logo
In new budget, Mass. Senate Democrats to propose $25M for healthy food program

In new budget, Mass. Senate Democrats to propose $25M for healthy food program

Yahoo06-05-2025

Bay State families struggling with their food bills could get some extra help if a western Massachusetts lawmaker has anything to say about it.
The budget plan that majority-Senate Democrats are expected to unveil Tuesday will fully fund the state's Healthy Incentives Program, which allows qualifying people to buy locally grown fruits and vegetables from participating farmers.
The language, backed by Sen. Joanne M. Comerford, D-Hampshire, Franklin, and Worcester, would provide some $25 million in funding for the new fiscal year that starts July 1, up from the current $15 million.
'It really speaks to this critical moment,' Comerford, of Northampton, said of shifting federal winds that affected social services programs across government.
The 'HIP' program, as it's known in legislative shorthand, traces its roots to 2017. It is intended as an adjunct to the federal government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), sometimes referred to as 'food stamps.'
With that federal program potentially on the chopping block on Capitol Hill, Comerford and her allies exclusively told MassLive that the expanded state support is even more critical.
'It is urgent and timely and necessary,' Comerford, the vice chairperson of the budget-writing Senate Ways and Means Committee, said.
If it's finally approved, the additional money would also restore the maximum benefit under the program to $80 a month for a family of six or more. Right now, that benefit is flat-funded at $20, irrespective of the size of the household.
The state was forced to trim support for the program after huge demand, which meant that an initial round of funding that was supposed to last three years was exhausted in 10 months, Rebecca Miller, the policy director for the Massachusetts Food System Collaborative, said.
The advocacy group has been pressing the case for full funding for months, arguing that it provides a critical lifeline to hungry families and the farms that serve them.
'It's been devastating for farmers,' she said. 'A lot of farmers grew products to serve folks [in the program],' she said. 'Anecdotally, we've heard about people going to food pantries and having less options. Seniors have had to rely on other sources for food.'
At the same time, 'we've seen a lot of chaos from the federal government,' as it's cut other programs that support access to fresh fruits and vegetables, including one that allowed schools to buy farm-fresh foods.
That, too, rolled downhill on farmers.
'A lot of folks are scrambling, trying to figure out what they are going to do,' she said.
If the new Senate language is approved, the infusion of additional taxpayer cash means families can buy 'tomatoes, lettuce, carrots, apples, strawberries and blueberries,' from local growers to augment the food they purchase through SNAP, Comerford said.
And that also matters because every county in Massachusetts experienced some degree of food insecurity in 2023, according to the Greater Boston Food Bank. All told, that came out to 1.9 million adults, or 34% of the state's total population.
In Bristol, Hampden and Suffolk counties, 45% of adults reported food insecurity in 2023, data show.
The number is even higher among families with children, with 1 in 3 households with children statewide reporting food insecurity in 2023, the same data shows.
The issue is particularly pressing in western Massachusetts, where the prevalence of child-level food insecurity hit 43% in 2023, data show.
As a practical matter, that means a child went hungry, skipped a meal, or didn't eat for an entire day because there wasn't enough money for food.
It also comes as families in Massachusetts and nationwide continue to contend with high prices on supermarket shelves, while the Trump administration says it's working to bring them down.
'Food insecurity is real. It's happening to people all over the state,' Nicole McKinstry, of McKinstry Farms, which participates in the program, told MassLive.
McKinstry told MassLive that she's seen families with children come into her shop on Montgomery Street and heard them turn down their kids' pleas for strawberries and raspberries because they need to buy such longer-lasting produce as potatoes.
'It's hard for them to understand why they can't get those fresh fruits and vegetables,' she said.
McKinstry said she's had to make financial adjustments, trimming staff to account for that reduced state funding. The program also helps her through the leaner winter months when there's not as much fresh produce at hand.
While the Senate plan that's expected to be unveiled on Tuesday is one voice in the annual budget derby, it is far from the final one.
Democratic Gov. Maura Healey included $18.8 million for the program in the $62 billion spending bill she filed earlier this year. The $61.4 billion budget proposal approved by the majority-Democrat state House last week sets aside $20 million for the program.
That means the final amount, like nearly everything else surrounding the state's final budget, will have to be ironed out in closed-door talks that could stretch well into early summer.
Comerford, the veteran of more than a few budget battles, is hoping for the best.
'It has been a win-win kind of program,' she said.
More political news
Read the original article on MassLive.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) played the feud between President Donald Trump and former DOGE henchman Elon Musk for laughs on Thursday. (Watch the video below.) Approached by Spectrum News 1 about the fracture in their bromance, the smiling AOC said: 'Oh man, the girls are fighting, aren't they?' The progressive lawmaker could be forgiven for a little regressive humor. She has been one of the Democrats' most vocal opponents of Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' ― the legislation that actually ignited the Trump-Musk row. Musk called the spending measure an abomination and once Trump finally expressed his disappointment in the Tesla magnate and Trump mega-donor, things turned personal between the two. The bill is being ironed out in the Senate and would reportedly ax 11 million people off Medicaid over time. Ocasio-Cortez had made a similar prediction last month. 'When this country wakes up in the morning, there will be consequences to pay for this,' she said at the time. But perhaps she didn't see the bill resulting in the breakup of DC's premier platonic power couple. For a moment anyway, it was something to crack wise about. AOC on Musk and Trump: "the girls are fighting aren't they ?"💀 — Winter Politics (@WinterPolitics1) June 6, 2025 Stephen Colbert Spots The Musk-Trump Feud Moment That Proves 'Things Are Bad' 1 Subtle Barb In Trump-Musk Blow-Out Has Dana Bash Saying 'Wow, Wow, Wow' 'My Prediction': Jimmy Kimmel Reveals Ugly Next Phase Of Trump-Musk Feud

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Associated Press

time22 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know
Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know

President Donald Trump's 2026 budget proposal, known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' introduces significant changes to federal spending and tax policies. Read Next: Try This: While aiming to reduce non-defense discretionary spending and extend tax cuts, the proposal has raised concerns about its potential impact on retirees who rely on federal programs for income, healthcare and essential services. 'These potential shifts could slow benefit growth, raise Medicare premiums or target higher earners with stricter eligibility or tax rules,' said Aaron Cirksena, founder and CEO of MDRN Capital. 'The biggest concern is uncertainty right now, and retirees rely on predictability, so even these small changes can have a big impact on them.' Here are four things retirees need to know about Trump's 2026 budget proposal. According to Congressional Budget Office analysis, if Trump's budget proposal, currently being debated in Congress, raises the federal deficit by $2.3 trillion over the next decade, it would automatically trigger spending cuts, including a projected $500 billion cut to Medicare. Such cuts may lead to reduced payments to providers, potentially affecting seniors' access to healthcare services. An analysis by the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy organization, found that the 'bill would undermine access to long-term care by shifting costs to states, likely resulting in cuts to HCBS (Home-and Community-Based Services). It would also make it harder for people to qualify for Medicaid coverage and avoid gaps in care.' Find Out: Key programs under the Older Americans Act, such as nutrition services and caregiver support, are at risk of significant funding reductions or elimination. For example, the National Council on Aging found that the Trump administration proposes to move the Aging Network Support program to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and reduce the program's funding by over 40%. The program allows seniors to live independently in their homes. This matters for individuals saving for retirement, because adult children often incur significant costs for caring for their parents. According to an AARP study, 'On average, caregivers spend 26% of their personal income on caregiving expenses. One in three dips into their personal savings, like bank accounts, to cover costs, and 12% take out a loan or borrow from family or friends.' The budget proposes substantial cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which could disproportionately affect low-income seniors who depend on these programs for healthcare and food security. According to NPR, 'If approved, starting in fiscal year 2028, states would be required to pay between 5% and 25% of food benefit costs for the first time. … In addition, states would receive less federal support to administer SNAP. The proposed changes would decrease the federal reimbursement rate for administrative costs to run SNAP from 50% to 25%.' An analysis of the Medicaid and SNAP cuts by The Commonwealth Fund found that these changes create ripple effects that affect the economies of entire communities, not just low-income households. 'For example, some of the food purchased in Georgia may have been grown in Kansas or processed in Tennessee, so lower grocery purchases in one state may cause losses in other states,' the Commonwealth report stated. 'A nurse who loses her job at a Louisiana clinic might reside in Texas; thus, a job lost in one state could create economic losses in another.' While the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' proposes extending tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it does not include provisions to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, contrary to some expectations. The bill does introduce a new $4,000 standard deduction for seniors aged 65 and older, providing tax relief for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 and couples with incomes of $150,000 annually. However, the substantial tax cuts and increased spending outlined in the proposal are projected to add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. This significant increase in the deficit raises concerns among financial experts about potential future tax hikes to address the fiscal imbalance. 'If the proposal is passed, it could increase taxes on retirement income, making Roth conversions and smart withdrawal strategies more important than ever,' Cirksena said. 'The best move right now is do not wait. Review incomes, run scenarios and add some flexibility into your plan. Better to adjust early than react late.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 4 Housing Markets That Have Plummeted in Value Over the Past 5 Years 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money This article originally appeared on Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store