SPARC Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1380
Last Updated: August 31, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

ID: R000608

Follow the money

The bill

SPARC Act

S. 1380, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.

The sponsor

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$127,000 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 329-331 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another bill, another exercise in futility. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The SPARC Act (Specialty Physicians Advancing Rural Care Act) claims to address the shortage of specialty medicine physicians and non-physician health care providers in rural areas by offering loan repayment programs. How noble. In reality, it's just another Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the Public Health Service Act to create a new program that provides loan repayment assistance to specialty medicine physicians and non-physician health care providers who agree to work in rural areas for at least six years. The maximum payment is $250,000, which is roughly equivalent to the cost of a decent house in some parts of the country.

The bill also establishes a liquidated damages formula for breaches of agreement, because, you know, people are just dying to work in rural areas and would never dream of breaking their contract.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Specialty medicine physicians: They get loan repayment assistance, but only if they agree to work in rural areas. What a wonderful way to incentivize people to leave the comforts of urban life. * Non-physician health care providers: Same deal as above, but with more restrictions and less money. * Rural communities: They might, just might, get some decent medical care for a change. But let's not get too excited; this is still a drop in the bucket compared to the systemic issues plaguing rural healthcare.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a classic case of treating the symptoms rather than the disease. The real issue is the lack of infrastructure, resources, and opportunities in rural areas that make it difficult for medical professionals to thrive. By throwing money at the problem, Congress thinks they can buy their way out of this crisis.

Newsflash: it won't work. This bill will only attract a handful of idealistic souls who are willing to sacrifice their careers and personal lives for the greater good. The rest will continue to flock to urban areas where the pay is better, the opportunities are more plentiful, and the Wi-Fi is stronger.

In conclusion, this bill is a half-hearted attempt to address a complex issue that requires real solutions, not just token gestures. It's like trying to cure cancer with a Band-Aid and a prayer.

Related Topics

Healthcare & Insurance Reform
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$127,000
17 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$49,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$77,200

No PAC contributions found

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
3 transactions
$8,600
2
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
3 transactions
$7,000
3
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
2 transactions
$6,600
4
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
CHEROKEE NATION
2 transactions
$5,300
6
SYUCAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
8
CHICKASAW NATION
3 transactions
$3,100
9
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
1 transaction
$2,500
10
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
11
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
12
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
13
TAHOE LAND AND DEVELOPMENT
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
SECUNDA, TOM
4 transactions
$50,800
2
MERRIN, SETH
2 transactions
$13,200
3
JONES, J.
1 transaction
$6,600
4
JONES, J. RANDALL
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

ID: W000437

Top Contributors

25

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$25,000
Sep 13, 2024
2
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$15,000
Nov 5, 2024
3
WT CONSULTANTS LLC
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$2,500
Jan 12, 2023
4
WAYPOINT CONSULTING, LLC
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$1,000
Mar 26, 2024
5
HEDERMAN BROTHERS, LLC
OrganizationMADISON, MS
$1,000
Oct 9, 2024
6
CHOUEST, GARY
EDISON CHOUEST OFFSHORE, LLC • CEO
IndividualGALLIANO, LA
$100,000
Dec 1, 2023
7
HALE, ROBERT T. JR.
GRANITE TELECOM • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$100,000
Jun 28, 2023
8
BLUE, J. NEAL
GENERAL ATOMICS • CEO
IndividualLA JOLLA, CA
$50,000
Dec 21, 2023
9
HALE, ROBERT T. JR.
GRANITE TELECOM • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$50,000
Apr 12, 2024
10
DUFF, THOMAS M.
SOUTHERN TIRE MART • PRESIDENT
IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS
$50,000
Sep 30, 2024

Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

ID: W000800

Top Contributors

22

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 8, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 3, 2024
3
FIELD, MARSHALL
THE OLD MOUNTAIN COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
May 18, 2023
4
RECHNITZ, JOAN
IndividualRED BANK, NJ
$3,300
Apr 22, 2024
5
RECHNITZ, JOAN
IndividualRED BANK, NJ
$3,300
Apr 22, 2024
6
GORDON, PATRICIA
SELF • MD
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
May 22, 2024
7
STILLER, ROBERT
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Sep 22, 2024
8
STILLER, ROBERT
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Sep 22, 2024
9
KALKUT, CRAIG
WEST FRONT STRATEGIES • GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$2,500
May 3, 2023
10
SCHWARTZ, MARTIN
MINILEC SERVICE • CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
IndividualCARMEL, CA
$2,000
May 18, 2023

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

ID: S001181

Top Contributors

21

1
TILT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE LLC
OrganizationPLYMOUTH, MI
$250
Feb 6, 2024
2
HAWASH, NOUR
BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$6,600
Dec 12, 2024
3
HAWASH, NOUR
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024
4
HAWASH, NOUR
BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
5
HAWASH, NOUR
BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
6
HAWASH, SAFA
ACCLIVITY LLC • BUSINESS CONSULTANT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2024
7
HAWASH, SAFA
ACCLIVITY LLC • BUSINESS CONSULTANT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2024
8
JONDY, JENAN
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualFLUSHING, MI
$3,300
Dec 16, 2024
9
KANDIL, MARIAM
SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA
$3,300
Dec 16, 2024
10
KANDIL, MARIAM
SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA
$3,300
Dec 16, 2024

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]

ID: K000367

Top Contributors

25

1
LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE
OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Aug 25, 2023
3
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$2,500
Oct 7, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$2,300
Jul 17, 2023
5
ARISTOTLE INTERNATIONAL
CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jul 19, 2024
6
SMITH, BRADFORD
MICROSOFT CORPORATION • ATTORNEY
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
7
SMITH, BRADFORD
IndividualBELLEVUE, WA
$6,600
Mar 30, 2023
8
BADEN, DREW
PROFESSOR • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$6,600
Feb 23, 2024
9
CAUCHY, CONSTANCE
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIDLAND, MI
$6,600
Jun 2, 2024
10
BADEN, DREW
IndividualBETHESDA, MD
$6,600
Mar 11, 2024

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

ID: G000555

Top Contributors

25

1
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
2
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
3
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,000
Mar 15, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$600
Jun 22, 2023
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Jun 22, 2023
6
STRICKLER, DANIEL B. JR.
BEECHTREE CAPITAL PARTNERS INC. • INVESTMENTS
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,200
Mar 24, 2023
7
ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.
JP MORGAN • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,800
Oct 16, 2023
8
ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,800
Nov 3, 2023
9
VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II
XTO ENERGY INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,800
Mar 14, 2023
10
VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,800
Mar 27, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 53 nodes and 76 connections

Total contributions: $76

Top Donors - Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

13 Orgs4 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • Section 2 establishes a loan repayment program for specialty medicine physicians and non-physician specialty health care providers who serve in rural communities, which will increase staffing and revenue for hospitals and health systems in those areas.

  • +Biotech & Researchconfidence 0.70

    By incentivizing specialty physicians (including those in biotech-related fields like genetics, immunology, etc.) to work in rural areas, the bill may increase demand for biotech products and services in underserved markets.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • from 58 contributions
    • DUROSS, EBEN$3,300
    • SCHNALL-LEVIN, MICHAEL$3,300
    • ARTHUR, PHYLLIS A.$1,043
    • NADEAU, STEPHANIE$900
    • FRALEY, GEORGE$800
  • from 111 contributions
    • LEONG, THOMAS$2,000
    • SPOTKOV, JARED$1,117
    • PEASE, LARRY$600
    • MARI, ZOLTAN$500
    • LAWSON, BRIAN$500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Agriculture

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SPARC Act focuses on alleviating specialty physician shortages in rural areas through loan repayment, while the Project 2025 excerpt discusses reforming agricultural subsidy programs. Both address rural concerns but operate in distinct policy domains, resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:rural communitiesfederal incentive programsworkforce shortagesunderserved areas

— 296 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise support went to just six commodities—corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, soybeans, and wheat—that together account for only 28 percent of farm receipts.32 Although many farmers do not receive much in the way of subsidies, especially those in the areas of livestock and specialty crops (fruit, vegetable, and nuts),33 there are still a sig- nificant number of farmers growing row crops like corn and cotton that do receive significant farm subsidies. The primary subsidy programs include the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program,34 the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program,35 and the federal crop insur- ance program.36 Farmers can participate on a crop-by-crop basis in the ARC program or the PLC program. These programs cover about 20 different crops.37 The ARC program protects farmers from what are referred to as “shallow” losses, pro- viding payments when their actual revenues fall below 86 percent of the expected revenues for their crops.38 The PLC program provides payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below a fixed, statutorily established reference price.39 The federal crop insurance program is broader in scope than ARC and PLC, and in crop year 2019 covered 124 commodities.40 Farmers pay a portion of a premium to participate in the program. Taxpayers on average pay about 60 per- cent41 of the premium. As explained by CRS, “Revenue Protection was the most frequently purchased policy type in 2019, accounting for almost 70 [percent] of policies purchased.”42 While there are certainly other subsidy programs besides ARC, PLC, and federal crop insurance, one program that deserves special mention is the federal sugar program. This program, unlike most other subsidy programs, intentionally tries to restrict supply43 and thereby drives up prices. The program costs consumers as much as $3.7 billion a year.44 When it comes to reforming subsidy programs, the next Administration will primarily have to look to legislative solutions. The next Administration should champion legislation that would: l Repeal the federal sugar program. The federal government should not be in the central planning business, and the sugar program is a prime example of harmful central planning. Its very purpose is to limit the sugar supply in order to increase prices. The program has a regressive effect, since lower-income households spend more of their money to meet food needs compared to higher income households.45 l Ideally, repeal the ARC and PLC programs. Farmers eligible to participate in ARC or PLC are generally already able to purchase federal crop insurance, policies that protect against shortfalls in expected revenue whether caused by lower prices or smaller harvests. The ARC program is especially egregious because farmers are being protected from shallow — 297 — Department of Agriculture losses, which is another way of saying minor dips in expected revenue. This is hardly consistent with the concept of providing a safety net to help farmers when they fall on hard times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in one of its options to reduce the federal deficit, has once again identified repealing all Title I farm programs, including ARC, PLC, and the federal sugar program.46 l Stop paying farmers twice for price and revenue losses during the same year. Farmers can receive support from the ARC or PLC programs and the federal crop insurance program to cover price declines and revenue shortfalls during the same year. Congress should prohibit this duplication by prohibiting farmers from receiving an ARC or PLC payment the same year they receive a crop insurance indemnity. l Reduce the premium subsidy rate for crop insurance. On average, taxpayers cover about 60 percent47 of the premium cost for policies purchased in the federal crop insurance program. One of the most widely supported and bipartisan policy reforms is to reduce the premium subsidy that taxpayers are forced to pay.48 At a minimum, taxpayers should not pay more than 50 percent of the premium. After all, taxpayers should not have to pay more than the farmers who benefit from the crop insurance policies. CBO has found that reducing the premium subsidy to 47 percent would save $8.1 billion over 10 years and have little impact on crop insurance participation or on the number of covered acres.49 In that analysis, there would be a reduction in insured acres of just one-half of 1 percent, and only 1.5 percent of acres would have lower coverage levels. 50 This reform is basically all benefit with little to no cost. In its recently released report identifying options to reduce the federal deficit, CBO found that reducing the premium subsidy to 40 percent would save $20.9 billion over 10 years.51 Beyond these legislative reforms, the next Administration should: l Communicate to Congress the necessity of transparency and a genuine reform process. The White House and the USDA should make it very clear that the farm bill process, including reform of farm subsidies, must be con- ducted through an open process with time for mark-up and the opportunity for changes to be made outside the Agriculture Committee process. The farm bill too often is developed behind closed doors and without any chance for real reform. The White House, given the power of the bully pulpit,

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 497-499AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SPARC Act focuses on addressing rural healthcare workforce shortages through loan repayment incentives for specialty providers, while Project 2025's HHS section emphasizes Medicare Advantage reform, site-neutral payments, conscience protections, and physician-owned hospital expansion—areas with little thematic overlap."

Key themes:healthcare accessrural healthworkforce incentives

— 464 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) rule; l The Medicare Advantage Qualifying Payment Arrangement Incentive (MAQI) demonstration; and l The Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC, rebranded as the Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health or ACO REACH) model. Additionally, regulations should advance site neutrality by eliminating the inpa- tient-only list and expanding the ambulatory surgical center covered procedures list. Medicare generally pays more for inpatient hospital procedures and less for the same procedures performed in an outpatient setting. Whether a medical ser- vice is delivered in a physician’s office, a clinic, or a hospital setting, the Medicare payment for that service should be the same. CMS should expand the application of site-neutral payment options to more settings. Such a policy would level the playing field among providers and remove the financial disabilities for medical professionals who would compete with hospital systems.23 Finally, HHS needs to restore and enhance conscience protection regulations that allow medical practitioners to participate in federal health care programs without being compelled to provide sex changes or similar services. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS l Remove restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)24 imposed restrictions prohibiting Medicare from reimbursing physician-owned and specialty hospitals. The current restrictions do little more than serve the special interests of large hospital systems and undercut consumer choice of high-quality, specialty care. These restrictions should be removed so that physician-owned hospitals can compete with other hospitals in serving Medicare patients.25 l Encourage more direct competition between Medicare Advantage and private plans. Medicare Advantage (MA), a system of competing private health plans, is the major alternative to traditional Medicare for America’s large and growing cohort of seniors. The program provides beneficiaries with a wide range of competitive health plan choices—a richer set of benefits than traditional Medicare provides and at a reasonable cost. Equally as important, the MA program has been registering consistently high marks for superior performance in delivering high-quality care. Critical reforms are still needed to strengthen and improve the program for the future. Specifically: — 465 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option. 2. Give beneficiaries direct control of how they spend Medicare dollars. 3. Remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans. 4. Replace the complex formula-based payment model with a competitive bidding model. 5. Reconfigure the current risk adjustment model. 6. Remove restrictions on key benefits and services, including those related to prescription drugs, hospice care, and medical savings account plans.26 Legacy Medicare Reform. Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should: l Base payments on the health status of the patient or intensity of the service rather than where the patient happens to receive that service. l Replace the bureaucrat-driven fee-for-service system with value- based payments to empower patients to find the care that best serves their needs. l Codify price transparency regulations. l Restructure 340B drug subsidies27 toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. l Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program28 and Inflation Reduction Act.29 Medicare Part D Reform. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a drug price negotiation program in Medicare that replaced the existing private-sector negotiations in Part D with government price controls for prescription drugs. These government price controls will limit access to medications and reduce patient access to new medication. This “negotiation” program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued. Other reforms should include eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in

Department of Agriculture

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 329-331AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The SPARC Act addresses healthcare workforce shortages in rural areas through loan repayment incentives, whereas the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on reforming agricultural subsidy programs. Both mention rural communities, but their policy objectives and sectors are unrelated, resulting in only a tangential connection."

Key themes:ruralfederal programincentiveunderserved communities

— 296 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise support went to just six commodities—corn, cotton, peanuts, rice, soybeans, and wheat—that together account for only 28 percent of farm receipts.32 Although many farmers do not receive much in the way of subsidies, especially those in the areas of livestock and specialty crops (fruit, vegetable, and nuts),33 there are still a sig- nificant number of farmers growing row crops like corn and cotton that do receive significant farm subsidies. The primary subsidy programs include the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program,34 the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program,35 and the federal crop insur- ance program.36 Farmers can participate on a crop-by-crop basis in the ARC program or the PLC program. These programs cover about 20 different crops.37 The ARC program protects farmers from what are referred to as “shallow” losses, pro- viding payments when their actual revenues fall below 86 percent of the expected revenues for their crops.38 The PLC program provides payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below a fixed, statutorily established reference price.39 The federal crop insurance program is broader in scope than ARC and PLC, and in crop year 2019 covered 124 commodities.40 Farmers pay a portion of a premium to participate in the program. Taxpayers on average pay about 60 per- cent41 of the premium. As explained by CRS, “Revenue Protection was the most frequently purchased policy type in 2019, accounting for almost 70 [percent] of policies purchased.”42 While there are certainly other subsidy programs besides ARC, PLC, and federal crop insurance, one program that deserves special mention is the federal sugar program. This program, unlike most other subsidy programs, intentionally tries to restrict supply43 and thereby drives up prices. The program costs consumers as much as $3.7 billion a year.44 When it comes to reforming subsidy programs, the next Administration will primarily have to look to legislative solutions. The next Administration should champion legislation that would: l Repeal the federal sugar program. The federal government should not be in the central planning business, and the sugar program is a prime example of harmful central planning. Its very purpose is to limit the sugar supply in order to increase prices. The program has a regressive effect, since lower-income households spend more of their money to meet food needs compared to higher income households.45 l Ideally, repeal the ARC and PLC programs. Farmers eligible to participate in ARC or PLC are generally already able to purchase federal crop insurance, policies that protect against shortfalls in expected revenue whether caused by lower prices or smaller harvests. The ARC program is especially egregious because farmers are being protected from shallow

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills