Nebraska is one of four states with measures about state funding of private-school vouchers on the ballot this year. Referendum 435 asks voters to decide whether to repeal the school voucher program passed on the last day of the 2024 legislative session.

Backers of the law claim vouchers are needed by low-income families who can't otherwise afford to send their children to a private school. But studies show that in a number of states, most who benefit from school vouchers are not from low-income families.

Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, said this has been borne out in Iowa.

"In Iowa, for example, who just implemented their voucher system last year," he said, "the median income for the voucher recipients is roughly $120,000."

Iowa data also show that more than two-thirds of the students using vouchers had already been attending a private school.

Another of NSEA's objections is that the law doesn't benefit all of Nebraska, since more than half the counties have no private schools. Critics of the voucher programs say they siphon state funds away from the public school system.

Royers said choice is fine - as long as it's publicly accountable choice.

"As long as private schools can discriminate and deny certain children admission; as long as they don't have to follow the same testing and reporting requirement that we do, we just don't feel public tax dollars should go to those institutions," he said.

Arizona's private-school voucher program has ballooned in scope and cost, and contributed to the need for significant state budget cuts. Dave Wells, research director at the Grand Canyon Institute, a "centrist think tank" in Phoenix, says Arizona's voucher program means the state is essentially supporting two school systems - public and private.

"In Arizona, we can't afford to do that, and it's had really negative impacts," he said. "And I think it has especially negative impacts on rural areas where there aren't private schools even to pick from. And the people who benefit the most from this are people who can already afford to go to private schools, is what we've found in Arizona."

According to state data, as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, face cuts, Michigan's most vulnerable stand to lose the most.

In the Great Lakes state, more than 2 million people count on Medicaid, and more than 1 million of them are kids. When it comes to putting food on the table, more than 1 million Michiganders rely on SNAP benefits, including one in four children.

Amber Bellazaire, senior policy analyst with the Michigan League for Public Policy, emphasized the ripple effects of these proposed cuts could create widespread challenges, even for those not directly enrolled in Medicaid or SNAP.

"If a rural hospital closes because they're operating on razor-thin margins and have lost a significant amount of their funding, because of Medicaid cuts, that hospital closes not just for Medicaid enrollees but for all folks in that community," she explained.

Supporters of the cuts contend that these programs place a heavy burden on the federal budget, discourage work and self-reliance, and are susceptible to fraud and abuse.

MLPP reports that Medicaid is relied on across all Michigan counties and congressional districts, especially in rural and northern areas. The state also ranks high for SNAP participation among veterans, with 41,000 enrolled.

Bellazaire noted that the proposed cuts won't make health care more efficient or affordable - and if she had a seat at the table where budget decisions are made, she'd offer a more balanced perspective.

"I think that there is opportunity to discuss the balance between fiscal responsibility and protecting and improving upon the successes that we've seen come from the Medicaid program and Medicaid expansion," she continued.

Those in favor of the cuts maintain that private markets and local solutions are more effective than government run programs - and states should have more control over program management, rather than relying on the federal government.

Maryland state lawmakers ended this year's session addressing a major budget shortfall and countless other issues in the state. But their work might not be over for the year.

Through a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, lawmakers passed a balanced budget, despite a $3.3 billion budget deficit. Maryland taxpayers who make more than $500,000 a year will pay more in taxes, along with higher taxes on sports betting and marijuana sales.

Brenda Wintrode, state politics reporter with the Baltimore Banner, said lawmakers had to tackle multiple pressing issues for the state.

"The budget took the oxygen out of the session," she said. "It took up all the space. They had an energy crisis to resolve, which they did pass a sweeping energy package to try to make some room for more energy production in the state."

The legislature passed a major energy initiative meant to ramp up energy production through nuclear, natural gas, solar power and battery storage, along with a small rebate for electric bills. Lawmakers also made more than $2 billion in spending cuts.

Republicans in the state, however, objected to tax hikes to balance the budget. But despite the end of the regular session, Wintrode says there might be more work to do this year. All eyes are on Washington as President Donald Trump's cuts to the federal workforce and spending could impact the state.

"They have a balanced budget that is going to meet where we are as a state in this moment to get us through the end of the federal government's fiscal year. They are not ruling out having a special session, possibly coming back in October after the federal government looks at what it's going to be doing," she continued.

A report by Moody's Ratings finds Maryland faces the greatest risks of any state from federal spending cuts.


get more stories like this via email

A state-funded matched savings program has helped low-income Oregonians for more than 25 years and backers said it needs more funding to continue.

Participants in the Oregon Individual Development Account Initiative save money toward specific goals like buying a home or vehicle, or going to college, while working with local nonprofits. Once they reach their savings goal, the state matches it at a 5-1 ratio, helping build long-term financial stability.

Abi Brambila, a first-generation college graduate and small business owner, credits the program for the financial support to make college possible, and its budgeting classes for giving her confidence.

"These skills are going to take you further than any amount of money," Brambila pointed out. "For me, it really has been life-changing, and I do believe that other people deserve to get into a program like this."

Despite rising costs for goals like education and homeownership, program funding has remained flat for 15 years. Advocates are asking the legislature to update the funding to reflect inflation.

Cameron Herrington, director of policy and advocacy for the nonprofit Neighborhood Partnerships, which helps distribute the funds, said lawmakers have two options to shore up the program's funding: raise the cap on its main tax credit or dedicate some lottery revenue.

Herrington noted the program has helped more than 19,000 low-income Oregonians since it started, but cannot continue at its current pace without more support. He added both bills have bipartisan backing statewide.

"It's a matter of the budget writers at the legislature stepping up to the plate now and fixing the funding," Herrington emphasized. "It's overdue but we've set it up for them to make an easy decision to keep this program strong for the future."

Both bills to increase funding are in committee. Backers of the initiative said it helps bridge the growing income gap in the state, as well as the racial wealth gap. Data show the top 1% of earners in the state have more income than the bottom 50% of Oregonians combined.


get more stories like this via email