South Dakota farmers leading the "locally grown" movement have visions of a dynamic regional food production system but some of it is in doubt with looming federal cuts.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is swept up in the Trump administration's downsizing of federal agencies, including cancellation of the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program for food banks to buy local produce at a market rate. Grants from the Regional Food Business Center program are also in limbo.

Stephanie Peterson, a funding recipient who operates a small egg-producing farm called Fruit of the Coop near Sioux Falls, said she is unsure she will get the rest of her money to scale up.

"The pandemic showed us the fragility of our industrial ag system, and how important it is to build up and focus on these regional and local systems," Peterson contended.

But after pouring her heart and soul into this seven-acre farm, Peterson wonders if the dream will slip out of her hands. It would mean local restaurants would have one less option for buying eggs at a time when avian flu is disrupting supply chains. The USDA has resumed funding for some initiatives but the department's top official has categorized certain local food programs as "nonessential."

The group Dakota Rural Action said ending the purchasing program for food banks affects nearly 30 farmers around the state.

Kjersten Oudman, owner of Blue Sky Vegetable Company, makes produce deliveries on behalf of a regional food hub. She said she is sad her local food shelf will lose out on some fresh and healthier options.

"We were one of the few deliveries that was giving it potatoes, cabbage, carrots or microgreens," Oudman explained. "I am most upset that people who need good, healthy, nutrient-dense food may not be able to get it."

On the business side of things, Oudman worries specialty farmers in South Dakota will lose ground in attracting new customers and markets for their products.

"We're pretty behind a lot of our other states in our infrastructure," Oudman pointed out. "There's just a lot of uncertainty and a lot of questioning of (if) grant programs do not come through, what do our businesses need to do in order to continue pushing for development?"

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