Town hall tour centers on agriculture in Mitchell visit
Jun. 12—MITCHELL — On Wednesday evening, Dakota Wesleyan University hosted a town hall that brought together fewer than 50 local farmers and community members for a focused conversation on the challenges facing South Dakota's agriculture sector.
The event was part of a statewide series organized by Nikki Gronli, former USDA Rural Development state director and former vice chairperson of the South Dakota Democratic Party, and Julian Beaudion, a Democratic Party candidate for U.S. Senate, aimed at giving South Dakotans a platform to share their concerns.
Previous town halls in Rapid City, Aberdeen, Vermillion, and Sioux Falls attracted larger crowds and allowed participants to raise a wide range of issues, including cuts to Medicaid, the Department of Education, and the impact of trade tariffs.
For the Mitchell meeting, however, organizers decided to narrow the discussion to focus solely on agriculture, a vital part of South Dakota's economy and culture.
"We decided to switch things up for this town hall," said Gronli. "Instead of letting people bring up any topic like before, we wanted to try focusing on just one issue and see what the response would be."
Joining Gronli and Beaudion on the panel were Marcia Bunger, a farmer and former administrator at the USDA's Risk Management Agency under President Joe Biden, and Al Merrill, a third-generation farmer from Parker. The discussion covered key agricultural concerns including economic pressures, federal policies, labor shortages, and funding for research and innovation.
Bunger opened by outlining the tough financial outlook for farmers this year. According to Bunger, corn prices have fallen below $4 per bushel and soybeans are under $10, while costs for seeds, fertilizer, and equipment remain high. Many farmers face losses ranging from $50 to $100 per acre on corn, with even greater losses on soybeans.
"Farmers are not going to make any money this year," Bunger said bluntly.
This economic pressure was not new, she said, recalling the 2017 trade war with China that sent corn prices tumbling below $3 per bushel.
"Tariffs get placed on the backs of farmers every time there's political tension," she said.
Labor shortages were also a key topic, especially regarding the reliance on immigrant workers for harvesting fruits, vegetables, and dairy production. Bunger described how immigration enforcement actions have disrupted farming communities.
"When ICE shows up and just drags people away, it hurts the farms, and it hurts families," Bunger said.
Merrill added that many immigrant workers are eager to work and are essential to the farm economy.
Beaudion emphasized the interconnectedness of these issues. He pointed out that South Dakota farmers export nearly a billion dollars in products through West Coast ports, which also rely on immigrant labor.
The panelists agreed that immigration is both a human and economic issue that requires bipartisan attention. One audience member suggested reviewing immigration policy every five years to adjust to changing needs.
The group then turned to federal policy, focusing on the farm bill — a comprehensive piece of legislation that governs agricultural and food programs nationwide, typically renewed every five years. Since the 2018 farm bill has been extended twice, its uncertain future is causing concern among farmers. Gronli noted that some parts of the bill may be folded into a reconciliation act with a 2031 deadline, potentially creating confusion and overlap.
Broader federal budget cuts also sparked discussion, including reductions to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits and local food programs. Beaudion explained that a 10% cut to SNAP could increase monthly food expenses for South Dakota families by approximately $267.
Joel Allen, director of the McGovern Center at DWU, raised questions about the McGovern-Dole Food for Education program, the largest school-based feeding initiative globally, which faces funding uncertainties. Gronli confirmed that many food assistance programs have seen reductions.
"These cuts affect the children of the next generation," Beaudion said.
Merrill suggested that farmers would likely support a universal school lunch program to help children and strengthen communities.
Another concern raised was the potential loss of USDA staff, with up to 25% of the workforce expected to leave by September. Gronli warned this could mean a significant loss of institutional knowledge in rural areas.
"That's institutional knowledge walking out the door, and many of these federal workers hold some of the best jobs in small rural communities," she said.
Industry concentration in meat processing also came under scrutiny. Frank Kloucek, a farmer and former state legislator from Scotland, highlighted the growing foreign ownership of major companies like Smithfield and Tyson. He advocated for restoring country of origin labeling (COOL), which requires meat products to be labeled with their country of origin, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting local producers. Kloucek also called for stronger enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, a law designed to promote fair competition and protect farmers from unfair practices in livestock and meat markets.
Bunger shared an example from the poultry industry, where farmers who invested heavily in building barns lost contracts and insurance coverage after avian flu outbreaks forced companies to remove birds. Because the farmers did not own the birds, they faced substantial debt without compensation.
"That sent shivers down my spine thinking about what could happen to our pork producers," she said.
The panel also emphasized the importance of agricultural research and disease prevention. Merrill stressed ongoing investment in protecting livestock from diseases like avian flu and foot-and-mouth disease is essential to safeguarding the food supply. Kloucek lamented that short-term budget cuts threaten long-term research projects.
"If you're not in it for decades, you're not really in it," he said.
As the evening concluded, Beaudion encouraged attendees to stay engaged and communicate with elected officials.
"Don't talk about nonsense. Talk about the things that matter to South Dakotans," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
19 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press. Related Articles When Are July 2025 SNAP Payments Coming?Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid FundingNew York State Facing Lawsuit Over SNAP BenefitsSNAP Recipients Get Extra Money This Month in California 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
The Issue That Can Damage Republicans the Most
Amid all the news that Donald Trump creates, and there's a lot, one story stands out for its unrivaled potential to damage the president's political standing: the Republican effort to pass a huge budget bill that, among other things, would kick millions of people off Medicaid. Above all else, this is what Democrats should be focused on. The polling on this legislation is terrible, and with good reason. It's one thing to ask for belt-tightening in a spirit of shared sacrifice, but the One Big Beautiful Bill Act doesn't reduce the deficit at all — on the contrary, it adds nearly $3 trillion to the national debt. And that's an underestimate. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, if all its changes were made permanent, the bill would add closer to $5 trillion in new debt. Nor can economic growth avert this fiscal catastrophe. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that on a 'dynamic scoring' basis — which usually reduces the cost of legislation — the price tag of the bill actually goes up by nearly $400 billion due to higher interest rates. This upward pressure on interest rates will spread through the economy and slow growth.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. Why It Matters The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. What To Know The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. What People Are Saying Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. What Happens Next Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press.
