Fair Districts GA is a nonpartisan organization that works to end electoral map rigging in Georgia. Our focus is to fight gerrymandering, the practice of drawing legislative district lines to favor one group over another. Our ultimate goal is to reform Georgia's process for drawing state and federal electoral maps. Georgia's current redistricting system gives lawmakers broad leeway to draw district maps for Congressional, state senate, and state house seats. Fair Districts GA supports stronger standards and a nonpartisan, transparent, accountable redistricting process. We collaborate with advocacy groups and grassroots organizations to inform Georgians about gerrymandering, advocate for redistricting reform legislation, and engage concerned citizens in our cause.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

volunteers sorting canned food donations
Photo by Joel Muniz on Unsplash
Maryland’s Farm Food Donation Tax Credit: A Solution to Food Waste or a Limited Incentive?
Jul 30, 2026
Despite continuous efforts made in initiatives, investments, and policies to reduce food waste in the past decades, food waste has remained inefficient in the U.S. food system. ReFED estimates that approximately 25 percent of all food in supply goes unsold or uneaten annually, meaning about 63 million tons of surplus food wasted across the U.S. We are still far from achieving the national goal set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to reduce food waste in half, to 74 kg per capita, by 2030.
At the state level, a recent study suggests that current policies can only achieve an average 5 percent reduction in food waste relative to their respective generation levels. It also found an overemphasis on recycling strategies rather than prioritizing prevention, rescue, and repurposing food for livestock feed. With many states’ food waste policies leaning heavily on recycling-focused strategies, Maryland’s moderate policy environment, which includes tax credits for donating farm food, offers an example to assess whether tax incentives, as one of the three main rescue solutions, can effectively strengthen food waste reduction.
Why Farm Food Donation Matters
More than half of the surplus food generated at the farm level is edible surplus rather than spoiled food. The 2025 ReFED U.S. Food Waste Report indicates that nearly one-fourth of the surplus food comes from farms among the five main sectors. However, the safe and nutritious surplus food is often left unharvested or unsold due to market conditions, labor shortages, or cosmetic standards. Donation helps recover surplus food at the farm level, which can thus prevent the unnecessary use of land, water, and other resources that would otherwise be lost when food goes to waste. Besides, farm-level food donation is one of the most recommended rescue strategies in food loss and waste (FLW) management, as it ensures that food and resources used to produce it are used for their intended purpose to feed and nourish people rather than go to waste. As depicted below, EPA’s Wasted Food Scale places donation as the second preferred strategy to reduce food waste, right below preventing wasted food and above feeding animals, composting, anaerobic digestion, and disposal.
Figure 1, Credit: Environmental Protection Agency
What is Maryland’s Farm Food Donation Tax Credit?
Under Maryland Tax-General §10-745, Maryland offers an income tax credit to encourage farm-level donation of eligible food products to food banks and food pantries certified by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). Farmers may receive a Maryland income tax credit of up to $5,000 per year based on the value of their donated food, which MDA determines using the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s wholesale price listings.
The tax credit is available to any farm businesses located in Maryland that makes an eligible food donation. An “eligible food donation” is a donation of fresh farm products for human consumption given to qualifying organizations that distribute food to people in need without requiring monetary value from the recipient. Maryland sets the tax credit value at 100 percent of the wholesale value of eligible food donations, up to a maximum of $5,000 per taxable year.
Qualified farms that donate “apparently wholesome food” in good faith to a nonprofit organization for ultimate distribution to needy individuals are protected from liability under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. As long as the donor has not acted with gross negligence or intentional misconduct, the donor is not liable for damage incurred as the result of illness.
How the Tax Credit is Intended to Reduce Food Waste
Maryland’s Farm Food Donation Tax Credit is designed to reduce the donor’s state income tax owed directly to offset the financial costs of donating surplus food, such as transportation, labor, packing, and storage, which are often more expensive compared to disposal or leaving crops unharvested. Theoretically, lowering the marginal costs of farm food donation increases the likelihood that farms choose donation over other food waste management options, such as disposal.
However, the effectiveness of the tax credit depends on the following behavioral assumptions:
- Farmers respond to financial incentives when choosing among various surplus food management options, such as donation, selling at a loss, composting, or disposal,
- Reducing the net cost of donation changes donor behavior at the point where farms decide whether surplus is worth harvesting and moving into a donation pathway rather than being left in fields or disposed of,
- And the tax incentive can only translate into real donations if there is a certain logistical capacity, including access to food recovery organizations, transportation, and storage, so that farms can operationalize the donation even if they want to.
Why Do Proponents Support the Food Donation Tax Credit?
First, Maryland’s farm food tax credit provides direct reductions to the amount of taxes owed to offset the cost barriers associated with food donation. Because the costs of transportation and logistics are often cited as the main expenses faced by donors, the tax credit helps overcome these cost barriers and incentivizes qualified farms to donate surplus food. More importantly, a tax credit is a direct subtraction from taxes owed, while a tax deduction only lowers taxable income and therefore results in a smaller, more uncertain benefit depending on the donor’s taxable income level and tax bracket. In other words, a tax credit operates as a clearer “payoff” for farm food donation decisions by directly making part of the donation costs recoverable through reduced state income tax liability. Therefore, a tax credit can be more effective than a tax deduction for food producers that operate with a low profit margin, like many farms.
Second, Maryland’s Farm Food Donation Tax Credit provides a flexible and voluntary incentive that encourages participation without imposing the compliance and enforcement burdens that often come with regulatory mandates. Under Maryland Tax-General §10-745, eligible farms may choose to claim a credit when they donate qualified farm products. There is no requirement that farms must divert surplus food, meet diversion quotas, or face penalties for noncompliance. The tax credit preserves farms’ flexibility while still nudging behavior, especially in contexts where farms face highly variable harvest conditions and market volatility. This voluntary structure can reduce political resistance and administrative burden relative to enforcement-related regulatory mandates.
Third, Maryland’s farm food donation tax credit complements donor liability protections by actively incentivizing donation behavior that legal risk protections alone would not otherwise resolve. Federal law helps reduce perceived legal risk for good-faith donations, but liability protection does not solve practical barriers like transport costs and coordination constraints. A state tax credit, therefore, can act as the “other half” of the policy tool that liability protection lowers legal risk, while the credit lowers financial costs, making farm food donation more likely to happen.
Why Do Opponents Critique the Food Donation Tax Credit?
First, the eligibility constraints of the tax credit may disproportionately benefit larger farms and underserve the producers most constrained by food waste challenges. Maryland’s Farm Food Donation Tax Credit has an administrative process, including certified recipient organizations by the MDA and valuation based on USDA wholesale price listings, which may be easier for farms already connected to established food recovery partners, and farms with greater administrative capacity and consistent surplus are more likely to take advantage of the tax credit, while smaller farms with limited labor and time may find it harder to participate.
Second, the tax credit motivates participation only after other barriers have been solved. In other words, legal safety and operational feasibility come first. Donation decisions typically occur only after donors believe they are legally protected and can meet food safety or handling expectations. A tax credit cannot compensate for uncertainty about compliance or quality standards. According to food bank leadership interviews, perishable handling capacity, especially refrigeration and cold-chain transportation are the practical constraint for distributing recovered produce. Therefore, if transportation and logistics are the binding constraint, a tax credit as the incentive alone may not create more farm food donations where recovery organizations lack sufficient capacity to pick up, store, and distribute farm products.
Third, the tax credit’s marginal impact may be limited because it can function more as a benefit for existing farm donors than a trigger for new participation. A case study suggests that the donation decisions made by many producers with a certain capacity are driven by factors other than the tax credit itself, indicating that the incentive’s added effect on farm food donation outcomes may not be as effective as intended. As a result, the tax credit may be taken up primarily by farms that already have established donation relationships and administrative capacity to document donations and claim the benefit, rather than by the farms faced with more participation barriers.
Conclusion
In Maryland, the effectiveness of Maryland’s Farm Food Donation Tax Credit is conditional. Whether it meaningfully diverts farm-level surplus away from disposal depends on three main conditions:
- farm administrative capacity and consistent surplus,
- the existence of farm donor liability protections,
- and the availability of operational and logistical support.
The tax credit can be effective in increasing farm donations and reducing food waste for farms that have surplus, consistent recovery partners, and sufficient logistic capacity. However, when the main barriers are more on the operational side, the tax credit may have a limited marginal effect on reducing food waste and may benefit farms already close to donating. Therefore, the question is not simply whether the tax credit can be effective as a whole, but for whom and under what circumstances it encourages farm-level donation and reduces food waste.
Yilin Zhou is a recent public policy graduate from Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy.
Maryland’s Farm Food Donation Tax Credit: A Solution to Food Waste or a Limited Incentive? was first published by ACE and was republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

Travis Scott, Benny Safdie, Elliot Page, Corey Hawkins, Tom Holland, Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan, Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Lupita Nyong'o, Charlize Theron, John Leguizamo, Zendaya, Samantha Morton, Himesh Patel, Jon Bernthal, and Logan Marshall-Green attend the premiere of "The Odyssey" presented by Universal Pictures on July 14, 2026 in New York City.
Mike Coppola/Getty Images
The Odyssey Isn’t Real, But American Diversity Is
Jul 29, 2026
After Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey was released in theaters, Elon Musk declared he would use Grok to create a more “historically accurate” version of the ancient epic poem. The uproar over the film’s supposedly woke casting has been loud and sustained, but the people most upset have ignored a pretty significant detail: The Odyssey is not real. It is a story filled with gods, goddesses, and violent monsters who are apparently more historically plausible than the presence of people of color. Even the fact that Greek, Asian, and African peoples were in contact throughout the ancient world is less believable, it seems, than a sentient whirlpool.
The goal was never historical accuracy, though. It never is. The same logic that scrubs people of color from ancient epics is the logic that scrubs us from American history because in both cases, the sanitized version requires our absence. America becomes a space of prosperity and hope for all if enslavement is deleted. It becomes a benevolent nation welcoming to everyone if internment camps and detention centers are excluded. It becomes a beacon of cultural mixing if the genocide of Indigenous peoples is overlooked.
And now, erasure is becoming U.S. policy.
Take, for instance, Executive Order 14253, titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” In it, Trump argues that the nation’s legacy “is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”
As part of the initiative to correct the story, the administration targeted the Smithsonian. In a 162-page report aimed at “saving America’s story,” it lambasts the museum’s goal to “create a more just future by attending to the complexity of America’s past.” That complexity includes acknowledging that the founders were also enslavers, that the pledge of allegiance instills nationalism, that Christianity has been used as a tool of oppression, and that whiteness has been an alienating force in American life. Each of these is part of our nation’s history, but the report frames this honesty as political activism. It imagines that the presence and histories of people of color, Indigenous people, and LGBTQIA+ people are not part of America’s story, that our existence is the capture.
But ideological capture has a definition. It refers to the corruption that occurs when an institution meant to serve the public interest instead serves the interests of a small, powerful constituency—when special interest displaces shared interest, leading to a net loss for society. By that definition, a report that erases the histories of entire communities of Americans to center one narrow vision of national identity is ideological capture. The Smithsonian isn’t the one doing the capturing.
If the Smithsonian report represents the administration’s vision for what stories Americans should encounter, H.R. 7661 and S. 4925 represent its plan to enforce that vision in schools. Both bills seek to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prohibit federal funding for any materials that include “sexually oriented material, and for other purposes.” The only approved stories come from major world religions (though the bills leave “major” undefined) and three curated lists of classics: the "Great Books of the Western World" from 1990, “Classics Every Middle Schooler Should Read” by Thomas Purifoy Jr., and “Classics Every High Schooler Should Read” by Mary Pierson Purifoy. The Purifoy texts are homeschooling guides built explicitly around a Biblical worldview. Any representation of gender identity beyond girl and boy is prohibited.
Both bills operate under the premise that the mere existence of queer and gender expansive people in literature constitutes sexualization. And the phrase “for other purposes” leaves both proposals open for further censorship. Given this administration’s track record, the imagination doesn’t have to stretch far to understand what those purposes might be.
The AI remake, the executive order, and the congressional bills collectively demonstrate the very ideological capture the administration claims to oppose. Each attempts to control the national story by deciding who is allowed representation in our cultural institutions, whether that be film, museums, schools, or the halls of Congress. Individually, they are acts of erasure. Together, they represent a coordinated effort to eliminate any story that hasn’t been sanitized to suggest that life, liberty, and happiness have always been equally available to everyone in the United States.
But erasing that complexity only protects power, allowing those with the most to hide behind a sanitized past while those with the least are dismissed and discredited.
As a critical literacy scholar, I’ve spent my career arguing that the complexity of our stories is what makes us powerful. It allows us to hold how far we’ve come as a nation in one hand while acknowledging the critical work still ahead, to see that people of color and gender expansive people have always existed and that their stories add to rather than detract from who we are as a nation. When complexity is removed, it assumes we have nothing left to strive for. It ideologically captures our progress before it can ever begin.
And progress is what we’ll need if the next generation is to inherit a world filled with everyone’s stories--not a curated version of who we were, but a complete picture of who we might become.
Stephanie Toliver is a Public Voices Fellow and a member of the OpEd Alumni Project sponsored by the University of Illinois.
Keep ReadingShow less

What does it mean to be the working poor? Explore the gap between poverty and a living wage, why millions of working Americans struggle, and solutions to reduce economic inequality.
photobyphotoboy/Getty Images
The Concept of the “Working Poor” Should Be Unacceptable
Jul 29, 2026
What does the phrase "working poor" mean? The first point is that you are working; you have a regular job—you aren't working catch as catch can; you are employed. But despite working, you are poor. What does it mean to be poor? It turns out that "poor” means different things depending on what standard you apply.
Some definitions seem rooted in the old institution of the poorhouse, which was a home for paupers. Thus, dictionary.com defines “poor” as having little or no money or other means of support. To me, that’s the definition of being destitute, not poor.
Other definitions have a broader, less pejorative, perspective. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as lacking sufficient money to have a decent living standard. This, to me, is more in keeping with a modern sensibility: being poor is not being able to make ends meet consistently while maintaining a reasonable standard of living.
It is this second definition that encompasses the working poor and thus will be the definition used in this article. In our current system, many people work and are still poor, dependent upon charity or public support in order to make ends meet. “Working poor” should be an oxymoron, but it’s not currently.
The other twist is the difference between "living in poverty" and being "poor." Many dictionaries use the words as equivalents. But to many people, including myself, and the Oxford English Dictionary, "poverty" connotes a more drastic state than being poor.
Much has been written about the working poor. Democrats argue that in a country as prosperous as the United States, people working full-time should be receiving what’s termed a “living wage.” This is how they define a "reasonable standard of living."
What is a living wage? It’s defined as having enough money to meet a family’s basic needs at a decent standard of living, but absent what many Americans consider necessities of life. A “living wage” thus does not include money for eating out, entertainment, any kind of insurance, or saving for a rainy day. It is a step up from the poverty threshold, in that it takes into account the true cost of the necessities of life … food, child care, medical care, housing, and transportation … yet is still bare bones. Anyone earning below a living wage as defined, I would thus classify as poor.
The Federal poverty threshold, on the other hand, is based on findings from 1960s research that families spend 1/3 of their income on food. So in setting the threshold, the government calculated the cost of food and multiplied it by 3. That is still the basis of the calculation. It’s just adjusted for inflation.
But that method of calculation makes the Federal standard outdated and woefully inadequate. Food now accounts for only 1/7 of an average family’s expenses, as the cost of housing, child care, transportation, and health care have grown disproportionately. So people who exceed the Federal poverty threshold are still poor, even though not living in poverty. That is why many assistance programs have eligibility levels at several multiples of the Federal poverty threshold.
Why is the government standard so miserly? There are probably several reasons. One is the perspective that many still hold that being poor means being close to destitution; note the use of the word "poverty." Another is that as the leading democracy and strongest economy in the world, the government wants the number of people living in poverty to be as small as possible—for PR purposes. Yet another is that given our “safety net,” the more people who are classified as poor, the higher the expenses are to the government and the taxpayer.
A different reason is that people do not like being called “poor” or being considered poor; in our culture, it is still a pejorative word implying a whole panoply of failings. This can be seen in Webster’s definition of poverty: “Lacking a socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.” If you are poor, you are beyond the social pale.
As a result, there’s little pressure to expand the Federal definition of poverty to include more people.
Let’s look at actual dollar figures. The 2026 Federal poverty threshold for a family of four is $33,000. If the sole support for a family earned what many Democrats most recently argue should be the minimum wage—$25 an hour—that would amount to a gross of $50,000 a year or an approximate net take home of $41,700. Somewhat above the poverty threshold.
But according to MIT’s Living Wage Calculator, a living wage for a family of four would be around $86,000—about $40 an hour—more than twice the Federal poverty threshold. So if you are supporting a small family, the minimum wage in most states —even if $15 ($30,000/year)—is a poverty wage even if 2 adults are working.
Now that we've defined what "poor" means, how many people make up the working poor, unable to make ends meet on a consistent basis? In 2022, using a guideline of 200% of the poverty threshold, which would be somewhat less than but closer to the living wage as explained above, 8% of all workers (13% of Black, 15% of Latino) earned less than 200% of the poverty threshold. That would mean that around 12 million workers were working poor. Which in turn means that the number of Americans who are in families of the working poor is—using the living wage threshold—roughly 20-30 million men, women, and children.
Thus, roughly 7 – 10% of Americans with at least one worker in the household were either living in poverty as defined by the government or were in families whose incomes were below the living wage threshold. NOTE: This does not include the families of adults—roughly 7 million people—who did not have jobs and were living below the official poverty level.
That is a terrible statistic for a country as prosperous as the United States. Being poor not only has a terrible impact on those who are poor but is also a major drag on the health and well-being of our economy and democracy. It's also a disgrace and a failure of our system. A country should be judged not by how its wealthiest citizens fare, but by how its poorest do.
The term “working poor” should become an anachronism. And those who cannot work should receive government support sufficient to keep them out of poverty. Both our economy and democracy would be on a firmer footing.
The question is, how to end the status of working poor without causing significant inflation, which would be counter-productive? That will require a significant change in the mindset of both corporations and government. Corporations will need to forego some of the huge profits they have made in order to pay their workers a living wage without raising prices (see my article, "Towards a Reformed Capitalism"). Government will need to divert some of its corporate welfare to people's welfare. And taxes will need to be raised on the very wealthy, who have so much excess wealth that they will not be impacted in any practical way.
No one in the U.S. should live in conditions without enough food to eat, a secure roof over their heads, and proper health care. One can’t pursue one’s right “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” without those basics. If business and government working together aren’t providing that foundation, then we are not living up to the aspirations of the Declaration of Independence.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
The All-America City of Sacramento, California: Youth Forward and Sac Kids First
Jul 29, 2026
A quality that’s often missing from community youth services is coordination among programs. This is where Sacramento, California, excels, working as a region to coordinate youth-serving organizations regarding both advocacy and services.
Sac Kids First is a coalition 36 youth-serving organizations that was formed in 2017, with the original impetus coming from a group of young Hmong leaders active in the East Bay Asian Youth Center. These leaders surveyed youth to identify their concerns and needs and to build a coalition with the goal of establishing a dedicated funding source for children and youth.
Sac Kids First worked during the COVID-19 epidemic to persuade the City Council to invest federal stimulus funding in youth services, with a focus on serving youth and families impacted by the pandemic. As a result, the City Council dedicated over $8 million to youth services from the federal allocation.
Youth Forward serves as the coordinating entity of Sac Kids First, with a goal of increasing the wellbeing of children and youth in the Sacramento region, particularly children and youth most affected by poverty, violence and trauma. Youth Forward also works on youth leadership and mental health programs, including work during the pandemic to produce a series of virtual training sessions in youth mental health for youth development workers.
In 2022, Youth Forward and Sac Kids First led a campaign to create a children’s fund in the city budget, which was placed on the ballot that July and adopted November 8th with support from 62% of the voters. Under this measure, the city spends the equivalent of 40% of the tax revenues from cannabis sales on child and youth services (about $9 million annually, in addition to what the city currently spends on youth services).
The fund, which is overseen by an advisory commission funds services in the following areas:
- To prevent and reduce child and youth homelessness
- To support the mental and emotional health of children and youth
- To prevent youth violence
- To prevent and reduce youth substance abuse
- To support the healthy development of children ages 0 to 5
Sac Kids First, is also working at the state level to generate revenue for kids’ programs.
In other work by Youth Forward, youth leaders, won a commitment from the City Board of Education during the 2022-2023 school year to ensure that all middle schools and high schools in the district will have safe spaces on campus for LGTBQ students. During the 2024-2025 school year, Youth Forward organizers led the development of Schools as Centers of Wellness, which included placement of mental health clinicians at schools in Sacramento County.
In its presentation to the jury as part of winning designation as an All-America City in 2022, Sacramento also highlighted youth programs related to literacy, helping kids in housing developments, and support for post-secondary education.
Sacramento’s Literacy Coalition brings together local and statewide organizations, non-profits, education administrators, government officials, funders and like-minded individuals in monthly meetings to advance literacy by raising awareness, increasing out-of-school time literacy programming, including tutoring, summer reading, book giveaways, and advocating for the Science of Reading in all classrooms.
Another community effort is the city’s Promise Zone, which was the highlight of the city’s application for this year’s All-America City award. As one of the hundreds of cities working with the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading, Sacramento has focused much of its attention on assisting youths in public housing and has served more than 14,000 kids in all through partnerships with the library and other organizations.
The city also began a new effort to serve young people at the other end of the spectrum—teenagers, mostly—through a project sponsored by the National League of Cities called Youth Excel. This program will help youths with access to quality postsecondary education and career pathway opportunities that lead to higher wage jobs. Each of the six cities involved in the program formed a cross-sector team and is connecting with city cohort peers to share and refine promising approaches to overcoming barriers to accessing quality jobs in STEM fields.
Literacy and other services to improve youth well-being are a way of life for city leaders in Sacramento. As former mayor Darrell Steinberg said about literacy efforts during his presentation at City Hall of the All-America City award, “We haven’t solved this problem, but at least we’re making progress.”
The National Civic League (NCL) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing inclusive civic engagement and strengthening democracy by helping communities build more equitable, participatory, and effective local governance.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















