Become a Member

Category: Income Inequity

Public Urged to Comment on Significant USDA Cuts by Sept. 30, 2025

Individuals interested in potentially losing government-provided financial aid amounting to $157.11 billion in 2025 for food, nutrition, and safety, as well as agriculture in general, should join in opposition to the reorganization attempts by Agriculture Secretary (USDA) Brooke Rollins.

Rollins, a Trump appointee and daughter of Helen Kerwin, a member of the Texas House of Representatives, announced plans to send 2,600 of her 4,000 (65%) of her Washington, DC staff to five regional hubs: Raleigh, NC; Kansas City, MO; Indianapolis, IN; Fort Collins, CO; and Salt Lake City, UT.

This relocation move follows the loss of at least 15,000 employees who have accepted Rollins’ “voluntary” resignation offers as she seeks to eliminate 30,000 (30%) of its workforce.[i]

In addition, last month, Rollins announced the elimination of a $360 million program, established during the Biden era, through the American Rescue Plan Act to bolster rural development and build stronger food supply networks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Rollins’ move to cut her Washington, DC staff by 65% masks the actual importance of those people.

Federal agencies place political appointees and hire civil service individuals in their Washington, DC staff for both political and professional reasons.

USDA Washington, DC personnel, both political and civil service, deal with several congressional committees when budgeting, planning, and programming, including House Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition (SNAP), Livestock and Foreign Agriculture, Nutrition, Oversight and Department Operations, Forestry and Horticulture, Farm Bill Committee, General Farm Committee, and Risk Management and Conservation programs. Additionally, statistical information on farm and agricultural activities comes from the DC office.

Furthermore, political appointees, as expected, serve the whims of the party in power, whereas civil service individuals provide the long-term knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to run an organization and, sometimes surreptitiously, provide Congress with organizational information that often corrects distorted or misinterpreted political presentations.

Through these collaborative efforts, in 2025, Congress obligated $192.71 billion to the USDA. Of that amount, Congress directed USDA to spend $157.11 billion (81.5% of the total) on private sector contractors (4.6%) and financial assistance (95.4%).

In simple terms, it’s civil service employees who determine the cost-effectiveness of obligation spending. At the same time, political appointees attempt to do the opposite, either by ending funding or diverting those dollars to special interest groups, without oversight.

In Nevada, USDA funds cover aerial photography, conservation programs, daily market prices, disaster assistance, farm loans, outreach and education, and price support for food banks, as well as SNAP.

Unfortualy, under Rollins, as of March 2025, USDA funding for programs supporting Nevada’s food banks, schools, and local businesses, such as the Home Feeds Nevada program and regional food business centers, has been significantly reduced or eliminated.

While some rural development grants continue, Rollins terminated significant funding for locally sourced food purchases, which impacts the state’s agricultural sector and food security efforts. 

According to Jeniffer Solis of Nevada Current, the USDA terminations amount to $3 million, and local small and mid-sized food and farm businesses ended three years ahead of schedule. 

For her part, Rollings, while serving as president and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an Austin-based conservative think tank, advocated for the end of agriculture subsidies for farmers and opposed ethanol requirements for fuels.

Meanwhile, as agriculture trade groups sound alarms about price slumps for crops and worsening credit conditions, during Trump’s chaotic trade war, Rollins, in addressing the Northern AG Network in July, congratulated Trump on his trade policies, saying that “I believe with every fiber of my being that prosperity is around the corner because of Trump’s trade negotiations.“

As a reminder, it was Rollins who told reporters on July 8, 2025,  that Medicaid recipients could replace farm laborers.

Individuals can provide comments by emailing [email protected] and are also encouraged to contact their senators and representatives. The comment period is open through September 30, 2025.

[i] See: USDA workforce according to Politico.

Trumps Tarrif War reduces income

Donald Trump’s tariff rates, ranging from 10 to 41 percent on goods from more than 90 countries, took effect after midnight on Thursday.

His move to reignite his trade war, particularly against Canada, Mexico, and China, will result in a 2.7% reduction in income for the bottom 20% of earners, while the top 1% will lose 0.6%.

The Yale Budget Lab estimates that the overall price level resulting from all tariffs enacted in 2025 will lead to an average household income loss of $2,400 in 2025 dollars. Other analyses project even higher costs, with some estimating a $3,800 annual loss per household from consumer price increases tied to all 2025 tariffs.

While US tariff revenues have risen significantly, they still constitute a small portion of the federal budget deficit. The projected fiscal year 2025 federal budget deficit is $1.9 trillion. The increased tariff revenue, even with recent increases, amounts to roughly 7% of that figure. 

Such a minor increase in revenue puts to rest Trump‘s idea of entirely replacing the federal income tax with new tariffs.

To replace the roughly $2 trillion of revenue raised by the individual income tax with tariffs would require astronomically high tariff rates.

 Raising tariff rates to astronomically high levels would significantly depress imports, making it impossible to generate enough revenue to offset the costs of Trump’s tariff rates fully.

Watch Out! The GOP Is Coming After Your Money!

Like thieves in the night, the Republicans have been hiding their intentions in the shadows lest anyone find out what they are actually up to. And just like those thieves, they won’t break into your house through the front. Instead, they’ll go around to the back door. It’s not so obvious that way.

This week, a prominent member of the administration, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, proudly revealed their subtle plot. On Wednesday, he stated that the so-called “Trump accounts” Republicans created for children in their tax and spending bill are “a back door for privatizing Social Security.”(1) Like the thieves, the Republicans can’t be up front about their plans, they have to sneak through a “back door.”

The Republicans ultimate goal, the destruction of Social Security (along with Medicare and Medicaid), has always been somewhat out in the open. We’ve all known it, but until Bessent’s statement, it was something that most Republicans would vigorously deny.

In fact, Republicans have stated over and over again that they were not planning to touch Social Security. Unfortunately, they said the same things about Medicare and Medicaid, and we have all seen what happened to those programs when they took power.

The GOP would object and say, “We’re not planning to destroy Social Security; we just want to ‘privatize’ it.” But what would that mean? It means that your money will be taken from the safe and secure government accounts and distributed to private investment firms and banks — you know those kinds of businesses in which the C-suite executives are paid tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Where do you think that money comes from?

And, while they’re at it, the Republicans also plan to eliminate all fiscal regulations on these firms such as fiduciary requirements. That will allow all manner of investor fraud to occur, not to mention abuse and waste.

The argument they make is that private firms can earn higher returns on investment than the government. This may be true in some cases, but it is also true that investment firms and banks have, at times, lost money through overly risky opportunities and sheer incompetence. Some of these firms have even gone bankrupt losing all of their clients’ capital (after paying out inordinate sums to their executives in salary and bonus packages). Remember the financial crisis of 2008? It included the collapses of Lehmann Brothers and Bear Stearns as well as the government bailouts (using taxpayer dollars) of JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley because they were “too big to fail.” Again, your money became their money without them having to go through the trouble of breaking the law.

Of course, once your funds are in the hands of these greedy people, you can expect to be charged all manner of “fees” in order to help pay for the exorbitant salaries and bonuses. There will be “maintenance fees,” “investment fees,” “administrative fees,” and so on. I anticipate that, under this scenario, the “fees” will steadily grow no matter what your return on investment is. Rather than receiving an annual letter from the Social Security Administration telling you about next year’s increase in your payments, you’re likely to get a bill from your investment banker for next year’s inflated fees.

But Social Security is going broke the Republicans argue. Yet they won’t take common-sense steps to save it like removing the arbitrary cap on Social Security taxes. It’s only there to keep the wealthy from having to pay more. Rather than save the program, the GOP would prefer to let it self-destruct even if it means that millions of Americans, some of whom are Republicans, will lose their only source of income.

Why are Republicans so adamant about privatizing Social Security? Because they see this HUGE pot of money in the government’s coffers that they and their billionaire backers can’t get their hands on. They lust after that money to the point of obsession. They aren’t really concerned about whose money it is, as long as they can get it somehow: like thieves in the night.

(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/business/bessent-trump-social-security.html

At-risk Rural Hospitals in Nevada

In June, several Democratic U.S. Senators sent a letter (1) to President Trump, Speaker Johnson, and Majority Leader Thune outlining the consequences of the soon-to-be-passed reconciliation bill (the Big Ugly Bill). The letter warns that “these cuts will have devastating consequences for health outcomes and costs, jobs, and the economic success of rural communities.”

Attached to the letter is “information provided by the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina (that) illustrates what your party’s reconciliation bill will mean for the health of Americans living in rural communities.”

The attached study identified the at-risk rural hospitals by state. The study looked at how “(s)ubstantial cuts to Medicaid or Medicare payments could increase the number of unprofitable rural hospitals and elevate their risk of financial distress. In response, hospitals may be forced to reduce service lines, convert to a different type of health care facility, or close altogether.”

The study named hospitals that meet one or both of two financial criteria: (1) the hospital is in the top 10% (ten percent) Medicaid payer mix of rural hospitals across the country, (2) the hospital has experienced three consecutive years of negative total margin. This means these rural hospitals face greater risk of being forced to stop providing some services, converting, or closing.

In Nevada, two hospitals were specifically identified as “at-risk” under these criteria. These were

1. Battle Mountain General Hospital in Battle Mountain and

2. Humboldt General Hospital in Winnemucca.

While neither of these is in our area (they are both in Congressional District 2), the study does illustrate the situation that rural hospitals face. Should one or both of these institutions be forced to close, the population using their services would then have to find (and travel to) other hospitals that will provide care to them. This will, in turn, increase the economic pressures on the other hospitals and possibly putting them at risk as well. There could be a snowball effect throughout the state.

Recently, the Mesa Valleys Progress published a story (2) about Mesa View Hospital titled “Hospital launches fundraising for critical expansion.”

The article begins “Hospitals can benefit all of us in our most vulnerable time of need. They must focus on providing quality health care, irrespective of costs and patients’ ability to pay; they serve all. However, the reality is hospitals must manage organizational costs, pay their bills and provide levels of service that match their financial position. Oftentimes, the hospital’s range of services fall short of what all local residents need, so patients are forced to travel elsewhere for care. This is the story of Mesa View, a critical access hospital and one of the 14 (fourteen) rural hospitals in Nevada.”

It goes on to describe how Mesa View is planning to expand in the future to meet the growing needs of our communities. The article explains that “(i)n order to fund the expansion, Mesa View Hospital has established a Friends of Mesa View Fund. The fund is a registered 501(c)(3) and is held at the Wyoming Community Foundation. Donations to the fund are tax deductible and directly support expanding specialized health care services, beginning with cardiology. Too many residents are traveling to St. George or Las Vegas for health care services currently unavailable at Mesa View, a trend the hospital is committed to reversing.”

It seems that, even in these uncertain times, Mesa View Hospital is committing to ensuring good health care in northeast Clark County. Having been a patient myself at Mesa View, both in the ER and the regular hospital, I can agree with the article’s assertion that “the real anchor level of services is Mesa View’s emergency room, the gold standard in the community.” Let us hope that the at-risk rural hospitals situation doesn’t negatively affect this fine facility.

(1) https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_on_rural_hospitals.pdf

(2) https://mvprogress.com/2025/07/15/hospital-launches-fundraising-for-critical-expansion/

Western State AG’s Hear Range of Fear

On April 16th, four Western state Attorney Generals (AGs) met in Denver, Colorado, to hear a range of fears concerning Trump’s disastrous Make America Great Again (MAGA) strategy. 

Colorado Attorney General Philip J. Weiser introduced his fellow AGs, including Nick Brown of Washington, Anne Lopez of Hawaii, and Aaron Ford of Nevada. He told a packed house of concerned citizens that “nobody is above the law” and that “we live under the rule of law, not the rule of whim.” [i]

AG Brown followed Weiser, telling those assembled that not one of Trump’s actions, including his orders, is the law. Things we worry about, he said, like education, transportation, and health, are under threat and require actions by federal, state, and local governments and the people to resist Trump’s drive towards oligarchy.

A speaker taking to the microphone expressed concerns about losing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds in Denver. She told the crowd that, in addition, hiring freezes were reducing farm support, impacting families with children, people with disabilities, and transgender individuals.  

The four AGs heard about Trump’s reduction of housing eligibility. A speaker told the AGs that the historical focus on the needs of homeless adults meant providing “Housing First” across all elements of the homelessness response system.

However, Trump moved to criminalize homelessness by appointing Robert Marbut to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Marbut proposed the “Housing Fourth” approach to criminalize panhandling, banish homeless services to city outskirts, and treat food and shelter as privileges, thus following Trump’s agenda of criminalizing homelessness.

The AGs and those attending heard that Trump’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) approach denies life-saving programs to transgender individuals while forcing Businesses to drop DEI programs out of fear of Trump’s retaliatory nature.  

Ola Kukoyi, the Executive Director of the Good Shepherd Organization, expressed her concerns about the acts of Immigration Enforcement to hinder free speech and their illegal deportation actions, which are creating a Constitutional Crisis leading to the end of fundamental human rights not seen since the Holocaust crisis.

When asked what they [AGs] are doing, AG Brown expressed his fear and that of his family, but said that none of that can match those fearing ICE snatching them off the streets. He pointed to Trump, Vance, Steven Miller, Kristi Noem, and Marco Rubio as lying. Brown said, “We cannot get used to it, even though we know it is going to happen,” adding, “We will continue to tell the truth, bring actions, and support people and organizations without a voice.” [ii]

The AGs heard concerns about Small business owners who depend on international cooperation feeling defeated, people going without homes, and a mental health crisis in the short and long term. They heard about Trump’s strategy to undermine transgender health needs.

The crowd and the AGs heard that the current federal administration emboldens a white national agenda while pushing bills to undermine fundamental human rights for millions, all of which require people to hold our federal government accountable to the law and increase awareness of these power abuses.

A speaker told of his friend who lived in a car with his wife and small child. Then, the Speaker said his friend got a job working in construction, but when two men attacked him, those assaulting him blamed him for the altercation, and ICE intervened, took his phone, and put him into custody while being denied legal help. Now, the Speaker said,  the man’s wife and child are on the streets.

Continuing, the Speaker reminded the crowd that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to take people without due process under the guise of Christianity. The law is a social contract, the Speaker added, that when broken, fascism takes root. The Speaker said that’s where we are right now, then he asked, “Will anyone hold this administration accountable? The Speaker concluded by saying that we have no protection if we don’t do this right now.”

A Federal Firefighter Management Team member told those assembled that they had 44 teams last summer, reduced to 41 now, raising concerns about further drops. Trump has terminated 37% of the Forest Service firefighters, she said. 

Of course, speakers raised concerns about the Supreme Court’s decision to return the authority to regulate or ban abortion to individual states, resulting in criminal penalties in many of the states.

[i] President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002. He formed the largest, most extensive spy and enforcement ring in our Nation’s history. Before its creation, intelligence gathering fell into two separate domains under the National Security Act of 1947, including 1: Defense Agencies and the CIA, and 2: Domestic (FBI). Under that umbrella, powerful national intelligence assets (for example, the National Security Agency) were, with rare and judicially approved exceptions, not available for use within the borders of the United States, primarily to ensure that Constitutional rights remained inviolable and enforceable.

With the formation of DHS came the consolidation and merging of data records (Including recently IRS records), helicopters, planes, drones, Predators, and, most importantly, fusion centers across the country, allowing local and federal law enforcement to collaborate on intelligence gathering and surveillance. The internet also provides a significant source of information for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Federal agencies monitor social media platforms for investigations and threat identification. However, the internet can also be used for propaganda, misinformation, secret operations, and counterintelligence.

DHS has a workforce of 260,000 employees and 22 components, including the Transportation Security Agency (TSA, Customs and Border Protection, Cyber Security and Information Security Agency (CISA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, and the Science and Technology Directorate.

With a Budget of $52.2 billion, Congress confirmed Trump’s pick of Kristi Noem, former Governor of South Dakota, with experience staging phony political stunts, to head HHS in January 2025

See Foley, Hoag, “State AG Insights”  for a list at: State AGs Take the Lead in First Month of Trump Opposition | State AG Insights | Foley Hoag LLP

Click Here