Iowa farmers can apply to receive economic relief through the USDA
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa — The American Relief Act of 2025 provided a $31 billion disaster aid package for farmers across the country and applications are open for them to get access to this support.
The legislation was passed in December 2024 and set aside $21 billion for natural disaster assistance and $10 billion in aid for farmers who experienced economic losses while growing 2024 commodities.
This legislation also extended provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill through September 2025.
Evacuation/shelter in place order issued because of Otley co-op fire
The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation's President Brent Johnson is a fifth-generation farmer in the state. He said that the 2024 crop year was difficult for Iowa farmers because they saw increasing costs for land, seeds, fertilizer and other crop protection services, equipment, and more. He also said that several weather events across the state and recent tariffs have negatively affected Iowa farmers.
'There's a lot of things that are not in a farmer's control. So, when those things do happen, storms, drought, too much rain, it really does affect the ability for farmers to make money. And you couple that up with some significant trade disruptions and it becomes really unstable for the farm economy,' Johnson said.
He also said that trade plays a vital role in Iowa's economy.
'We are really dependent on exporting and selling these commodities. We out-produce the needs of Iowans ourselves. So, we have to trade. We have to sell it to others. So anytime those trade conversations end up being unsettling, it ends up making farmers nervous at the farm gate,' he said.
According to the National Corn Growers Association, two main factors have challenged the market. They include higher input costs and a growing corn supply.
A higher input cost means that production expenses have remained high despite declining corn prices. This is similar to Johnson's point that inflation has increased expenses for farmers.
Some Warren County residents concerned over skyrocketing property evaluations
Furthermore, a growing corn supply creates more competition for Iowa farmers. More corn producers are available in the United States and outside the country, in places like Brazil.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) announced the relief application. It's called the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program.
They also shared the per-acre payment rates for 21 different crops. Corn is $42.91 per acre and soybeans are $29.76 per acre.
Farmers can access the application for this relief at their local FSA office or online.
While Johnson said this relief is helpful to farmers, he is hopeful a new Farm Bill will be passed that will create more stability for farmers in the future.
What to know about possible overnight severe weather
'Have you ever seen Chris Street play?': McCollum aims to create defensive identity at Iowa
Some Warren County residents concerned over skyrocketing property evaluations
First responder cancer coverage bill advances through Iowa Senate subcommittee
No tax on tips and overtime wages pushed for by Iowa House Democrats
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Indian Prairie School District 204 to increase breakfast and lunch prices
Students and families buying breakfast or lunch at Indian Prairie School District 204 schools can expect to see a higher price tag for meals next year, after the school board recently approved the district's request to increase prices across the board by 25 cents per meal. Previously, lunch was set at $3.30 for elementary school students, $3.40 for middle school students and $3.45 for high schoolers, per the district's website. Breakfast was priced at $2.25 for all students. The district also offers free breakfast and lunch to eligible students, and reduced rates of 30 cents for breakfast and 40 cents for lunch for students who qualify. Next school year, lunch will cost $3.55 for elementary school students, $3.65 for middle school students and $3.70 for high school students paying full price for meals, according to a memo from the district's Director of Support Operations Ron Johnson to the school board that was included in Monday's meeting agenda. Breakfast next school year will cost $2.50 for those paying full price. The following school year, prices will increase by another 25 cents for lunch, while breakfast prices will remain at $2.50, per the memo. The meal price increases were approved unanimously by the district's school board at the meeting on Monday evening as part of the consent agenda. According to the district's memo, the increase is required for compliance with the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, passed by Congress in 2010. The district says that legislation requires that they ensure there are sufficient funds provided to the nonprofit school food service account to serve lunches for students who are not eligible for free or reduced price meals. Reimbursements for free and reduced price meals cannot subsidize the cost of paid lunches, the district noted. The 'true cost' of providing lunch to district students, a memo from Johnson to the board states, is actually $6.14, but the cost to break even is around $5.36 when factoring in the revenue generated by paid student meals and a la carte items as well as federal reimbursements from the United States Department of Agriculture. According to Johnson's memo, the district is currently paying its food service provider, OrganicLife, about $4.41 per lunch served and about $2.31 for breakfast.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Republicans Have a Revenue Problem
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Congressional Republicans love to talk about the deficit and federal spending, particularly when Democrats are in power. Before he became House speaker, Mike Johnson argued in his 2018 statement titled '7 Core Principles of Conservatism' that America was facing 'an unprecedented debt and spending crisis.' In Johnson's view, Congress had 'a moral and constitutional duty' to bring expenditure under control. In 2023, before he became the Senate majority leader, John Thune inveighed against 'reckless, out-of-control government spending' and argued that if spending reform is a priority for the GOP alone, then there is 'something seriously wrong with the Democrat Party.' They had a point. Aside from the brief period from 1998 to 2001, the federal government has run deficits for more than 50 years. When Ronald Reagan entered office, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio—a standard metric economists use to measure government indebtedness—stood at just 32.5 percent. It currently stands at 121 percent, an extraordinary level for peacetime. In President Joe Biden's last year in office, the government brought in revenues of $4.9 trillion against outlays of $6.75 trillion, resulting in a deficit of $1.8 trillion, or about 6.4 percent of GDP. And President Donald Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act will only compound the problem: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that its proposed extension of his 2017 tax cuts for another 10 years will add more than $2.4 trillion to the national debt. The United States is now experiencing a structural deficit with potentially dire fiscal consequences. Serious efforts to curb spending—which DOGE is not—are desperately needed. Yet the task of closing the huge gap in our government finances has another dimension besides cost-cutting: Raising revenue, too, is desperately needed. [Jonathan Chait: Why DOGE could actually increase the deficit] The Republicans' focus on spending—when they're not responsible for it—obscures the fact that the U.S. collects significantly less money as a share of GDP than comparable countries, and less than it has taken in historically. Among OECD countries in 2023, the United States ranked 32nd out of 38 for the revenue it collects as a share of GDP. Among advanced industrial democracies, only Ireland and Chile collect less. And at 17 percent of GDP in 2024, federal revenues are well below their peak of nearly 20 percent in 2000, at the end of the Clinton administration. The following year, the United States enjoyed a $128 billion surplus, and the Congressional Budget Office projected that the national debt would be paid off by 2009. Instead, tax cuts under George W. Bush in 2001 added $8 trillion to the deficit; a further round of cuts by Trump in 2017 contributed another $1.8 trillion. Spending went up as well, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that 37 percent of the current deficit can be attributed to these tax cuts. For the Republican Party, tax cuts are now divorced from any specific fiscal context and have become a way of life. In a fusion of ideology and self-interest, a powerful nexus of monied interests, lobbying groups, members of Congress, conservative intellectuals, and media worked together to enforce anti-tax orthodoxy and stamp out dissent. Tax cuts were one of the few policy areas that the party's disparate factions—Wall Street Republicans, Main Street Republicans, Silicon Valley libertarians, and social conservatives—could all agree upon. Yet this long-established anti-tax consensus now confronts several looming challenges. The first is the party's shifting composition. The Republican base has become more populist in temperament and more working class in character, and low-income voters are less sympathetic to tax cuts that mainly favor their high-income peers. Recent polling by the Pew Research Center reveals that a plurality of Republicans and Republican leaners actually prefer raising taxes on households with incomes greater than $400,000, by a margin of 43 to 27 percent. (Among all Americans, 58 percent favor raising taxes on those with high incomes, whereas only 19 percent favor lowering them and 21 percent would keep them level.) Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's claim during his confirmation hearing that high-income 'job creators' need the incentive of tax cuts may have been welcome to the GOP's wealthy donors and 'starve the beast' enthusiasts, but such views are now a minority in the party. A second challenge is the distributional impact of the new bill's tax-cutting measures. Many commentators wonder why, during a time of record deficits and debt, a further round of upper-income tax cuts is necessary. Analysis from the Tax Policy Center notes that while average effective tax rates barely changed from 1945 to 2015 for most Americans, the rates for high-income households have fallen sharply. Tax Policy Center scholars have also noted that nearly half the benefits of an extension of the Trump cuts would go to the top 5 percent of households (those making $450,000 or more). Democrats have been quick to seize on the inequity of cutting Medicaid and SNAP benefits to finance this upper-income giveaway. The third challenge is that, by taking revenue increases off of the table, Republicans have saddled themselves with an unsolvable fiscal conundrum. Cuts on the order of 27 percent across the entire federal budget would be needed to bring spending in line with revenue. If major categories of expenditure such as Social Security, Medicare, defense, and debt servicing are exempted, spending cuts alone cannot tackle the deficit. Acknowledging the magnitude of this gap, a few fiscal hawks in Congress, such as Senator Rand Paul and the House Freedom Caucus, have called for even deeper cuts. But many Republicans fear with justification that such a course would bring grave political risk. What Republicans are not grappling with, but should, is the disconnect between their intellectual justifications and economic and fiscal reality. Their first rationale is that tax cuts ultimately pay for themselves in higher government revenues through increased economic growth. To be blunt, no persuasive evidence exists for this contention at either the federal or the state level, including in the record of the 2017 cuts now proposed for extension. Republicans' second rationale makes a more nuanced assertion that higher taxes will depress economic growth, reducing jobs and inhibiting the downward distribution of income. Yet rigorous comparative analyses across multiple countries have found no serious evidence to support this contention. The economist Paul Krugman has referred to such arguments as 'zombie' ideas that keep 'eating people's brains' long after their intellectual credibility is dead and buried. Buffeted by these forces, cracks are starting to appear in the GOP's anti-tax orthodoxy. Some MAGA voices, such as Steve Bannon, have recently come out in favor of a tax hike on the wealthy to finance cuts for the middle class. Others, such as Vice President J. D. Vance and Project 2025 eminence Russell Vought, have expressed interest in raising taxes on those earning more than $1 million a year. They met fierce resistance from Republican luminaries such as Newt Gingrich, Larry Kudlow, Sean Hannity, Mike Johnson, and Ted Cruz. And the ultimate enforcer of tax-cutting orthodoxy, Grover Norquist, recently compared any Republicans willing to consider tax increases to a 'little cancer cell in the party.' Trump himself has tried to have it both ways, toying with the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy to cater to his populist base without actually doing anything to forestall his tax-cut extensions. His gesture toward putting America on a sounder financial footing is to argue that his tariffs can play an important role in replacing income-tax revenues. The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that, under certain configurations, tariffs could raise significant additional revenues over the next decade. But all credible projections suggest that tariffs will be unable to compensate for the lost income tax. They are also a highly regressive form of taxation that may spark retaliation by other countries, result in higher inflation, and reduce both economic growth and the tax revenues that flow from it. [Read: Republicans still can't say no to Trump] Republicans who are serious about the deficit have several options. The most obvious one would be to close the gap between the tax revenues owed to the government and what it actually collects. The IRS estimates that in 2022, about 13 percent of taxes, totaling $606 billion, owed to the federal government under our existing tax code were not paid. Many analyses of federal tax policy and enforcement—including some by conservative scholars—have argued for beefing up the IRS, with a focus on high-net-worth individuals and households. Few investment opportunities yield a higher rate of return than IRS audits on upper-income filers, yet the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have moved in the other direction and sought to cut the agency's staff and funding. Other steps Republicans could take would aim to end tax breaks for the über-rich. Sunsetting the 2017 bill's higher estate-tax deductions, which now stand at $14 million for individuals and $28 million for married couples, would bring in an estimated $201 billion over the next 10 years. The state and local tax (better known as SALT) deduction changes in the proposed bill are extremely regressive, with much of the benefit flowing to upper-income households; they are another loophole that could be closed. Republicans could also raise revenue specifically for transportation infrastructure by increasing road-user fees and gas or mileage taxes. (The gasoline tax has been frozen at 18.4 cents a gallon for more than 30 years.) None of the above will be easy, or even possible, to achieve in this Congress. The Republican Party has come a long way from the days when Ronald Reagan raised taxes four times after his 1981 tax cuts led to higher projected deficits. The official posture of fiscal rectitude continues, but the GOP's $10 trillion secret—the amount that tax cuts have contributed to the national debt—is that, if forced to choose, many on the anti-tax right would prefer bigger deficits to higher taxes. The United States no longer has that luxury. The government's interest payments have become larger than its defense expenditures, debt-rating agencies are downgrading the U.S., bond traders are demanding higher yields on U.S. treasuries, and risks to the dollar as the world's reserve currency are piling up. To redeploy Thune's phrase, something is 'seriously wrong' with a party that worries about running deficits yet refuses to consider any sustainable way to pay for them—and instead slashes services to its rural and working-class constituents. Rigid principle must give way to pragmatism: Any genuine deficit-reduction conversation needs to include not just spending cuts but higher revenues. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nonprofit that operates group homes for homeless youth plans Tacoma expansion
A Gig Harbor-based nonprofit is buying houses to provide a place for unhoused young people to get back on their feet. While their model has shown some success at a small scale, the organization is expanding with a new home in Tacoma. In 2018, Harbor Hope Center received its home through a private, anonymous donor. The center's executive director Daniel Johnson told The News Tribune the home was donated after the owner's book club read a book about alleviating poverty. The book club learned in 2018 roughly 150 students in Gig Harbor were couch surfing without a permanent place to live. At the time, Harbor Hope Center was a new organization aimed at breaking the cycle of homelessness among youth and young adults. With the first home, its model was realized. Johnson told The News Tribune there is a 'thin line' between being housed and homeless, especially for youth and young adults. 'Homelessness starts somewhere early,' he said. 'And it can happen to any young person that doesn't have family support.' Harbor Hope's goal is to provide that support. Shortly after getting the first home, the organization acquired a second home in the same neighborhood with funding from the Washington State Department of Commerce's Housing Trust Fund. The second home was acquired for about $265,000. The two houses now serve as group homes for up to 12 people between the ages of 18 and 24. While staying at the home, they receive mentorship, life-skills coaching and therapy with the goal of finding permanent housing and self-sustainability. Brandon Vuylsteke, the operations manager for the homes, said residents receive one-on-one case management from staff customized to the client. They participate in career- and life-skills workshops and substance-abuse therapy if necessary. Harbor Hope also offers transportation to get clients to school, work or appointments. Johnson said it is through early intervention that the organization aims to prevent young people from entering a cycle of chronic homelessness. 'We get someone living on a couch to never be on a couch again,' he said. According to Harbor Hope Center, its program has served 135 young people and has helped 95 into permanent supportive housing. Those who are not referred into permanent supportive housing often are reunited with family or referred into other programs. Johnson said people usually stay at the group homes between three and five months before finding a more permanent housing solution. Vuylsteke said young people usually stay an average of 90 days. According to him, the broad majority of people exit the group homes after receiving a referral into Pierce County's Rapid-Rehousing program. 'People are here because they are trying,' Johnson said. Vuylsteke told The News Tribune the organization is looking to expand both its connections with community organizations who can refer Harbor Hope Center new clients. Recently, it has been working with Coffee Oasis, a homeless youth-assisting nonprofit with locations in Tacoma, Port Orchard and Bremerton. They also work with local school districts such as the Peninsula School District and Tacoma Public Schools. Tacoma Public Schools is recognized to have one of the highest populations of housing insecure students in the state. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is a federal law to protect students experiencing housing instability, and it ensures that homeless children and youth have access to a public education. The McKinney-Vento Act defines homeless children as 'individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.' According to Tacoma Public Schools spokesperson Kathryn McCarthy, the district served 2,685 students through McKinney-Vento programming during the 2023-2024 school year. Of those, 414 were considered 'unaccompanied youth.' McCarthy told The News Tribune the district recorded 2,389 students who were experiencing homelessness or considered 'unaccompanied youth' during the 2024-2025 school year. Additionally, she said there are 202 students in foster care. Johnson said Harbor Hope Center is beginning its expansion into Tacoma and is close to closing a deal on a house in the city which will serve as another six-person group home. Johnson said the organization has received generous community support towards its existing group homes, with an estimated $50,000 to $60,000 in contributions. He told The News Tribune a local church volunteered to repair and paint a backyard fence and local Home Depot stores contributed materials and labor to completely rebuild the deck at one of the houses. 'Our goal is to have the nicest house in the neighborhood,' he said.
