Ruby-red Florida is still preparing for a financial storm from DC
TALLAHASSEE, Florida — In this hurricane-prone state, Republican legislators say they are preparing to weather a political and financial storm.
In other states led by Democrats, the moves by lawmakers could be labeled 'Trump proofing.' But no matter the framing, Florida's GOP-controlled Legislature is about to wrap up work on the state's budget with a series of significant steps designed to shore up reserves and curtail spending.
The rationale given by Republican leaders includes everything from making the state's budget resistant to a possible recession (without mentioning the economic impact of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump) to acknowledging 'uncertainty' associated with Congress and potential cuts to Medicaid, food aid and federal agencies responsible for helping with emergency efforts.
'Should we have the expectation that if the federal government is spending less to get their budget and debt under control that we should be held harmless? I don't think it works that way,' said Senate President Ben Albritton (R-Wauchula.) 'The question is: 'Do I believe this budget prepares Florida for what could be coming out of the 'DOGE' cuts or just the changes that come out of Washington D.C.?' And I would say yes.'
Lawmakers in Tallahassee got to this point following a protracted and bumpy session, during which legislative leaders clashed over spending levels and tax cuts. State House Speaker Daniel Perez (R-Miami) initially wanted to permanently lower Florida's sales tax rate, but he encountered headwinds from Senate Republicans as well as Gov. Ron DeSantis. DeSantis contended the sales tax rate cut would benefit tourists and would undercut his push to cut local property taxes.
After being unable to come to a deal during their normal 60-day session, legislative leaders reached an accord late last week. The final deal calls for $2.25 billion in 'revenue reductions,' but part of that total includes steering extra money into state reserves while also dedicating money to paying down existing debt. The Legislature also intends to pass a proposed constitutional amendment that would ask voters to permanently increase the size of reserves.
Perez said his push was less about tax cuts and more about paring back spending he asserts had gotten out of control during DeSantis' time as governor.
But he also argued it would give Florida extra money that could be tapped into if another recession happens. During the Great Recession of the late 2000s, Florida Republican legislators resorted to large budget cuts, but they also drew down reserves and voted to raise taxes and fees to make up the difference
'None of us know what the future holds," said Perez. "When we had a recession, the state of Florida was not prepared for that recession. We began to scramble. ... We did not have the money that was necessary to protect Floridians. After this bill passes we will be in a better place.'
Florida currently has billions in reserves, including a mandated 'Budget Stabilization Fund.' They were able to reach that point because the state's economy grew in the aftermath of the Covid epidemic, while Florida was also flush with billions that came from Congress as part of massive aid packages.
Lawmakers are still tinkering with the current budget, but they are expected to land on a final total this month that puts overall state spending below the amount spent during the current fiscal year that ends on June 30.
The Legislature is also taking steps to claw back billions in unspent money. On Thursday, lawmakers sent DeSantis a bill that would free up $2.1 billion that Florida had set aside three years ago to assist private insurance companies struggling with backup financing due to the state's property insurance crisis. The money would have eventually reverted back to the state's main budget account, but legislators decided to speed that up.
As the session has gone on, top Republicans have initially side stepped questions about how much federal grant money state universities lost due to cuts pushed by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency efforts. Likewise, there has been little debate or discussion about potential impacts to other programs that are heavily reliant on federal aid such as Medicaid.
Florida is also still waiting on money it previously requested from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in response to a flurry of hurricanes that have ripped through the state in recent years.
'There may not be a FEMA next year, none of us know that,' state Senate budget chief Ed Hooper (R-Palm Harbor) said while defending the legislative proposal to set aside extra money for the reserves.
Under the current plan legislators will set aside $1.5 billion over the next two years that will eventually roll into the 'Budget Stabilization Fund' if voters ago along with the idea of increasing the size of that reserve.
Some Democrats — who contend the state already doesn't spend enough on teachers, health care and other programs — raised questions this week about the efforts to put money away in a 'lock box,' questioning how easily the Legislature could tap into the fund. The proposal going before voters says the state could withdraw money fund for a 'critical state need,' even though that term isn't defined.
'It's important to have flexibility because you never know what will come your way,' said state Rep. Christine Hunschofsky (D-Parkland).
But Republican legislators backing the idea said they wanted to make sure the money was only used to deal with a financial crisis or emergency for the state.
'We are doing this so we are truly prepared for a break-the-glass situation,' said Rep. Lawrence McClure (R-Dover), the House budget chief.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
19 minutes ago
- CBS News
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.


CBS News
22 minutes ago
- CBS News
Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado sue Trump administration over plan to distribute machine gun converters
Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware joined a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent it from distributing devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to be converted into machine guns. The lawsuit stems from a May 16 settlement agreement between the Trump administration and Rare Breed Triggers, a company that manufactures devices known as forced reset triggers. The lawsuit also includes Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C. What are forced reset triggers? Forced Reset Triggers, or FRTs, are aftermarket triggers that enable semi-automatic guns to fire as fast as fully automatic weapons. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ordered the company to halt sales and declared that FRTs would be considered machine guns under federal law, which consequently made them subject to tighter restrictions. Rare Breed Triggers disputed the ATF's stance and continued selling its FRTs, leading the federal government to file a lawsuit against the company in 2023. At the same time, the National Association for Gun Rights sued the ATF in federal court in Texas, challenging its classification of the FRT-15 as a machine gun. The May 16 settlement ended the litigation between the U.S. government and Rare Breed Triggers. "The Department's agreement with Rare Breed Triggers avoids the need for continued appeals in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers and continued litigation in other, related cases concerning the same issue," an announcement by the Department of Justice read. Under the lawsuit, ATF can stop enforcing the law against FRTs and can redistribute the devices previously seized by the agency. "Forced reset triggers turn semi-automatic firearms into weapons of war capable of inflicting devastating impacts on Maryland communities," said AG Brown. "The Trump administration's decision to send these previously seized firearms back to Maryland, where they are illegal, makes our neighbors and children more vulnerable to mass shootings." Suing over forced reset triggers With the lawsuit announced Monday, the states hope to prevent FRTs from being redistributed. "We're seeking a preliminary injunction to block the redistribution of forced reset triggers into our states," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said Monday morning. "This is just part of what we're doing in New Jersey and in the states we're representing to reduce gun violence." Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said the state banned rapid-fire devices in 2022. Maryland criminal law also bans rapid-fire activators. "These devices enable firearms to fire up to 900 bullets per minute," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said. "The increased rate of fire allows carnage and chaos to reign on the streets. Everyone nearby becomes vulnerable to serious injury or death." Maryland sues gun manufacturer over machine gun converter In a similar move, Maryland and Baltimore sued gun manufacturer Glock in February, alleging the company violated the state's Gun Industry Accountability Act. The lawsuit alleged that Glock contributed to the gun violence crisis by promoting the use of switches, a device that converts a pistol into a machine gun. During the Maryland General Assembly, lawmakers proposed a bill banning a list of weapons that can be converted from semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic using an attachment referred to as an auto-sear, or "switch." Just last week, Baltimore Police arrested a group of teens who they said had multiple guns and ammunition, along with an auto-sear attachment.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline
A privately owned company is proposing a pipeline across five states. While some of the state governments appear to be on board, the project is facing backlash from a large and formidable population: property owners. The pipeline, known as Summit Carbon Solutions, would span 2,500 miles and transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to a permanent underground storage site in North Dakota. Construction of the $9 billion pipeline is expected to begin this year, with operations kicking off in 2026. In June 2024, the project received regulatory approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission, despite landowner protests. Julie Glade and her husband, Paul, are Iowans who oppose the project because of its use of eminent domain. Their property aligns with the proposed route, and in 2022 the couple was visited by a land agent. "The guy who came to our door wanted us to sit down and sign it without reading it," Glade tells Reason. "They swooped in and tried to contact as many people as possible right away before the people knew what the consequences were. It's very unethical." Several other landowners in the state share the Glades' worries. During a hearing conducted by the Iowa Utility Commission, landowner Joan Gaul testified against the pipeline, which she said would cross a large portion of her farmland. Gaul said Summit Carbon Solutions mailed two easements, which would give the pipeline a legal right to her land, to her without notice. "This letter came telling us about taking our land using eminent domain. It was a difficult pill to swallow," she said. Gaul said she didn't accept the easements and has indicated that she will continue to fight the project. The Glades visit the Iowa Capitol nearly every week to voice their opposition to the pipeline. They are joined by what the couple calls a diverse coalition united by their concern for the basic constitutional right to land ownership. "We have MAGA Republicans and we have lefties. We put our differences aside and we work together," she says. The Glades' efforts could soon pay off. In May the state Senate passed House File 639, which would prevent CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain unless the company proves the pipeline meets the definition of public use. The bill would also prevent CO2 pipelines from operating longer than 25 years. The bill is awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is reportedly weighing opinions from pipeline supporters and detractors. If passed, the bill would represent a significant win for the rights of Iowa property owners. It would also be the latest setback for the Summit Carbon Solutions project. After the company launched a blitz of eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law in March preventing carbon dioxide pipelines from receiving eminent domain permission in the state. The post Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline appeared first on