CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Critics of a proposal rushing through the House of Delegates say it could blow a hole in West Virginia's state budget by using one-time money to pay for permanent tax cuts that mostly help those who are well off.

House Bill 3137 would create a fund where new money, including out-of-state online sales taxes, would go. Then, each time that fund reached a certain level, it would trigger compounding cuts in state income taxes.

Ted Boettner, executive director of the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, said some lawmakers may not realize they could end up using one-time money to offset tax cuts that continue for years and build on top of each other.

"This bill was pushed out of the Finance Committee without a fiscal note, without any understanding of what its impact would be on tax revenues or the state budget," he said. "It's a poorly designed tax cut that will not only lead to large revenue losses but also further exacerbate income inequality in West Virginia."

Supporters have said now that the state can collect the online sales taxes, it can afford to cut income taxes. However, Boettner said progressive income taxes hit the rich harder, while sales taxes take a larger portion of lower-income families.

Since the cuts as outlined in the bill build over time, Boettner said, they eventually could dent the state budget by from $200 million to as much as $1 billion a year. He said the new revenue might offset one year's tax cut, "but since the tax holes continue year to year, the proposal would eventually lead to large compounding revenue losses and budget holes that would likely require more cuts to schools, colleges and other budget priorities, or tax increases likely to fall on working families."

HB 3137 originated in the House Finance Committee a week ago. It did not go through a second committee, but could reach final passage in the House today.

More information from the center is online at wvpolicy.org, and the text of HB 3137 is at wvlegislature.gov.


get more stories like this via email

Groups fighting hunger in Oregon are urging residents to speak up if they are concerned about the cuts Congress could make to food, health care and housing assistance programs.

Congress is considering proposals to reduce SNAP benefits and free school meals for students, along with cuts to health care and rental assistance programs. About one in six Oregonians receives SNAP benefits and about a quarter use Medicaid.

Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy, said the proposals are not really about cutting waste and fraud, as the Trump administration contended. Instead, Queral argued they are about tax cuts.

"Extending those tax cuts from 2017 to the very rich will add to the deficit and will have a direct impact on people's lives," Queral asserted.

Research shows policies implemented during the pandemic, like the Child Tax Credit, led to a record drop in poverty across the country in 2021. When the policies were revoked, the nation saw a record increase in poverty the following year.

One proposal on the table would reduce SNAP benefits for more than 700,000 Oregonians by changing how the benefits are calculated. Another would end free school meals for 12 million children across the country, as well as the Summer Food Service Program.

Queral believes funding such programs is the responsibility of the federal government.

"What the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are proposing is, in essence, playing a budget 'trick' by shifting those costs to the state," Queral emphasized.

Congressional Republicans also aim to add more paperwork and work requirements to receive SNAP and Medicaid benefits. Queral noted creating more barriers often means fewer people get the services. He stressed it is essentially a way to indirectly cut popular programs many children and lower-income Oregonians depend on.

"Lack of nutrition early in life, lack of access to health care early in life, have repercussions for future generations," Queral underscored. "We have to really think about the long-term consequences of the choices that we're making today."


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota lawmakers have a few weeks left to wrap up their legislative session on time. A new state budget tops the list of remaining tasks, with observers wondering if both chambers have just enough bipartisanship in them to get it done.

Minnesota still has a surplus for the next two years but elected officials from both parties are trying to get ahead of a projected deficit for 2028 and 2029 by looking at spending cuts. Gov. Tim Walz and fellow Democrats have also eyed raising certain taxes and fees to keep a negative balance at bay.

Kevin Parsneau, professor of political science and Minnesota State University-Mankato, said after a rocky start, things have been relatively cordial.

"They've gotten a lot done, a lot faster than you might've expected," Parsneau observed. "Although there are some very big issues that have to be resolved within the next few weeks."

The start of the session was mostly delayed because of a power-sharing dispute between House Republicans and Democrats set off by the need for a special election. The chamber is now in a tie and while they have to work together, Parsneau acknowledged the scenario has the potential to derail progress. He echoed others by noting large federal funding cuts led by the Trump administration make things hard for states to plan spending.

While the White House has been aggressive in recent months to cut aid, the next federal budget is not scheduled to be finalized until later this year. With Congressional Republicans in control, Parsneau pointed out states could lose even more assistance. Because Minnesota's budget has to be in the books beforehand, he wondered if lawmakers will have to come back later this year.

"I assume they're hoping to avoid a special session," Parsneau added. "But it seems like it's gonna be difficult to do that."

He suggested it is a tough situation because voters might view a special session as another example of political drama. Parsneau emphasized voters are locked into a mindset of wanting decisive action from their representatives. Beyond a budget, a bonding bill for infrastructure projects has been debated. As for cuts, education and health programs are getting heavy focus.


get more stories like this via email

CORRECTION: This web-version of the story initially listed Rep. Dusty Johnson as "Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-N.D." It has since been corrected to reflect that he represents South Dakota. (10:35 a.m. CT, April 23, 2025)

A bus tour will zip through eastern South Dakota Thursday, where local leaders, health care providers and farm voices want to connect the dots between stable federal aid and their ability to plan, after recent actions have put them in a tough spot.

Thursday's events are part of the rural community tours organized by United Today, Stronger Tomorrow, a coalition that contends heavy budget cuts and grant freezes carried out by the Trump administration are the opposite of creating efficiencies.

Thursday's tour will stop in Madison, which is part of a new, largely federally funded tristate pipeline to improve water quality and economic development.

Roy Lindsay, mayor of Madison, said his city of about 7,000 cannot build a stronger future without the help of federal programs.

"It seems like whoever's pushing the buttons are looking at numbers more than (the) reality of what those departments actually mean," Lindsay observed.

Local officials echoed demands from voters who have shown up at town halls asking their members of Congress to push back against cuts. In an emailed statement, Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., said he understands the concerns but cited the federal debt as a need to, in his words, "right-size our government."

Farming communities said they are stuck in a holding pattern due to downsizing within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including conservation grants.

Travis Entenman, executive director of the Northern Prairies Land Trust, which works with private landowners on projects, said in a "red" state, it is already hard to convince people to try out federal programs and he fears the funding dilemma will hinder progress.

"The uncertainty of it all, and the back and forth, and no one really knows what's going on, makes it extra frustrating," Entenman explained.

Entenman acknowledged not every farmer who applies for the grants gets one but added those who do have come to expect reliability in receiving funds as they work to make their farmland healthier and economically viable.

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to "unfreeze" affected conservation grants, but Entenman and other South Dakota groups said they have yet to see evidence of money flowing again.