How to resolve AdBlock issue?
Refresh this page
How to resolve AdBlock issue?
Refresh this page
Lake County News,California
  • Home
    • Registration Form
  • News
    • Education
    • Veterans
    • Community
      • Obituaries
      • Letters
      • Commentary
    • Police Logs
    • Business
    • Recreation
    • Health
    • Religion
    • Legals
    • Arts & Life
    • Regional
  • Calendar
  • Contact us
    • FAQs
    • Phones, E-Mail
    • Subscribe
  • Advertise Here
  • Login
How to resolve AdBlock issue?
Refresh this page

News

How the ‘big, beautiful bill’ will deepen the racial wealth gap – a law scholar explains how it reduces poor families’ ability to afford food and health care

Details
Written by: Beverly Moran, Vanderbilt University
Published: 21 July 2025

President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio watch Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on television after the House passed the bill on July 3, 2025. Joyce N. Boghosian/White House via AP

President Donald Trump has said the “big, beautiful bill” he signed into law on July 4, 2025, will stimulate the economy and foster financial security.

But a close look at the legislation reveals a different story, particularly for low-income people and racial and ethnic minorities.

As a legal scholar who studies how taxes increase the gap in wealth and income between Black and white Americans, I believe the law’s provisions make existing wealth inequalities worse through broad tax cuts that disproportionately favor wealthy families while forcing its costs on low- and middle-income Americans.

The widening chasm

The U.S. racial wealth gap is stark. White families’ median wealth between 2019 and 2022 grew to more than $250,000 higher than Black families’ median wealth.

This disparity is the result of decades of discriminatory policies in housing, banking, health care, taxes, education and employment.

The new legislation will widen these chasms through its permanent extension of individual tax cuts in Trump’s 2017 tax reform package. Americans have eight years of experience with those changes and how they hurt low-income families.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicted that low-income taxpayers would gain US$70 a year from the 2017 tax cuts. But that figure did not include the results of eliminating the individual mandate that encouraged uninsured people to get health insurance through the federal marketplace. That insurance was heavily subsidized by the federal government.

The Republican majority in Congress predicted that the loss of the mandate would decrease federal spending on health care subsidies. That decrease cost low-income taxpayers over $4,000 per person in lost subsidies.

The Congressional Budget Office examined the net effect of the 2025 bill by combining the tax changes with cuts to programs like Medicaid and food assistance. It found that the bill will reduce poor families’ ability to obtain food and health care.

A woman speaks outdoors in front of a microphone as several peopple holding a banner stand behind her.
Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico speaks during a news conference at the Capitol focused on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, on June 3, 2025. AP Photo/Rod Lamkey Jr.

Wealth-building for whom?

Perhaps the most revealing part of the bill is how it turns ideas for helping low-income families on their head. They are touted as helping the poor – but they help the wealthy instead.

A much publicized feature of the bill is the creation of “Trump Accounts,” a pilot program providing a one-time $1,000 government contribution to a tax-advantaged investment account for children born between 2025 and 2028.

While framed as a “baby bonus” to build wealth, the program’s structure is deeply flawed and regressive. Although the first $1,000 into the accounts comes from the federal government, the real tax benefits go to wealthy families who can avoid paying taxes by contributing up to $5,000 per year to their children’s accounts.

As analysts from the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive economic and social policy think tank, have pointed out, this design primarily benefits affluent families who already have the disposable income to save and can take full advantage of the tax benefits.

For low-income families struggling with daily expenses, making additional contributions is not a realistic option. These accounts do not address the fundamental barrier to saving for low-income families – a lack of income – and are more likely to widen the wealth gap than to close it.

This regressive approach – regressive because the wealthy get larger benefits – to wealth-building is mirrored in the bill’s renewal and enhancement of the New Markets Tax Credit program. Although extended by the “big, beautiful bill” to drive investment into low-income communities by offering capital gains tax breaks to investors, the program subsidizes luxury real estate projects that do little to benefit existing low-income residents and accelerate gentrification and displacement. Studies show that there is very little increase in salaries or education in areas with these benefits.

A harsh new rule

The child tax credit is another part of the bill that purports to help the poor and working classes while, in fact, giving the wealthy more money.

A family can earn up to $400,000 and still get the full $2,200 tax credit per child, which reduces their tax liability dollar for dollar. In contrast, a family making $31,500 or less cannot receive a tax credit of more than $1,750 per child. And approximately 17 million children – disproportionately Black and Latino – will not receive anything at all.

More significantly, the law tightens eligibility by requiring not only the child but also the taxpayer claiming the credit to have a Social Security number. This requirement will strip the credit from approximately 4.5 million U.S. citizen children in mixed-status families – families where some people are citizens, legal residents and people living in the country without legal permission – where parents may file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number but lack a Social Security number, according to an April 2025 study.

A man in suit and tie sits outdoor at a table holding a gavel as dozens of people stand behind him and clap.
President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, holds a gavel after signing the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, on July 4, 2025 in Washington, DC. Eric Lee/Getty Images

A burden on the poor

Perhaps most striking is the law’s “pay-fors” – the provisions designed to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

The legislation makes significant changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, lifelines for millions of low-income families.

The law imposes new monthly “community engagement” requirements, a form of work requirement, for able-bodied adults to maintain Medicaid coverage. The majority of such adults enrolled in Medicaid already work. And many people who do not work are caring full time for young children or are too disabled to work. The law also requires states to conduct eligibility redeterminations twice a year.

Redeterminations and work requirements have historically led to eligible people losing coverage. For SNAP, the bill expands work requirements to some Americans who are up to 64 years old and the parents of older children and revises benefit calculations in ways that will reduce benefits.

By funding tax cuts for the wealthy while making cuts to essential services for the poor, the bill codifies a transfer of resources up the economic ladder.

In my view, the “big, beautiful bill” represents a missed opportunity to leverage fiscal policy to address the American wealth and income gap. Instead of investing in programs to lift up low- and middle-income Americans, the bill emphasizes a regressive approach that will further enrich the wealthy and deepen existing inequalities.The Conversation

Beverly Moran, Professor Emerita of Law, Vanderbilt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

An aging nation: U.S. median age surpassed 39 in 2024

Details
Written by: Kristie Wilder and Paul Mackun
Published: 21 July 2025



The U.S. median age — the age at which half the population is aged above and the other half below — has increased by 0.6 years from April 2020 to July 2024 when it reached 39.1, according to U.S. Census Bureau population estimates.

Between April 2020 and July 2024, the median age rose in 329 of the nation’s 387 metro areas. At the same time, 47 metro areas experienced a decline in median age — many of which were in the South, including some in Florida.

Given that nearly 294 million people (86% of the U.S. population) lived in one of the nation’s 387 metro areas in 2024, many metro areas saw an increase in their median ages, too.

Median ages in metro areas in 2024 ranged between 26.4 and 68.1, with 192 metro areas having a median age higher than the nation’s.

Many of the metro areas with the highest median ages were in Florida and Arizona, both popular retirement destinations (Figure 1).

Metro areas with the lowest median ages tended to have one of two things: a relatively high proportion of young adults, often due to the presence of a college/university or large military installation; or a relatively high proportion of children. Some had both.

Metro area aging trends

Between April 2020 and July 2024, the median age rose in 329 of the nation’s 387 metro areas (Figure 2). 

At the same time, 47 metro areas experienced a decline in median age — many of which were in the South, including some in Florida. 

The median ages of 11 metro areas did not change during the period.

Metro areas with oldest and youngest median ages

The median age increase in many metro areas aligned with the national aging trend: 61.2 million people aged 65 and over lived in the United States in 2024, up 13% from 54.2 million in 2020, in contrast to a decline in the number of children (ages 0 to 17).

The metro area with the highest median age in 2024 (68.1) was Wildwood-The Villages, FL, where 57% of the population was 65 and older reflecting the presence of a large retirement community. 

Two other Florida metro areas — Punta Gorda and Homosassa Springs — followed closely with the second- (60.1) and third-highest (56.8) median ages, respectively. More than 35% of both populations were 65 and older.

Metro areas with the youngest median age were in Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT (26.4 years) and Logan, UT-ID (27). Both metro areas have a large university.

The result was two vastly different age structures in the nation’s oldest and youngest metro areas in 2024: Older adults dominated the population in Wildwood-The Villages, while there was a higher share of children and young adults in Provo-Orem-Lehi (Figure 3).

Rising and falling median ages

Some metro areas with relatively large shares of the aging population experienced sharper increases in median age than others. 

For instance, South Carolina’s Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Port Royal and Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach metro areas had the largest median age hikes from 2020 to 2024: 3.1 and 2.1 years, respectively.

Despite growth in the 65-and-older demographic, the median age in 47 metro areas decreased between 2020 and 2024. 

While the United States is characterized by its increasingly large older adult population — a byproduct of factors such as a sizable baby boomer population and declining 0-17 demographic — these exceptions underscore that age patterns can differ, especially in some fast-growing metro areas.

Between 2020 and 2024, 10 metro areas – all of them in the South and seven in Florida – had their total populations rise by at least 10% and their median ages drop (Table 1).

For instance:

Ocala, FL, saw a 14.1% increase in population while its median age dropped by 1.1 years to 47.4.

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL, and Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL, had respective population gains of 17.6% and 13.2% and median age dips of 0.7 years to 39.3 and 48.4, respectively.

The population of Sherman-Denison, TX, increased by 11.0%, while its median age went down 0.2 years to 39.2.

In those 10 metro areas, where positive net domestic migration tended to play an important role in their population growth, increases in the number of children and the younger adult population at least partially helped offset aging patterns. 

That resulted in a decline in median age even amid growth in the number of older adults. This contrast underscores a more nuanced picture of the intersection of population growth and aging in U.S. metro areas.

Kristie Wilder is a demographer and Paul Mackun is a geographer in the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Branch.

Fatality reported in crash near Bartlett Springs

Details
Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Published: 20 July 2025
A Google map showing the site of a fatal wreck near Bartlett Springs in Lake County, California, on Saturday, July 19, 2025. 

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — One person was reported to have been killed in a solo-vehicle crash on Saturday afternoon in a remote part of Lake County.

The wreck, involving a Ford Raptor pickup, occurred shortly before 3:15 p.m. Saturday on Bartlett Springs Road above Lucerne.

The initial dispatch stated there was one subject trapped in a tree and another was with the vehicle about 10 feet over the embankment.

The California Highway Patrol’s online incident reports stated that the pickup was wrapped around a tree.

In addition to Northshore Fire, units from Williams Fire and Cal Fire responded. Cal Fire sent its helicopter from the Boggs Helitack to assist with the rescue, and the California Highway Patrol’s copter also was requested but later canceled.

Shortly before 4 p.m., units on scene stated over the air that there was a fatality.

The CHP left the scene around 7:30 p.m., but other units stayed on scene until the early morning hours on Sunday waiting for a tow truck to remove the pickup.

Another serious solo-vehicle crash occurred on Bartlett Springs Road east of Walker Ridge Road just before 9:30 p.m., according to the CHP and radio traffic.

That rollover crash was reported to have involved four individuals, with one being unconscious.

The injured individual was set to be flown by air ambulance to a regional trauma center.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, and on Bluesky, @erlarson.bsky.social. Find Lake County News on the following platforms: Facebook, @LakeCoNews; X, @LakeCoNews; Threads, @lakeconews, and on Bluesky, @lakeconews.bsky.social. 

Clawback of $1.1B for PBS and NPR puts rural stations at risk – and threatens a vital source of journalism

Details
Written by: Allison Perlman, University of California, Irvine and Josh Shepperd, University of Colorado Boulder
Published: 20 July 2025

Nathan Heffel and Grace Hood rehearse their Colorado Public Radio public affairs program in Centennial, Colo., in 2017. Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images

The U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives approved by narrow margins on July 17 and 18, 2025, a law that claws back federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Once President Donald Trump signs it into law, the US$9 billion rescissions package will withdraw $1.1 billion Congress had previously approved for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes money to NPR, PBS and their affiliate stations, to receive in the 2026 and 2027 fiscal years.

In addition, it makes deep foreign aid cuts. All Democrats present voted against the measure in both chambers. They were joined in the Senate by two Republicans: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Two House Republicans also voted no: Michael R. Turner of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. The Conversation U.S. asked Allison Perlman and Josh Shepperd, who are both media scholars, to explain why the measure will have a big impact on public broadcasters.

What will happen to NPR, PBS and local stations?

NPR and PBS provide programming to local public television and radio stations across the country. The impact on them will be direct and indirect.

Both NPR and PBS receive money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, an independent nonprofit corporation Congress created in 1967 to receive and distribute federal money to public broadcasters. More than 70% of the money it distributes flows directly to local stations. Some stations get up to half of their budgets from the CPB.

But NPR and PBS get much of their funding from foundation grants, viewers’ and listeners’ donations, and corporate underwriting. And local public radio and TV stations also get support from an array of sources besides CPB.

“There’s nothing more American than PBS,” said the network’s CEO, Paula Kerger, at a congressional hearing on March 26, 2025.

Only about 1% of NPR funding, and 15% of PBS funding, comes directly from the government via the CPB. However, once local radio and television stations lose federal funding, they’ll be less able to pay NPR and PBS for the programs they produce.

The nearly 1,500 public media stations in the U.S. rely on a mix of NPR, PBS and third-party producer programming, such as American Public Media and PRX, for the programs they offer. Local stations also produce and air regional news and provide emergency broadcasts for the government.

In rural areas with few broadcast stations and spotty cellphone coverage, public broadcast stations are vital sources of information about important community news and updates during emergencies. Federal support is essential for the programming and day-to-day operations of many local stations and allows for the maintenance of equipment and personnel to operate these vital community resources.

We believe that stations in communities that most need them, especially in rural locations, will be hit especially hard because they rely heavily on CPB funding.

Why are Republicans taking this step?

Public broadcasting has long been a target of conservative Republicans.

They say that with a highly diversified media landscape, the public no longer needs media that is subsidized by federal dollars. They also claim that public broadcasting has a liberal bias and taxpayers should not be required to fund media that slants to the left politically.

Why is public media necessary when there’s news on the internet?

As journalism revenue has plummeted, public broadcasting has remained a vital source for news in communities across the nation. This is especially true in rural communities, where economic and political pressures have threatened the survival of local journalism.

In addition, with much online news coverage placed behind paywalls, public radio and television plays an important role in making quality journalism available to the American public.

An online ad for a program, 'Water News,' on a public radio station.
Want crucial information about water systems in your drought-prone community? Public radio station KVMR in Nevada City, Calif., has a program for you. KVMR screenshot

Why did Congress approve these funds 2 years ahead?

Public broadcasting has gotten roughly $550 million per year from the federal government in recent years.

The CPB has always approved and designated those funds two years in advance, due to a provision in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, after Congress has voted to provide that money. The CPB then has distributed that funding primarily through grants to PBS and NPR affiliate stations to support their technical infrastructure, program development and audience research.

What are the consequences for Native communities?

Dozens of Native American stations are at risk of closing once the CPB is defunded. Native Public Media, a network of 57 radio stations and four TV stations, is a key source of news and information for tribal communities across the nation and relies on CPB support.

U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, publicly stated that he secured an agreement with the White House to move $9.4 million in Interior Department funding to two dozen Native American stations. But there is no provision related to this promise within the legislation.

This article was updated after the House passed the measure.The Conversation

Allison Perlman, Associate Professor of Film & Media Studies, University of California, Irvine and Josh Shepperd, Associate Professor of Media Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

  1. Helping Paws: Shepherds, pit bulls and terriers
  2. Space News: For the first time, astronomers witness the dawn of a new solar system
  3. Major injury crash sends three to hospitals
  • 220
  • 221
  • 222
  • 223
  • 224
  • 225
  • 226
  • 227
  • 228
  • 229
How to resolve AdBlock issue?
Refresh this page