Latest news with #HouseBill386
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Gov. Kay Ivey signs grocery tax cut into law
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey delivers the State of the State address in the Old House Chamber at the Alabama State Capitol on Feb. 4, 2025 in Montgomery, Alabama. (Will McClelland for Alabama Reflector) Gov. Kay Ivey Friday signed a bill reducing the state sales tax on groceries. HB 386, sponsored by Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, will cut the state share of the tax from 3% to 2% effective Sept. 1. 'When we can reduce taxes in Alabama and provide some relief to the hardworking people of this state, I am all for it. I was pleased to sign House Bill 386 to take another notch off our state grocery tax,' Ivey said in a statement. Alabama is one of just a few states that still taxes groceries. Until September 2023, the state taxed groceries at the full 4% state sales tax that's been around since 1939. Combined with local taxes, the total tax on food in Alabama ran as high as 10% in some places. In Montgomery, a family spending $600 a month on groceries could pay up to $60 in taxes. The Legislature in 2023 reduced the state sales tax on groceries from 4% to 3%. But it also required growth of at least 3.5% in the Education Trust Fund (ETF), which gets most of the grocery tax. Compared to the previous fiscal year, the current 2025 ETF has grown 3.28% this year, compared to the 2024 ETF at the same point, but budget chairs indicated they were comfortable with moving forward. Under the new legislation, the tax bill on $600 worth of groceries in Montgomery will go from $54 to $48. Lawmakers also changed the bill to allow local governments to reduce their sales and use tax on groceries, effectively combining HB 387 with the legislation — which the House passed in March and a Senate committee in late April. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
USA Today
03-05-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Louisiana may soon recognize silver, gold as currency, according to proposed legislation
Louisiana may soon recognize silver, gold as currency, according to proposed legislation Show Caption Hide Caption What's really going on with gold prices? Gold recently reached a record high as geopolitical tensions pushed investors towards the traditional safe play. Merryn Somerset Webb explains what's going on - and where things could go from here. Bloomberg - Politics Louisiana House Bill 386 proposes making gold and silver official currency in the state. The bill defines key terms related to precious metals and currency and outlines the Louisiana State Treasurer's role in implementing the law. The bill stipulates that gold and silver currency cannot be used for loans or investments and remain the depositor's property. The bill aims to be cost-neutral to the state's general fund. A proposed bill before the Louisiana Legislature aims to establish gold and silver as currency in the state. Bossier City Republican Representative Raymond Crews' House Bill 386 designates gold and silver as official currency. Here's what you should know. Proposed bill establishes gold, silver as currency HB 386 defines "bullion," "bullion depository," "currency," "deposit," "depositor," "depository account," "depository account holder," "pooled depository account," "precious metal," "specie" and "treasurer." In case you missed it: Gold breaks $3,500 as investors continue to seek safe haven amid economic uncertainty According to the proposed law, the Louisiana State Treasurer is authorized to adopt rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act as necessary or convenient to implement the use of gold and silver as currency. It also specified that the treasurer will not authorize or implement any rules or assume any duties beyond those roles and duties necessary to make gold and silver a means of currency in the state. The treasurer may issue and establish gold and silver specie as currency and choose to contract with a bullion depository of another state or a private vendor with the state. The proposed law stipulates that currency, bullion or specie cannot be used for loan or investment funding, and all currency established under the proposed law remains the depositor's property. The depository is also barred from withholding a depositor's currency or enforcing a waiting period for currency withdrawal. Money received pursuant to the proposed law, specie or bullion purchased and deposited in the pooled depository account, and money received from the sale of specie or bullion are not subject to legislative appropriation under certain circumstances. It also permits the treasurer to establish a fee for the issuance or redemption of the currency to cover the costs of administering the proposed law. HB 386 also stipulates that the state cannot incur additional costs to the state general fund to administer the provisions of the proposed law. Follow Ian Robinson on Twitter @_irobinson and on Facebook at
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers debate bill that could forever alter lawn care: 'This policy safeguards the health of … our children and grandchildren'
Maryland has introduced a bill requiring its Department of Agriculture to ban certain pesticides, including PFAS, or "forever chemicals," according to CBS News. This bill may cause some worry about the impact on lawn treatments, but are fewer chemicals in our environment necessarily a bad thing? There's more than meets the eye with this proposed bill. President Donald Trump temporarily halted proposed Environmental Protection Agency limits, affecting protections under the Safe Drinking Water Act set for 2027, as noted by CBS News. This rollback prompted Maryland to introduce legislation to limit harmful chemicals at the state level. Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown stressed the importance of the regulations, telling CBS News that "this rule permits water systems across the country, including here in Maryland, to regulate and treat these harmful substances." Environmental advocate Adrienne Esposito of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment expressed concern, saying, "This is really a tragic setback for water protection throughout America." In response, according to CBS News, Maryland joined 17 other states in defending stronger regulations to remove forever chemicals from drinking water. Chemical contamination isn't limited to lawn treatment. Companies have used PFAS in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals and as a water repellent in everything from nonstick cookware to clothing since the 1940s. The problem? PFAS can take hundreds or even thousands of years to break down, seeping into groundwater and contaminating drinking water, which may lead to serious health risks. But here's the good news — if House Bill 386 passes, the Department of Agriculture will distribute the list of prohibited chemicals by January 2026, and they will be banned by June 2028 for use on residential lawn care and schools and health care facilities. The ban on these chemicals and PFAS means a safer environment and cleaner water for us all, and it will have a greater positive impact than we can imagine. Brown summed up the importance of this effort by telling CBS News: "By making our drinking water cleaner, this policy safeguards the health of not only our generation but also our children and grandchildren." Do you think the government should ban gas-powered lawn tools? No way Definitely Only certain tools I don't know Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. For those opposing the bill, lawmakers have noted they are not singling out farmers with this ban, according to WMDT. However, some landscapers and veterinarians in the state have raised concerns about the ban potentially having negative effects on the efficacy of products, increased costs, and the usage of parasiticides to treat pets. However, research has already suggested that pet owners should pay attention to active ingredients in flea treatments to avoid toxic chemicals. In regard to the potential benefits, according to WMDT, toxicologist Linda Birnbaum said: PFAS "are readily absorbed through the skin, creating a dangerous occupational hazard for farmers and farm workers exposed to PFAS in pesticides used in the field, in the air, and when produce is handled." And if you're concerned about how this may affect your lawn care, don't worry — plenty of safe and natural alternatives can keep your lawn beautiful while protecting the environment. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
CBS News
17-02-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Proposed bill could ban certain pesticides with PFAS chemicals in Maryland
A proposed bill in Maryland could require the Department of Agriculture to ban certain pesticides and PFAS, or forever chemicals, from being used in the state. Under House Bill 386, the Department of Agriculture would have to develop a list of certain pesticides that have forever chemicals as active ingredients. Those listed chemicals would not be allowed to be used or sold in the state. If the bill passes, the Department of Agriculture would need to draft and distribute the list of prohibited chemicals by January 2026. Those listed chemicals would be prohibited from use at healthcare facilities and schools, and could not be used for residential lawn care or mosquito spraying, according to the proposed legislation. By June 2027, the department would not be able to register the listed chemicals for sale, and by June 2028, the listed chemicals would be prohibited. What are PFAS chemicals? PFAS chemicals are known as forever chemicals because they take thousands of years to break down in the environment. PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) are used in many settings and have been since the 1940s. The chemicals are often used to repel water. They can be found in products like car seats, non-stick cookware, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and clothing. Research has found that forever chemicals are present in the bloodstreams of most Americans, CBS News reported. The chemicals are toxic to humans and animals and exposure can cause health impacts. Forever chemicals have been found to enter the body through drinking water. Forever chemicals in drinking water The proposed bill comes after President Trump paused federal limits on chemical discharge in drinking water. The nation's first PFAS regulations were set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2024. The Safe Drinking Water Act was to be implemented in 2027. The measure required public water utility providers to test for six different types of PFAS chemicals to reduce exposure in drinking water. In announcing the regulations, the EPA said the standards would reduce PFAS exposure for 100 million people and prevent thousands of deaths and illnesses. The EPA made $1 billion available to states and territories for public water systems to implement the regulations. "This is really a tragic setback for water protection throughout America," Adrienne Esposito with Citizens Campaign for the Environment told CBS News. "And this rule would have caused industry to participate in reducing PFAS, and instead, it sends a signal to industry, you can poison us as much as you want." Forever chemicals in Maryland Maryland leaders have taken a stand against forever chemicals in recent months. Just after Mr. Trump halted EPA limits, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown joined 17 other states in defending the Safe Water Drinking Act, arguing that it would improve public health. "This rule permits water systems across the country, including here in Maryland, to regulate and treat these harmful substances," said Attorney General Brown. "By making our drinking water cleaner, this policy safeguards the health of not only our generation but also our children and grandchildren." In December 2024, the AG sued W.L. Gore & Associates, a manufacturing giant based in Cecil County. The lawsuit alleged that the company knowingly polluted the air and water with forever chemicals for more than half a century, contaminating drinking water, soil, plants and animals.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Second bill to restrict Medicaid expansion goes down, but one to help participants heard
Photo illustration by Getty Images. A bill to help people stay on Medicaid for 12 months without having to submit and resubmit paperwork unnecessarily would save time and money, supporters said this week. Sponsored by Rep. SJ Howell, D-Missoula, the bill would ensure parents, caretaker relatives, and Medicaid expansion participants won't have to reapply if they only have slight changes to income. The policy, called 'continuous eligibility,' is already in place in Montana for children and pregnant women, Howell said. They said it is good for people's health to have consistent coverage, and it streamlines administrative processes. 'I think we could consider this a red-tape relief bill,' Howell said. The bill, House Bill 386, includes an aspect of Medicaid expansion. A separate bill, House Bill 245, would keep Medicaid expansion in place and will be up for a hearing in the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Safety committee on Monday after clearing the House. This week, the Senate voted down a couple of other bills that would have restricted or phased out Medicaid expansion, although with warnings that the Legislature could find itself in a special session given anticipated cuts at the federal level. Rep. Ed Buttrey, R-Great Falls, is sponsor of House Bill 245, to continue Medicaid expansion. Buttrey said he does not believe a precipitous drop is imminent, and Montana must plan based on current law, not on 'what ifs.' 'Federal law has funding at 90-10. That's how we plan for it today because that's the federal law,' Buttrey said. 'If the federal law were to change, we would potentially have decisions to make.' Buttrey said he believes the chance Congress will reduce funding quickly is low. Currently, the state puts in $1 for every $9 from the feds. 'I don't think we'll see a massive drop, if any,' Buttrey said of federal support. 'If Congress did say, 'We do want to reduce the (match),' I believe it would be over time, so they would give states a chance to adjust.' If the match falls below 90%, to continue the program, the Legislature would have to appropriate money, the state would have to apply for a waiver to increase premiums to people in the program, or a combination of both. One day after voting down a bill to slowly sunset the program, the Senate turned down a bill by Sen. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls, that would have tied the program to work requirements, currently written into Montana law, but not approved at the federal level. Proponents of Medicaid expansion, which allows people at 138% of the poverty level to be insured, point to data that show small hospitals are on the ropes and will face closures without it. Trebas, though, said the health care system is already in trouble, and the smaller hospitals are a symptom, and larger ones are sinking, too. 'Small rural hospitals are simply the canary in the coal mine,' Trebas said. The Senate voted down his bill, Senate Bill 199, on a 23-27 vote with nine Republicans joining Democrats in opposition. In the House Human Services committee, proponents of continuous eligibility said it helps seasonal workers, and it helps hospitals and clinics have less uncompensated care and account for fewer uninsured patients. A fiscal analysis said it will cost $5 million to implement in just the first year and $10 million the second year, and Howell acknowledged — 'I won't lie' — the bill requires big money up front. However, they said the savings will be substantial, and the legislation will mean more Medicaid dollars going to health care instead of paperwork and bureaucracy. 'That's the goal of the program, to ensure that people are healthy,' Howell said. ' They're able to care for themselves and their families, get to work and participate in the community.' Supporters said it improves health because people don't avoid care, helps people seeking treatment for addiction stay in recovery, and uses taxpayer money efficiently. Jennifer Hensley, on behalf of the Montana Academy of Physician Assistants, said she would appeal to the frugality of legislators. 'If not passing this, you're stepping over dollars to pick up dimes, and that wouldn't make sense,' Hensley said. Other supporters include the Montana Medical Association, the Montana American Indian Caucus, the Montana Budget and Policy Center, the American Heart Association, and Catalyst Montana. The committee did not take immediate action on the bill Thursday.
