The latest state tax cuts are expected to cost Iowa more than $2 billion in revenue over the next two years. Advocates for tax fairness argued lawmakers are not considering the long-term consequences of the cuts on schools, workers, and livability.
In the face of a dwindling population and shrinking tax base, Iowa lawmakers doubled down on tax cuts this year, and also passed a measure calling for a constitutional amendment to require any state income tax to be a single rate.
Anne Discher, executive director of Common Good Iowa, said lawmakers chose to cut taxes despite the state's growing economic demands like funding Educational Savings Accounts, which allow parents to use public education dollars to pay for private school.
"I understand that in a vacuum, tax cuts can sound pretty good to folks," Discher acknowledged. "But when you really have a serious conversation about trade-offs, the popularity of tax cuts is a lot less clear-cut."
Lawmakers also passed a cluster of bills to accelerate cuts in the state income tax rate from 3.9% to 3.8%, which Discher argued will have long-term economic effects. Supporters of the tax cut measures, including Gov. Kim Reynolds, have promised more fiscal austerity.
The deeper tax cuts mean an average reduction of about $6 to someone in the bottom 20% of the income bracket, $402 for the middle 20%, and more than $20,000 for someone making more than $1.5 million a year. Lawmakers said they plan to cover the tax cuts with Iowa's budget surplus, which Discher called shortsighted.
"The moment in which that's really going to impact services can be pushed out, right?" Discher noted. "But the thing about surpluses is they are one-time money, and you can't count on them in the long run. And so, when the surpluses are gone, we're going to be looking at a level of tax cuts that are really going to put a lot of important services at risk."
Discher contends implementing a flat-rate income tax would be regressive and hurt lower-income Iowans most. Supporters counter it would be more fair and efficient.
get more stories like this via email
New legislation that would ensure every Oregon public school student has access to free breakfast and lunch has widespread, bipartisan support.
A recent poll shows more than 80% of Oregon voters support the bill. Currently, 1 in 6 children in Oregon is facing hunger and food insecurity.
Auveen S. is a junior at Lake Oswego High School and a youth advisory leader with the School Meals for All Coalition.
She said while her school doesn't qualify for universal school meals, she still notices that some of her classmates might not have enough food during the day.
"And as a student, I know firsthand how important food is to academic success," she said. "No one can learn on an empty stomach and it's difficult to focus when your stomach is growling."
While most public schools in Oregon already provide free breakfast and lunch to all students, the bill would extend those meals to tens of thousands who still go without.
David Wieland, a policy advocate with Partners for a Hunger-Free Oregon, said the program especially benefits low-income students who can face stigma and bullying for receiving free meals.
He pointed to research showing that when meals are free for all students, suspension rates drop.
Wieland added that this bill is the conclusion of decades of advocacy work, and the funds are already in place to make it happen.
"We're not going to say that kids have to pay for their textbooks or have to pay to take the bus," said Wieland. "Why would we do the same with the basic food that they need to function during the school day?"
Data from Oregon State University shows that hunger rates in the state have risen significantly in recent years, with an additional 65,000 people facing food insecurity each year.
The data also shows that communities of color in Oregon experience hunger at twice the rate of white residents. The coalition says School Meals for All saves families about $1,400 annually per student.
The bill is currently in the Oregon house education committee.
get more stories like this via email
President Donald Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders meant to jump-start his mass deportation policy but the policy may negatively affect migrant farmworkers in Virginia.
Nationwide, nearly half of agricultural workers are immigrants and more than a quarter of those workers are undocumented. More than 300,000 people work in Virginia's agricultural sector, many of whom are immigrants. Numbers are not available at the state level for how many workers are undocumented.
Manuel Gago Silcox, co-director of the Virginia-based Worker Justice Program at the Legal Aid Justice Center, said Trump's policies come during a slow period in agricultural production in the Commonwealth.
"We're still not seeing a big repercussion of this," Gago Silcox pointed out. "We will know about this when the season starts, like around May, April. We'll see how this plan will be affecting farms and crops, especially in the summer, the harvesting season, when it's more labor-intensive."
Overall, 42% of farmworkers do not have an authorization to work in the country, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Gago Silcox expects applications for H2-A visas, a program for companies to hire foreign workers for agricultural jobs, to dramatically increase.
Gago Silcox added there is a lot of confusion in migrant farmworker communities about immigration raids potentially happening at workplaces. Many thought the raids were supposed to target criminals, instead of workers.
"It's at a workplace. They are people that are doing work. They are feeding their families, and they're feeding other families," Gago Silcox explained. "So they don't understand why these raids at the workplace, while people are trying to earn their basic needs, are taking place there. "
Gago Silcox noted groups are currently working to educate migrant workers about their rights and pass out red cards, which detail the constitutional rights of both citizens and noncitizens if they are approached by immigration officers.
get more stories like this via email
Indiana lawmakers are considering a bill to allow state funds to invest in Bitcoin.
House Bill 1322 moved forward to the full House for debate.
Rep. Jake Teshka, R-South Bend, authored the bill, which would allow public employee and teacher retirement funds to invest in certain Bitcoin exchange-traded funds.
"Really, what we're asking is just for folks to come and tell us how blockchain technology could benefit state government and state government processes," Teshka explained. "At this point, there is no mandate in here for any agency to participate."
The bill also calls for a study on how blockchain technology could improve state operations. Supporters said it could lower costs, improve security and create efficiencies. Lawmakers backing the bill argued Bitcoin offers long-term potential despite market fluctuations. Opponents have raised concerns about financial risks, saying Bitcoin is unpredictable.
Teshka noted Bitcoin has outperformed traditional assets over time. He admitted it is volatile but called it a strong investment option.
Rep. Chris Campbell, D-Lafayette, called it a major risk for retirees. She questioned how lawmakers could ensure it was a safe investment for state funds.
"When I asked online about cryptocurrency investments, it seemed like they were really discouraged," Campbell observed. "Crypto is volatile and carries substantial risk. There's a lot of scamming associated with it."
Teshka said the state would carefully study the risks before making any decisions. He called Bitcoin the future of finance but stressed Indiana would proceed cautiously. The bill awaits debate in the House.
get more stories like this via email