JASON ESTEVES: Georgia farmers deserve disaster relief they were promised
It's been more than 215 days since Hurricane Helene tore through Georgia, and our farmers are still reeling. Crops were lost. Trees and barns collapsed. Equipment was ruined. Many farms — some family-owned for generations — were brought to their knees.
Congress stepped up. On Dec. 21, 2024, lawmakers passed a bipartisan federal disaster relief package with $21 billion earmarked for agricultural recovery. That funding was designed specifically to help farmers in Georgia and other storm-ravaged states recover from Helene and get back on their feet.
But here's the reality: That money still hasn't arrived. Not in Valdosta. Not in Bainbridge. Not on the land where it's needed most.
And the clock is ticking.
Every week without that funding is another week farmers can't replant, rebuild or restock. It's another week of falling behind on loans, watching bills pile up, and wondering if next season is even possible.
Let's be clear — this isn't a handout. It's the support that Congress promised and passed into law. The $21 billion is supposed to provide direct aid for storm-damaged farms, cover crop and livestock losses, repair destroyed irrigation and fencing systems, and help farmers re-enter the market with some stability.
In south Georgia, where agriculture isn't just an industry but a way of life, the stakes couldn't be higher. Our farms feed families, power small-town economies, and anchor communities. When our farmers suffer, our entire state feels the impact.
To be fair, some limited relief has started to flow — like USDA indemnity payments and disaster loans through the Small Business Administration. But those programs were never meant to be the main solution. The comprehensive agricultural relief — the $21 billion Georgia's farmers were promised — is still tied up in red tape in Washington.
Meanwhile, frustration is boiling over. And rightly so.
We've heard a lot of talk about standing up for farmers. But now is the moment when those words have to mean something. It's time for the USDA and the federal government to finish the job and get this funding out the door.
As someone who's worked alongside small business owners and families trying to recover from unexpected setbacks, I understand how critical timely support is. Delays don't just stall progress, they drain hope.
That's why I'm calling on state leaders — regardless of party — to demand immediate action from Washington. We can't let politics stand in the way of south Georgia's recovery.
Hard-working families in Lowndes, Decatur, Seminole and Tift counties aren't asking for special treatment. They're asking for the help they were told was coming.
If we don't act, we risk losing more than just this year's crop. We risk losing family farms. We risk weakening the backbone of Georgia's rural economy.
It's time to deliver on the promise made to our farmers. No more delays. No more excuses. Georgia deserves better.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
32 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Republicans rediscover the one weird trick that actually cuts spending
Dominic Pino is the Thomas L. Rhodes journalism fellow at National Review Institute and host of the American Institute for Economic Research podcast 'Econception.' Well, this is awkward. After the relationship between President Donald Trump and businessman Elon Musk very publicly soured, Congress is considering action on the primary product of that relationship: spending cuts suggested by the U.S. DOGE Service.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Mayor Lurie made ‘painful' cuts in his S.F. budget proposal. The hurt is far from over
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said he made 'painful decisions' when assembling his recent budget proposal that would slash nonprofit contracts and shrink the City Hall workforce. But the hurt is far from over. Lurie recently told the Chronicle that he is still eyeing a more ambitious overhaul next year as he tries to erase a deficit that's projected to reach as much as $700 million in the 2028 fiscal year. Complicating Lurie's plans to rein in city spending is the fact that the Trump administration has already moved to claw back federal funds from San Francisco and could try to take more money away. And a Tuesday report from the city controller's office warned that proposed Medicaid cuts advanced by Congressional Republicans could further hurt city revenue — as could a potential recession. Lurie's city spending plan would eliminate about $185 million in grants and contracts over two years and cut about 100 filled jobs from the government payroll. The proposal would help Lurie close a massive budget shortfall, but unions and nonprofits quickly decried what they view as an unwarranted assault on community groups that provide crucial services to residents and businesses. Despite the early resistance, however, Lurie's inaugural budget blueprint does not represent a massive reorganization of the San Francisco bureaucracy, nor does it compare to the layoffs the city last experienced during the Great Recession. Next year could be a different story. In an interview with the Chronicle last week, Lurie indicated that he sees the current budget negotiations as a prelude to his plans for 2026. This year, his budget proposal was all about 'right-sizing,' he said. For next year, he has a different word in mind: 'restructuring.' 'This was a really focused budget on delivering core services (and) right-sizing our government,' Lurie said. 'And it does not mean the work is over. It was never going to be that way. … We have a lot of work to do ahead of us.' It's not yet clear what Lurie's promised restructuring will look like. The mayor's budget plan this year already proposed combining two city departments beset by scandals into one agency. And a February executive directive that Lurie issued on permitting reform said the city should explore how it might merge 'key permitting functions' into one department. Just how difficult Lurie's budget calculus will be in the coming year depends heavily on what happens at the national level. San Francisco's nearly $16 billion budget relies on more than $2 billion in operating revenue from the federal government, the vast majority of which comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements. Funding changes under consideration in Congress could hurt the city, but it's how much it might lose. The controller's Tuesday report said the proposed federal budget bill 'represents the biggest set of cuts to Medicaid since inception and could result in thousands of San Francisco residents disenrolling from the Medi-Cal program and reduced funding for the Department of Public Health.' Lurie has proposed setting up a $400 million reserve that the city could tap into to offset any major funding cuts from President Trump or Congress. The controller found that the reserve amount was 'commensurate to risk.' Another unknown is the extent to which any national economic downturn could harm San Francisco's budget, and Lurie's ability to bring city spending in line with revenue. The controller's report noted that, while unemployment in the city is stable and office attendance has risen, technology and hospitality companies continue to lay people off. Trump's tariffs and immigration crackdowns could further strain the economy. Regardless of what happens nationally, Lurie has said he is already trying to end 'the era of soaring city budgets' and wants city officials to 'start living within our means.' His proposed cuts represent a reckoning for nonprofits after years of flush city budgets that saw millions flow to third parties in exchange for providing crucial social services. Now, many of those organizations are reeling from deep cuts that could force layoffs and the shuttering of programs. Some San Francisco legal aid organizations are facing deep cuts that they say could lead to more homelessness and less access to legal services for the needy. One legal aid organization's director is going on a hunger strike to protest the cuts. The Latino Task Force, Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, the Chinatown Community Development Center and dozens of others are facing cuts that will impact services. The People's Budget, a coalition of city advocacy groups that every year proposes changes to the mayor's budget, has a 'walkthrough' of all the groups they have heard from that are losing funding. Anya Worley-Ziegmann, lead coordinator for the San Francisco People's Budget Coalition that advocates for nonprofits facing cuts, said in a statement that Lurie's budget proposal threatens 'essential services for food security, workforce development, legal aid, and children and families facing homelessness.' 'We cannot balance the budget on the backs of working class and marginalized communities while at the same time claiming to be a city that cares for all its residents,' Worley-Ziegmann said. Lurie also is being slammed by fiscal conservatives who believe he should have made deeper cuts to the city's 33,000-person workforce and take on the city's 'nonprofit industrial complex,' a moniker critics have given to the large contractors that do work on behalf of the city. A previous Chronicle analysis found that San Francisco has an unusually high amount of public sector workers per capita, especially among public health and library employees. Marie Hurabiell, founder of the neighborhood advocacy group Connected SF, praised Lurie for taking on the city's nonprofits and contractors as well as his effort to 'right-size' the budget after years of what she said was 'overspending' related to the pandemic. But she said those changes will only get San Francisco to the level of spending it had before COVID, and there are many more cuts to be made to downsize the government so it better reflects the city's relatively small population. One way to do that is by doubling down on accountability, she said. 'For years there's been a lot of money flowing and our services have not been great,' she said. '(Lurie) is probably trying to be very thoughtful and methodical (about future cuts), but I'm hoping he will be more impactful.' The existing job cuts in Lurie's proposed budget also drew some criticism from the executive committee of the San Francisco Democratic Party, which is controlled by moderates who generally share Lurie's politics. Committee members said in a statement that Lurie's budget overall 'demonstrates bold leadership during a time of unprecedented fiscal challenge.' But party leaders said they were 'very concerned about the proposed reduction of city jobs currently held by San Francisco employees.' 'Cutting these roles not only disrupts lives and livelihoods but also risks weakening the long-term capacity of government to meet the needs of its residents,' the statement read. Party chair Nancy Tung said the committee doesn't have a position on where budget cuts should come from if those 100 jobs were preserved. But she said the committee hoped Lurie and supervisors would be able to find a way to prevent any city employees from being laid off. She also acknowledged that the city's financial condition had put Lurie in a tough spot and praised him for issuing a hiring slowdown on his first day in office. 'I don't envy where the mayor is in terms of having to do this,' Tung said. 'I also know that this is very hard for him, too. He is trying to do it as humanely as possible.' Tom Li contributed reporting.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Nine reasons for cautious optimism about individual liberty
Aristotle's axiom 'one swallow does not make a summer' suggests caution in anticipating large reverberations from a Supreme Court ruling last week. But the court's unanimous affirmation of a principle that is commonsensical but now controversial might indicate its readiness to temper the racialization of American law and governance, to which the court has contributed. In 2019, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual Ohio woman who had worked in a state agency since 2004, was denied a promotion for a job that went to a lesbian colleague with less experience at the agency and lesser academic credentials. Ames was subsequently demoted to a position involving a 40 percent pay cut, and her prior position was filled by a gay man. Ames filed a lawsuit saying she was discriminated against, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because of her sexual orientation. She lost in a district court and in her appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which held that she had not demonstrated 'background circumstances' (not defined, anywhere) to justify her suspicion of discrimination. This demonstration requires, the 6th Circuit said, a member of a majority to show that her employer is 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' The court heard this case not to decide the merits of Ames's accusation but to consider her extra burden in making them. In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's short (nine-page) opinion for the court, she noted that 'disparate treatment' (discrimination) claims generally rest on 'circumstantial evidence,' but only members of a majority have the additional evidentiary burden of demonstrating 'background circumstances.' Jackson briskly held that Title VII draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, it concerns unlawfully hiring, discharging or otherwise discriminating against 'any individual' (Jackson's emphasis). By stipulating protections for every 'individual,' Congress 'left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' Jackson quoted the court's language in the 1971 Duke Power Co. case: 'discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed' (Jackson's emphasis). In Duke Power, however, the court greased the nation's slide into laws that recognize, in order to privilege, groups. The court conceded that the company did not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. It nonetheless was guilty of illegal discrimination because when making promotions it administered an aptitude test that had a 'disparate impact' on groups: 58 percent of White candidates and 6 percent of Black ones passed. By creating an illegal discrimination of effects, severed from intentions, the court opened a path to racialist thinking and laws. And a racial spoils system based on the theory that disparate social outcomes should be blamed on 'systemic' racism. So, racism will persist until 'the system' — a.k.a., society — is dismantled and reassembled equitably, which might take a while. Such language — systemic injuries to certain (not all) minority groups — undermines a foundational American premise: that rights (and responsibilities) inhere in individuals. This has helped to create today's simmering stew of grievances: the toxic binary of oppressors and oppressed, grievance groups versus groups aggrieved by being accused of complicity, even if unintentional, in oppression. Justice Jackson's opinion focused, properly, on the narrow question of what Title VII requires and does not mandate. Justice Clarence Thomas, however, in a 14-page concurrence (joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch) deplored 'problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks.' By now, much constitutional law is 'judge-made': extracted from, not found in, constitutional or statutory texts. Including some doctrines that conservatives rightly applaud, such as the 'major questions' doctrine: Executive agencies should not exercise powers of vast economic and political significance unless Congress has clearly and explicitly authorized this. Other examples: Miranda warnings (by police), the exclusionary rule (excluding illegally seized evidence from trials), the nondelegation doctrine (limiting Congress's ability to delegate to executive agencies essentially legislative powers). The 'background conditions' requirement for majority plaintiffs is, however, unambiguously discrimination mandated as social policy, implausibly tickled from Title VII language. How will Jackson apply her 'individuals, not groups' reasoning when, soon, the court announces its ruling in a case from Louisiana under the 1965 Voting Rights Act? The core issue there is: Does a map of six congressional districts, drawn after the 2020 Census, constitute 'vote dilution' that denies a particular group, Black voters, a 'meaningful opportunity' to elect candidates of their choice. No such language is in, or implied by, the Voting Rights Act, or is compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws for individuals.
