fence about not voting, think about how hard some people tried to keep your vote away from you, and then wonder why that is."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

One in three Americans indicates they're living paycheck-to-paycheck, and that includes many artists. A Minnesota organization is expanding its guaranteed-income program for these individuals, so they can carry on with their creative contributions.

This fall, Springboard for the Arts announced it was tacking on more years and recipients to its pilot initiative, launched early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ricardo Beaird, community development director for Springboard for the Arts, said the changes mean that over the next five years, a total of 100 participants will receive monthly payments of $500, no strings attached. He said they're building a case for systemic change in how artists are supported.

"Artists are vital to the cultural and economic fabric of our communities. They help us imagine new futures. They help us rethink public spaces and they create connections that make our lives richer and more meaningful," Beaird explained.

But he added that artists tend to operate in a "gig economy" and often fall through the cracks because financial stability is out of reach. Based on initial program data, 36% of recipients used the income for essential purchases and services. This effort is part of a patchwork of similar programs surfacing around the U.S. for low-income populations, including one led by the city of St. Paul.

Springboard's guaranteed-income program, funded by private foundations, helps artists in St. Paul and rural Otter Tail County. Beaird said they're also trying to be more dynamic with their assistance by offering things such as personal finance guidance, and added that can help artists overcome the short-term thinking they're often locked in.

"I'm a theater artist, so the way that I thought about my year was in these six-week bursts, and it didn't really give me the opportunity to think about, 'What does my next year look like, or my next two years, or five years look like?" he continued.

Another benefit is helping emerging artists be more financially resilient when dealing with unexpected expenses, such as a hospital bill or car repair.


get more stories like this via email

Some federal incentives to bring internet access to Indian Country neglected to require tribal participation, according to a new report.

The Federal Communications Commission's 2020 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund awarded more than $9 billion to cable and satellite operators, phone companies and others to deploy broadband in areas lacking it. The report from the Institute for Local Self Reliance showed the program included no requirement for tribal consent or engagement before companies placed bids.

Jessica Auer, tribal broadband policy analyst at the Institute for Local Self Reliance and the report's author, said it left some tribes, especially those with their own broadband projects, in what she called a "bureaucratic boondoggle," leading to "tension and confusion."

"They're required to spend resources and staff time trying to contest these awards, confronted by outside providers who feel that they have a mandate and a right to build on sovereign tribal lands," Auer explained.

Auer argued not including tribal nations at the table is, in many cases, considered a violation of tribal sovereignty. According to a 2022 study, households in tribal areas are about 24% less likely to have access to broadband internet than others.

In some cases, tribes are able to build the projects themselves. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe was awarded a $40-million grant to connect more than 1,500 tribal households with fiber internet access and an LTE wireless network.

Auer noted it is preferable to a company building infrastructure in unfamiliar terrain, which can be detrimental.

"I just can't think that it necessarily makes them the most long-term effective and sustainable answer, when they have so little knowledge and familiarity with local realities," Auer added.


get more stories like this via email