The looming U.S. debt default could affect a host of programs across the country - and in New York, the list includes clean-energy investments.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said the U.S. has until June 5 before a default would occur. In the meantime, states like New York have been ramping up their clean-energy infrastructure with federal Inflation Reduction Act funds.

A Climate Power report finds the IRA created 950 clean-energy jobs in New York from more than $560 million in funding.

Zander Bischof, head of Regulatory & Government Affairs at MN8 Energy, described how a default could jeopardize the future of these investments.

"It would put pressure on clean energy investment through a few mechanisms," said Bischof. "I think, firstly, it would drive up interest rates, and therefore the financing costs of clean energy assets - which are generally pretty capital intensive. We're talking about most of the costs being to get the steel in the ground, and then very low ongoing operating - and then from there, fuel costs."

He added that a default also could devalue the U.S. dollar, leading to higher costs for these projects.

This isn't the first time the IRA has been threatened. A bill to repeal it appears to be stuck in the U.S. House.

The Joint Economic Committee estimates that repealing the IRA would lead to energy costs of up to $300 a year higher per household.

Some experts feel the alternative isn't much better. House Republicans' "Limit, Save, and Grow Act" would raise the debt ceiling, but slash clean-energy funding.

Sandra Purohit - director of Federal Advocacy at the advocacy group E2 - said she feels after so much progress, it would be a step in the wrong direction.

"If you avoid default under this plan," said Purohit, "you would do so by revoking incentives that are making a huge and positive impact on our economy."

Both President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy have said they're confident a deal will be reached as negotiations continued over the weekend - although others see it as an impasse that's unlikely to be settled by the deadline.




get more stories like this via email

Congress is mulling a budget and tax proposal which could leave states picking up more of the tab for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

More than 276,000 Kentucky households received SNAP benefits in April, according to the latest state data. The changes, with an estimated $230 billion in cuts, could cost Kentucky nearly double what it spends on public preschool statewide.

Dustin Pugel, policy director at the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, said the state will be forced to absorb the difference.

"What they're discussing could be asking Kentucky to pay 15% or more of the cost," Pugel explained. "Which could be, if you're doing the math, anywhere between 160 or more million dollars."

Proponents of the SNAP cuts said the program is bloated and will save the federal government $300 billion over the next decade. The Food Research and Advocacy Center argued the cuts undermine the foundation of SNAP as a reliable safety net and leave families vulnerable to hunger and hardship, at a time of increased food prices.

Patience Martin, state tax and budget policy fellow at the center, explained lawmakers are also considering a tax proposal with sweeping cuts at the expense of programs such as SNAP and would make permanent recent changes to the income bracket, which resulted in the richest 20% of Kentuckians receiving around double the share of tax cuts than what the bottom 80% of the state's earners received combined.

"It would also exclude about 323,000 Kentucky children from receiving full, or any benefit at all, of the temporarily increased Child Tax Credit," Martin noted.

In addition to helping people put food on the table, SNAP participation has been linked to improve health and lower health care costs for states, and boosts local economies. SNAP drove nearly $1.3 billion in spending at more than 4,700 Kentucky food retailers last year, according to data from the center.


get more stories like this via email

High taxes and a weak economy are the top concerns of Illinois residents according to a new poll, with nearly half of those surveyed saying they would leave the state if given the opportunity.

The poll, conducted for the Illinois Policy Institute, showed more than half of those surveyed rank the state's high taxes as their number one concern, with the overall economy coming in second. Half of voters surveyed said they would move out of the state, regardless of whether they can afford it.

Dylan Sharkey, assistant editor for the Illinois Policy Institute, said the group started conducting surveys to shed light on tax issues.

"It's impossible for lawmakers to deny that these are the issues that people care about," Sharkey contended. "Because when you have a survey or a statewide poll, it's hard to deny those voices."

Illinois residents have the highest combined state and local tax burden in the nation, accounting for nearly 17% of their paychecks, and the second-highest property taxes in the country, according to the financial website WalletHub.

Since 2020, it is estimated Illinois has lost close to 500,000 residents. Sharkey argued the poll helps to dispel the myth people are leaving the state due to the weather. He added states of similar size and climate, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, are also losing residents but at a much slower rate.

"This might seem obvious to some people, but of course, high taxes are number one," Sharkey emphasized. "Part of the reason we do this polling is because there are lawmakers and groups out there who look at our state and think, 'Well, we just need more money to fix the problem.' And the reality is, if you take more money from people, they're just going to find a new home."

Sharkey added he hopes the poll will serve as guidance for Illinois lawmakers as they consider new legislation which could add to the tax burden residents already carry.

"Even if lawmakers aren't in consensus over new taxes, their constituents are," Sharkey asserted. "The bottom line should be that taxes should not be a first resort. The first resort should be to do more with money they already have."


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