by Tess Vrbin, Arkansas Advocate
March 25, 2025

Arkansas’ economy would lose thousands of jobs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue and federal funds if cuts to Medicaid and nutrition programs win congressional approval and the president’s signature, according to a Commonwealth Fund report released Tuesday.

The state’s gross domestic product would also shrink by almost $1 billion, the report from the health-care oriented foundation predicts. 

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a budget resolution in February that would clear the way for Congress to increase the federal deficit by as much as $4.5 trillion in order to pay for tax cuts, which benefit wealthy Americans more often than those with lower incomes. The resolution tasks House committees, including the one that oversees Medicaid, with finding $880 billion in spending cuts over the next decade.

If the spending cuts come to fruition and are spread out over 10 years, a cumulative $72.4 billion in Medicaid funding and $22.1 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding would be gone in 2026, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. Arkansas would lose $763.2 million in Medicaid funding and $129.7 million in SNAP funding.

Nearly a third of Arkansans – 875,153 – were enrolled in Medicaid as of March 1, and 235,927 Arkansans received SNAP benefits as of last week, said Gavin Lesnick, communications chief at the state Department of Human Services.

Nationwide, approximately 80 million people receive health care through Medicaid and approximately 42 million benefit from SNAP. Both are jointly funded by states and the federal government, so cuts on the federal end would put more responsibility on states to fund these programs, said Laura Kellams, the Northwest Arkansas director of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families (AACF).

“Our concern is that these types of proposals would end up taking the food off the table of hungry Arkansans and cutting the health care of Arkansans because the state wouldn’t be able to afford to pick up that difference,” Kellams said, citing declines in state revenue resulting from income tax cuts the Arkansas government has enacted over the past decade, most recently in June 2024.

Potential Medicaid and SNAP cuts would decrease Arkansas’ gross domestic product, or the value of its goods and services produced in a year, by $999.8 million in 2026, the Commonwealth report states. Arkansas’ GDP increased by 6.9%, the highest increase nationwide, in the third quarter of 2024, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Arkansas’ economic output would drop by $1.66 billion from the Medicaid cuts and $119.4 million from the SNAP cuts, and the state would lose a cumulative $156.6 million in federal tax revenue and $67.9 million in state tax revenue, according to the report.

The Commonwealth Fund also projects Arkansas would lose roughly 109,000 jobs as a result of the proposed cuts. About 600 of those jobs would pertain to SNAP, with about half in food-related sectors such as agriculture, retail grocery and food processing, and the other half in other business sectors as an economic ripple effect.

An estimated 5,600 of the remaining 103,000 lost jobs would be in the health care sector serving Medicaid patients at hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and other facilities. The other 4,700 lost jobs would be a ripple effect in other industries, according to the report.

Medicaid and its beneficiaries

Congressional Democrats reported earlier this month that 25 million people nationwide could lose Medicaid coverage under the likely cuts to the program. This includes more than 250,000 Arkansans, including 100,000 rural residents and 110,000 children, the report states.

Arkansas was among the 10 states with the most children in rural areas relying on Medicaid for health insurance in 2023, and was one of only six with more than half of its rural children on Medicaid, according to a January report from Georgetown University.

Medicaid spending cuts could financially strain health care providers in rural areas to the point they could stop serving Medicaid recipients or shut down completely, according to both the Georgetown report and Tuesday’s Commonwealth Fund report.

This means rural Arkansas could see the majority of the 103,000 projected Medicaid-related job losses, Kellams said.

Additionally, low-income people’s need for health care services would increase because they would develop more health problems if SNAP cuts reduce their access to food, Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance CEO Sylvia Blain said.

“If you’ve got cuts to your health care, you’re having to spend more of your income, whatever that may be, on health care, and then you are also cutting into your food budget,” she said. “You’re having to make harder decisions even if there were no cuts to SNAP, so the combination of those two things [is] kind of a one-two punch.”

Another likely overlap in the impacts of the proposed cuts would be in the proportion of elderly and disabled Americans who benefit from both SNAP and Medicaid or Medicare, Blain said. More than 45% of Arkansas households receiving SNAP include elderly and disabled beneficiaries, according to the Centers on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research institute.

More broadly, Arkansas is one of nine states that would likely end their Medicaid expansion programs if federal funding decreases, according to KFF Health News. Arkansas became the first southern state to expand Medicaid in 2013.

In January, Sanders unveiled a waiver request to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requesting the implementation of a work requirement for “able-bodied, working-age recipients” of the state’s Medicaid expansion program.

Arkansas implemented a work requirement for all Medicaid recipients in 2018, but it was struck down by a federal judge after 18,000 people lost coverage. Work requirements have become increasingly popular among Republican leaders in several states; AACF has repeatedly denounced such proposals.

SNAP and food insecurity

Only 69% of eligible Arkansans were enrolled in SNAP in 2020, the third-lowest participation rate of any state that year, according to USDA data.

AACF released a report in January calling for Arkansas to remove barriers to SNAP enrollment, including a lengthy application process and low ceilings on participants’ income and assets.

Regardless of whether more Arkansans are able to enroll in SNAP, fewer federal funds would result in fewer participants in the program, which could lead families to become more reliant on soup kitchens and food pantries, Blain said.

“If we reduce the amount of food that people are able to get through SNAP [and] they have to visit food pantries more often, that’s going to put even more pressure on an already very strained charitable food network that was intended to be an emergency source of food rather than someone’s regular source of food,” Blain said.

Arkansas has the highest prevalence of food insecurity in the nation, at nearly 19% in 2023, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in September 2024. The report defines food insecurity as being unable, at some time during the year, to provide adequate food for one or more household members because of a lack of resources.

Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has made feeding children a policy priority. She opted Arkansas into a federal summer nutrition assistance program for students in 2024, and the program will continue this year. Sanders also signed a law in February making school breakfasts free for all public school students in Arkansas.

The free school breakfast program will be funded by state general revenue, private grants and taxes from Arkansas’ billion-dollar medical marijuana industry, as well as some federal funds.

Support for both cutting income tax revenue and expanding federally-funded nutrition programs eventually becomes contradictory, Blain said.

“We’d have to raise taxes in one way or another in order for the state to step in and cover some of these costs,” if federal funding is cut, Blain said.

Kellams and Blain both said they support Sanders’ proposal to eliminate the state’s 0.125% grocery sales tax. Sanders has said the Grocery Tax Relief Act will make it easier for Arkansans to afford groceries. Local sales tax on groceries would not be affected.

Eliminating the grocery tax would cost the state $4.4 million in revenue, according to a fiscal impact analysis of Senate Bill 377 by the state Department of Finance and Administration.

USDA should prohibit “junk food” purchases with SNAP benefits, Arkansas governor says

The Legislature has yet to consider SB 377 since its introduction March 5, but Sanders still wants the bill to reach her desk by the end of the session next month, her spokesperson Sam Dubke said Monday.

Sanders also supports prohibiting SNAP recipients from buying highly processed foods. Senate Bill 217 also awaits legislative consideration and would require DHS to seek federal permission to make candy and soft drinks forbidden purchases with SNAP benefits.

Arkansas officials who have been working to reduce food insecurity should urge federal officials not to support the proposed cuts in the U.S. House budget resolution, Kellams said.

“We would hope that they would use their influence with our members of Congress to let them know that this is going backwards from what we’re actually moving towards, which is trying to make sure that we have no children hungry in Arkansas,” she said.

Congressional budget resolutions are non-binding, so it’s “impossible to make any kind of accurate projections” about future binding decisions about federal spending, Dubke said.

“The Governor has been clear that America is $36 trillion in debt, and President Trump and Congressional Republicans are right to look for ways to cut wasteful spending while investing in needed priorities,” Dubke said.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Report: Proposed Medicaid, SNAP cuts would cost Arkansas thousands of jobs, $1B in GDP appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

by Alex Baumhardt, Arkansas Advocate
March 24, 2025

The nation’s highest court declined to hear a petition that would have revived a landmark climate change lawsuit against the federal government, led by young Oregonians and their peers from across the country.

The court’s denial ends 21 youths’ decade-long fight for a trial where they could hold the U.S. government accountable for accelerating global climate change through lawmakers’ policies and fossil fuel subsidies. Despite the setback, it has spurred dozens more cases like it in individual states and around the world.

The nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court denied Monday a petition to throw out a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case Juliana v. United States. The Supreme Court justices dismissed the petition without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs could attempt to bring it back one day.

Juliana v. United States was first filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene in 2015. Eleven Oregon youths and 10 of their peers from Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, who were between 8 and 18 years old at the time the suit was filed, are listed as plaintiffs.

Among them is Miko Vergun of Beaverton, who said in a news release that she was proud of the impact the case has had on more than 60 similar lawsuits filed against other states and nations.

“For almost ten years, we’ve stood up for the rights of present and future generations, demanding a world where we can not only survive, but thrive,” Vergun said. “We’ve faced extreme resistance by the federal government, yet we’ve never wavered in our resolve.”

Vergun, now 22, has been involved in climate activism since she was in seventh grade, according to Our Children’s Trust. She was born in the Marshall Islands, a Pacific island nation, and attributed her activism to making sure that land stays above sea level.

In the U.S., the Juliana case most recently inspired Held v. State of Montana and Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation, both of which led to 2024 decisions affirming the youth plaintiffs’ state constitutional rights to a clean, healthful and life-sustaining environment.

Since 2015, fossil fuel companies, the U.S. Department of Justice, former President Joe Biden, current President Donald Trump and Republican states attorneys general have filed court documents to dismiss the case and to keep it from going to trial.

Most recently, in May, three Trump-appointed judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with the U.S. Department of Justice in ordering the case be dismissed. In June Julia Olson, attorney for the youth behind the case, filed a request for a rehearing with the Ninth Circuit.

Oregon’s U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, filed a “friend of the court brief” urging the court to grant it. It was signed by 39 other congressional Democrats, including Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, state Rep. Val Hoyle, representing Oregon’s 4th Congressional District and former state Rep. Earl Blumenauer, who represented Oregon’s 3rd Congressional District.

“The Supreme Court’s decision today is not the end of the road and the impact of Juliana cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone,” Olson said in a news release.

Olson said the trust would continue supporting other cases worldwide, and that she would see the U.S. government back in court one day soon. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of the case, and Our Children’s Trust noted in its news release that the court hears less than 2% of the cases it’s brought each year.

“This fight is far from over,” Olson said. “This is a call to all young people who want to stand up to those in the executive office of the president who would silence you and threaten your health and safety — join us in protecting your constitutional rights.”

Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Shumway for questions: info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post U.S. Supreme Court declines to revive landmark climate suit brought by young Oregonians appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

by Rich Shumate, Columnist, Arkansas Advocate
March 24, 2025

Little Rock witnessed a tale of two events last week that says a lot about the troubled state of American politics.

At the first event, voters incensed by two months of chaos in Washington gathered at the First United Methodist Church on Center Street downtown, filling every pew in the 750-seat sanctuary, as well as the balcony and the choir seats behind the pulpit. Those who couldn’t find a seat stood around the edge of the sanctuary and at the back of the church; more than 100 people were turned away.

The energy, and the anger, at this town hall meeting were palpable, as speaker after speaker talked about the impact President Donald Trump and adviser Elon Musk and their minions are having on Arkansans from all walks of life — veterans, children with disabilities, Medicaid patients, farmers, immigrants and scientific researchers.

Meanwhile, eight blocks away at the Capital Hotel, U.S. Sens. Tom Cotton and John Boozman, who were both invited to the town hall, were instead rubbing elbows with donors at a high-dollar fundraiser for Cotton’s reelection campaign that featured Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and a smattering of Stephenses and Dillards, with a Rockefeller thrown in.

It cost $1,000 to mingle, $7,000 to dine, and $10,000 to be on the host committee. To thwart would-be protesters, the location of the fundraiser was only disclosed to ticket holders, although details started to leak on social media in the hours before the event.

Given that Cotton, Boozman and Hill’s own in-person town halls have become as rare as a duck-billed platypus, organizers of the Second Congressional District town hall had little expectation that any of them would accept their invitation. (Hill’s scheduler said he was “not available to participate”; Boozman and Cotton didn’t respond.) Organizers left empty chairs for all three just in case.

“You are here because they won’t do their job,” said Chris Jones, the 2022 Democratic candidate for governor, who moderated the event. “It ain’t that hard. There are only a few things you need to do. One of them is to provide a check on the madness that is coming from the executive branch.”

There is, of course, nothing that requires French, Cotton or Boozman to meet in a public setting with their constituents, except perhaps a sense of duty that should go with the elected offices that they hold. Had they attended last week’s event, they would no doubt have gotten a rough reception. People are ticked off.

But that’s part of the job. If you seek public office, you shouldn’t be able to hide away from the public you represent because they make you uncomfortable. And you should represent, and be answerable to, all of your constituents, not just the ones who voted for you or agreeably nod their heads at everything you do.

Alas, Arkansas’ congressional delegation has little political incentive to engage with voters in an uncontrolled public setting. Hill is relatively safe in a racially gerrymandered district; Cotton and Boozman have little to fear in a very red state. They seem to believe they can disregard angry voters with impunity.

Perhaps they’re right about that, although it was notable at the town hall that the crowd gave one of its most vigorous ovations to Marcus Jones, the retired Army officer who ran against Hill last year, after he pushed back against Musk’s targeting of veterans’ programs, which is increasingly becoming an albatross around Republicans’ necks.

“Our veterans swore an oath, and when we did, we wrote a check. And that check could be up to the cost of our own life,” Jones said. “And part of that bargain is the government would take care of us. And the Trump administration is causing our nation to turn its back on that promise.”

In addition to a lack of incentive to endure public scrutiny, Arkansas’ congressmen may have a more pressing reason to avoid voter engagement, rooted in their political timidity in the face of the MAGA takeover of the Republican Party.

For instance, Hill, to his credit, has been an outspoken supporter of Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Imagine, then, if someone at the town hall had asked him whether he supported Trump’s attempt to humiliate Zelenskyy, cut off support for Ukrainian freedom fighters and align U.S. policy with the Kremlin.

He could not answer that question honestly without generating headlines that would anger the MAGA base. So it’s easier just to avoid getting the question.

Likewise, Boozman is a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and has made supporting veterans a key part of his legislative career. But if someone asked him if he supports plans by Musk’s DOGE operation to cut 80,000 positions from the Veterans Administration, which will compromise services to veterans, he’d have to choose between honesty, sycophancy or evasion. Easier, then, to play hide-and-seek.

The list of difficult questions for our congressional representatives goes on and on. Do they support staff cuts at the National Park Service that will affect services at the Buffalo River and Hot Springs National Park? Representing a tornado-prone state, do they support firings at the National Weather Service, which helps keep us safe? Or at FEMA, which helps us recover after disaster hits?

What is their view on kneecapping life-saving research at UAMS, the University of Arkansas and Arkansas Children’s Hospital through cuts to National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation funding? On eliminating the Department of Education that insures educational access for disabled students? Or stripping the Little Rock-based aid group WinRock International (established by Republican Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller) of funding by dismembering USAID?

How do they plan to protect Arkansas farmers from the damage caused by Trump’s tariffs? Or the jobs of folks at Lockheed Martin’s plant in Camden who make missiles being sent to Ukraine?

If our congressmen expressed any doubt about Dear Leader and his unelected billionaire sidekick, there would be hell to pay.  It would also raise another thorny question that they wouldn’t want to answer — if you oppose these actions that are harming Arkansans, then why aren’t you doing more to stop Trump and Musk?

On the other hand, if members of our delegation actually support chaos, mindless budget cuts and indiscriminate firings, shouldn’t they be willing to defend them in public? Where is the courage of their convictions?

The essence of representative government is that the people we elect should represent us, engage with us, and listen to us. When they refuse to do so in service of their own political survival, it has a corrosive effect on democracy, as voters who don’t feel listened to, or represented, grow increasingly frustrated and angry.

Our congressional delegation has shown no sign that they give a hoot about that frustration and anger. We should not expect them to turn up anytime soon to answer questions in an environment where they can’t control the narrative. But that doesn’t mean voters shouldn’t continue to ask their questions more urgently and forcefully — even when they’re only talking to empty chairs.

That’s what democracy looks like, to the degree that we still have democracy left.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Citizens deserve answers from congressmen, even when questions make them uncomfortable appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com