Senate budget action includes YDC Settlement Fund, landfill moratorium

The Senate Finance Committee on Monday approved changes to the Youth Development Center Settlement Fund and a moratorium on new landfills.
A new provision in the Senate budget proposal would make the administrator of the YDC Settlement Fund a political appointee subject to a vote of the Executive Council to serve at the 'pleasure of the governor.'
The current administrator, John Broderick, was appointed by the state Supreme Court with the support of Attorney General John Formella and lawyers representing an overwhelming majority of alleged victims of sexual or physical abuse at the the state's youth detention centers.
Broderick is a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court and has come under criticism for his handling of settlement payments.
Chuck Miles is a YDC abuse survivor who is on the board of YDC Victims, an advocacy group.
"The Senate's proposal to remove any semblance of impartiality surrounding the YDC Settlement Fund administrator is an affront to YDC victims who have voluntarily paused their constitutional rights to a court trial with the understanding that the settlement fund would be a fair, impartial process," Miles said in a statement.
"Adopting this measure combined with a dramatic underfunding in the first year of the budget is an abandonment of the settlement fund by the state and a slap in the face for all victims who were promised justice. We encourage the Legislature to change or remove this unfair measure and stand by their promises before the budget is finalized."
Landfills
The Senate budget panel also approved a scaled-down version of the House-passed moratorium on the construction of new landfills.
Sen. Howard Pearl, R-Loudon, worked out the Senate position that would reduce the moratorium from three years to one and significantly scale back the powers of a new site evaluation commission to review landfill permit applications.
The Senate language also would give preference to expansions of existing landfills over new ones.
Gov. Kelly Ayotte had called for a one-year moratorium.
klandrigan@unionleader.com

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

34 minutes ago

• Yahoo

What the business world has to like (and not) in the Senate version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'

The business community has some clear wins in a Senate version of President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" but it isn't getting everything it wants. The Senate's Finance Committee's 549-page blueprint contains significant changes, especially on taxes, Medicaid funding, and clean energy. One proposal was quickly embraced by the business community: a Senate-side push to make corporate tax deductions permanent around things like interest payments and new capital investments. But a less popular idea is the survival of the so-called revenge tax that would allow the government to levy new duties on foreign nations and their businesses. That idea was introduced in the House version and sparked fears of reduced foreign investment. The version released last Monday pares back the tax but doesn't eliminate it entirely, as corporate lobbyists had asked. Specific industries also have plenty at stake from Senate changes if they make it into law. Businesses that work in clean energy will have more time to adjust to the phase-out of Biden-era credits. Restaurants and gig economy companies have more limited tax breaks for tips and overtime. Healthcare providers will also have to adjust to even steeper cuts to Medicaid's provider tax structure — perhaps the most surprising and significant overall change in the Senate version. What the Senate version of the bill doesn't appear to have — as Elon Musk and others had pushed for — is a significant change in the final price tag. Both versions are expected to add trillions of dollars to the debt. The Senate version also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, compared with $4 trillion in the House version. The bill does have one clear cost-saving measure: slashing the annual deduction for individual state and local taxes (SALT) from $40,000 to $10,000. But that provision is described even in the bill's official summary as "the subject of continuing negotiations," with defenders of the deduction pledging to restore the full credit forthwith. The Senate version earned a quick flurry of Republican pledges — from fiscal hawks to defenders of those SALT deductions to those who object to the Medicaid cuts — to vote no if the final version isn't changed to their liking. "We're not seriously addressing our long-term deficit and debt," Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters soon after the unveiling, reiterating that he remains a no. The back and forth comes just weeks ahead of Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said sticking to that timeline means Senate passage by the end of this coming week. Ed Mills of Raymond James offered in a note that "we continue to view the July 4 target as ambitious" — suggesting that SALT and Medicaid provisions in particular could be under continued debate in the days ahead. Here is a closer look at some of the major business world changes being proposed by the Senate: A key focus for business owners is a series of tax deductions that will reinstate credits for corporations around things like property depreciation, capital investments, new factory construction, interest expenses, and research and development costs. These provisions were present in the House version but only temporarily. Permanency was a key Senate priority once they took over, even as it is expected to increase the price tag. The bill "powers the economy by permanently extending critical pro-growth provisions and introduces new incentives for domestic investment, providing certainty for American job creators to spur domestic economic activity and invest in their workers," offered Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo as he unveiled these provisions. The Senate version also enhances credits for "opportunity zones," which provide tax relief in rural and distressed communities. The bill also includes Trump's campaign promises of no taxes on tips and overtime, but in a more limited form. Employees would be able to deduct up to $25,000 annually for tips and overtime, in contrast to the House's approach of 100% deductibility under certain income limits. The Senate blueprint also includes a rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles. The changes in the Senate would make that phaseout slower — zeroing out some key credits by 2028 — but with a bottom line that Republicans across the spectrum are united in eliminating these benefits entirely. Amy Hanauer, executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reacted to the released proposal by saying that "the emerging clean energy economy will be curtailed and for what?" "Our communities will be worse off as a result of this legislation,' she added. On the fossil fuel side, the Senate bill continues to include changes to make permitting less laborious, open up new lease sales, and reverse a fee on excess methane emissions. The Senate bill also includes a controversial plan to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate's provisions are less airtight, stopping short of the outright ban proposed by the House, but are expected to remain a point of contention and potentially an issue for the Senate parliamentarian, given the Senate's complex reconciliation rules. Other changes in the bill appear to cut against business interests at least slightly. The Senate bill makes permanent the so-called pass-through deduction — formally called a 199A deduction for small businesses — but at the current rate of 20%. The House version also had permanency, but at a higher rate of 23%. Meanwhile, a clear focus of business lobbyist ire has remained in the bill, but in a slightly diminished form: the so-called revenge tax. This idea would allow a president to punish companies and countries if they adhere to foreign laws that policymakers find objectionable. In Trump's case, things like the digital services taxes that often hit tech companies overseas. The Senate version, in a nod to the flurry of concerns, set a maximum rate of 15% and delayed implementation until 2027 but kept the concept intact. In addition to that tax, the SALT and Medicaid changes are likely to be most in focus in the days and weeks ahead. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research noted Tuesday morning that "SALT changes underscore the reality that this is another step forward in negotiations, not the final answer." He added that "we still view late July as the real deadline." This story has been updated. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Miami Herald

42 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.

Hamilton Spectator

an hour ago

• Hamilton Spectator

What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .