Today is the last day for Pennsylvanians to submit feedback to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative about a Biden administration proposal to increase tariffs on $18 billion worth of imports from China.

Pennsylvania manufacturers account for nearly 13% of the state's total output and employ almost 10% of the workforce.

Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of the Trade Justice Education Fund, said the tariff plan would safeguard better-paying manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania and nationwide from unfair import competition.

"The type of imports that are being targeted are all too often made with sweatshop labor and even forced labor," Stamoulis explained. "The tariffs are needed for U.S. manufacturers to be able to compete on a level playing field. So, this is going to be good for jobs in Pennsylvania, and well beyond Pennsylvania."

Stamoulis noted the Biden administration's proposal to increase tariffs on the semiconductor, renewable energy and automotive sectors has garnered more than 2,500 comments. He added the tariffs aim to boost the number of producers and prevent monopolies, particularly in industries dominated by China. However, critics warned they could provoke retaliatory measures and harm international trade relations.

Stamoulis pointed out the combination of tariffs and investments from the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act has significantly reshaped America's manufacturing landscape and has led to a manufacturing boom in Pennsylvania and around the country.

"There were more new factories built in the U.S. in 2023 than at any point in the last three decades and these tariffs are going to help protect that investment," Stamoulis contended. "They're designed to prevent unfair imports overseas from undercutting the production of goods made under fair conditions here at home."

Stamoulis added the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative will review the comments and make a final decision about whether, when and how to impose the new tariffs. His group hopes the administration's plan moves forward.

Signatures are expected to be submitted today for a potential fall ballot question which would largely do away with property taxes in North Dakota.

The Secretary of State will review the signatures sent in by petition organizers, who said property owners are in big need of tax relief. A coalition opposing the idea is intensifying efforts to lay out the consequences.

Chad Oban, executive director of the teacher's union North Dakota United, echoed what other skeptics pointed out: The plan does not explain how the lost revenue would be replaced. In addition to key services funded by local property taxes, such as schools and emergency response, Oban warned of other harm.

"People who have money are buying up property all over the country and turning it into rental property or Airbnbs and that kind of thing," Oban pointed out. "That's going to happen here. I mean, if you're an investor, why not buy property in a place where you're not going to pay property taxes?"

He added it could unfold as North Dakota grapples with an affordable housing shortage. An independent analysis by the Legislative Council estimated a statewide revenue loss of $1.3 billion if the proposal becomes reality. Supporters contended North Dakota government consistently overspends and the Legislature should have no problem covering the losses.

Oban emphasized communities would essentially lose local control in setting their budgets. As for asking the state to help out, he argued smaller communities would have a tougher time seeking funds to buy equipment, like a fire truck.

"You're in a rural area and you can't levy property taxes, so you have to go to Bismarck and ask the Legislature to pay for that fire truck," Oban stressed. "Well, Fargo might be asking for a fire truck, too."

He added Fargo has plenty of representatives to request those funds, while smaller communities do not.

Jason Bohrer, president of the coal industry's Lignite Energy Council, which is among the other 60-plus groups to join the opposition campaign, worries about the loss of school funding, saying it would make it harder to attract workers. He warned of another workforce side effect.

"Not only do you not get potentially the person working at the power plant, you also don't that person's spouse working at the local gym or as a teacher in the local school," Bohrer cautioned.

Sen. Michele Reynolds, R-Canal Winchester and Rep. Mark Johnson, R-Chillicothe, recently announced a significant legislative initiative to address Ohio's childcare crisis.

The bill proposes establishing a "Child Care Cred" program, a cost-sharing model to make child care more affordable and accessible for families, employers and child care providers. Reynolds noted the average annual cost of child care for an infant and a 4-year-old exceeds the average annual rent in Ohio.

The lack of childcare access has far-reaching economic and social implications, affecting child development, workforce retention and overall economic growth, she said.

"It has become clear that urgent legislative action is needed to address the affordability and availability of child care in Ohio." Reynolds continued.

She said the high cost of child care has become an overwhelming burden and financial strain for countless families and has forced many parents, especially mothers, to reduce their working hours or leave their jobs entirely. The bill allocates $10 million to kickstart the program.

Johnson echoed Reynolds' sentiments, emphasizing the need to invest in childcare programs to continue to recruit businesses to Ohio. He noted the challenges faced by employers in attracting workers due to a lack of affordable child care, which impacts both the current and future workforce.

"If we want Ohio to continue to be considered a business-friendly state and environment, we need to invest in our child care programs," Johnson said.

He also highlighted the need to create a workable care system that can retain employees and sustain economic growth.

California anti-hunger groups are asking Gov. Gavin Newsom to preserve funding for Market Match, a program helping low-income families buy fruits and vegetables at farmers markets.

Lawmakers are expected to include $35 million for the program when they pass a budget this weekend.

Minni Forman, food and farming program director at the nonprofit Ecology Center, hopes the governor will decide to leave it be.

"He could, in the final hour, strip it out," Forman acknowledged. "All of our hard work and all the hard work of all of the elected officials and advocates would be lost."

Lawmakers face a multibillion-dollar deficit and are required by law to pass a balanced budget. The governor's budget proposals in January and May essentially zeroed out Market Match but lawmakers' version restored the California Nutrition Incentive Program, which funds Market Match.

Frank Tamborello, executive director of Hunger Action Los Angeles, said Market Match helps families cope with rising food prices and it is just the beginning.

"It's fighting hunger. It's promoting healthy foods. It's helping the California small farm economy," Tamborello outlined. "In the long run, it's also helping with sustainable agriculture and climate change by reducing the number of miles that the food travels to get to you. "

Market Match has been around for 15 years and is now offered at almost 300 sites around the state. The program gives people on Cal Fresh about $15 per market per day to spend on fruits and vegetables.