logo
Done deal: Florida legislators reach a budget agreement

Done deal: Florida legislators reach a budget agreement

Yahoo14 hours ago

House budget chief Rep. Lawrence McClure, left, and Senate budget chief Sen. Ed Hooper, right, answer budget questions on June 13, 2025. (Photo by Jay Waagmeester/Florida Phoenix)
Amid looming federal cuts, legislators finalized the state spending plan for the next fiscal year Friday, announcing they expect to take a final vote on the budget Monday evening.
As of Friday evening, the budget had not been printed, but Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ed Hooper, R-Clearwater, told reporters the spending plan is about $500 million less than what Gov. Ron DeSantis' proposed $115.6 billion budget for state fiscal year 2025-26.
Friday marked the 102nd day of this year's legislative session, which was extended because of the legislative leaders' failure to pass a budget. Disagreements over the size of the budget and what approach to take on tax cuts created a rift that pushed lawmakers to come back to Tallahassee to pass a budget before June 30 to avoid a government shutdown.
House Budget Committee Chair Lawrence McClure, R-Dover, said the debate took longer than it should have, but put the blame in part on special sessions on immigration called prior to the start of the 2025 legislative session.
'That took a lot of bandwidth from both chambers, membership and staff. So I'm not excusing that we're delayed in getting this budget done, but there were contributing factors that largely were out of the control of either chamber,' he said. 'I'm glad we did the work on immigration. It was important work. But I'm thankful we were as thorough as we were,' on the budget.
McClure also stressed the leaner budget. He emphasized the $1.5 billion set for reserves over the next two fiscal years, which the GOP-led Legislature is touting as an answer for a potential recession.
'For starters, it's a smaller supplemental list than many years prior,' McClure said, adding, 'we've put a bunch of recurring money in reserve stabilizing the long-term future.'
Lawmakers last dipped into the Budget Stabilization Fund, which currently has $4.4 billion, during the Great Recession.
Still, President Donald Trump's plan to phase out the Federal Emergency Management Agency after this year's hurricane season worried Hooper, he said. The Senate agreed to provide $23 million for the Florida State Guard — DeSantis had requested $62 million — keeping in mind the civilian volunteer force's role in responding to emergencies.
'We heard yesterday that, from our friends in Washington, after this hurricane season, there may be no more FEMA,' Hooper said. 'We may be on our own someday, and that would not be the time to start thinking about what should we plan ahead. … Just the state guard is an important part of making sure our state has the resources because the National Guard; it could be called anywhere.'
The Florida State Guard has mainly been part of DeSantis' messaging against illegal immigration, particularly in sending troops to Texas' southern border.
Hooper also expressed concerns about the multi-billion-dollar cut to Medicaid that Congress could enact. About 44% of federal funds coming into the state are for Medicaid.
'We hope they never change the formula of the Medicaid reimbursement,' he said. 'We're in trouble if they do.'
Legislators earmarked nearly $560 million for local projects important to members. The supplemental funding was included on so-called sprinkle lists the chambers released Friday. But those hundreds of millions went to more than local projects.
The powerful nursing home industry was able to secure significant Medicaid rate increases for long-term care facilities on both the House and Senate sprinkle lists. In the aggregate, the chambers agreed to a $176 million hike, of which about $18 million is recurring. That's on top of a near $110 million rate increase the chambers had already agreed to put in the budget.
The increase in funds is expected to be coupled with new requirements on nursing homes that will be addressed in separate legislation, known as the conforming bill. It will be one of a spate of issues contained in SB 2514 the health care conforming bill.
The House targeted $23.3 million in state and federal funds to a Medicaid managed care program for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The program is a priority of House Speaker Daniel Perez, R-Miami, who pushed this year to take the small pilot program available in two Medicaid regions statewide.
Republican Senate President Ben Albritton, of Wachula, had to give up his dreams for a $200 million 'Rural Renaissance' to invest in the state's underdeveloped and economically challenged communities. But he managed to keep most of the money for tackling food insecurity.
Before budget negotiations fell apart earlier in the year, the Senate's budget included two grant programs through the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: $12 million to expand the infrastructure of food banks in rural communities, and another $38 million to help food banks buy products from Florida farmers.
In this final deal, Albritton gets to keep $10 million for food bank infrastructure and $28 million for farmers to feed communities. Food bank networks across the state counted on this investment following the loss of millions in federal funds they used to buy fresh produce.
The Senate included in its sprinkle list $300,000 for an 'Intellectual Freedom Survey,' half for the State University System and half for the Florida College System. The survey is meant to 'compile and analyze the annual intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity survey.'
The House included $7.5 million for Florida Polytechnic University to increase its enrollment to 3,000 students. Its fall 2024 enrollment was more than 1,770.
The chambers agreed to fund $42.4 million to Florida State University for operational funding, the most of any institution. Florida International University would receive $35 million under the proposed budget for operation enhancement.
Between the two chambers' sprinkle lists, $10 million has been allocated to security for Jewish day schools.
In its Friday offer, the Senate rejected a House proposal to require private universities to meet performance metrics to accept scholarships for in-state students.
The House included in its sprinkle list $4 million for Florida State University, half for the newly created Institute for Pediatric Rare Diseases and half for Sunshine Genetics Pilot Program.
In the sprinkle list, the Senate was more amenable to DeSantis' requests.
Aside from including funds for the State Guard, the upper chamber also included $25 million for the Florida Job Growth Grant Fund, an initiative to encourage public infrastructure projects. In total, the budget includes $50 million out of the $75 million in DeSantis' proposed budget.
Cancer funding has been a priority for the DeSantis administration which pushed this year for a number of changes to how the state funds cancer research.
While the DeSantis administration fell short on its efforts to redirect $127 million in cancer funds it did succeed on other fronts. The Legislature agreed to appropriate $50 million for a research incubator for cancer and another $60 million increase in innovation funds awarded by the First Lady Casey DeSantis as part of her cancer initiative.
The budget is complete but the tax reduction plan is not.
Legislators are also expected to hammer out a tax cut package that will include a reduction in business rent taxes as well as other changes designed to assist Florida families.
While the chambers have agreed to spending levels and the fine print that goes along with how the money should be spent they still haven't finalized the conforming bills. The Legislature is using budget conforming bills to pass substantive policy. Unlike the budget, which expires in a year, conforming bills change statutes.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers

Los Angeles Times

time8 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers

President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Opinion - No amount of marijuana is safe for teens
Opinion - No amount of marijuana is safe for teens

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - No amount of marijuana is safe for teens

'Since the failed war on drugs began more than 50 years ago, the prohibition of marijuana has ruined lives, families and communities, particularly communities of color,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently said while announcing a bipartisan bill to legalize cannabis that the federal level. Jeffries added that the bill 'will lay the groundwork to finally right these wrongs in a way that advances public safety.' But the growing body of evidence on cannabis's effects on kids suggests this is not true at all. Cannabis legalization efforts across the U.S. have greatly accelerated over the last 15 years. Despite some recent success at anti-legalization efforts (e.g., Florida and North Dakota voters rejected in 2024 an adult use bill), the widespread public support for cannabis reform has translated to nearly half of U.S. states permitting adult use of cannabis, and 46 states with some form of a medical cannabis program. Though all legal-marijuana states have set the minimum age at 21, underage use has become a significant health concern. National data indicate that in 2024, 16.2 percent of 12th graders reported cannabis use in the past 30 days, and about 5.1 percent indicated daily use. To compound matters, product potency levels of the main intoxicant in the cannabis plant, THC (or Delta-9), have skyrocketed, from approximately 5 percent in the 1970s to upwards of 95 percent in THC concentrate products today. Even street-weed is routinely five to six times more potent than it was back in the day. The pro-cannabis landscape has likely moved teen perceptions of cannabis use. A prior encouraging trend of the 1970s and 1980s, when more and more teens each year perceived use of cannabis to be harmful, is now in reverse. Only 35.9 percent of 12th graders view regular cannabis use as harmful, compared to 50.4 percent in 1980. This is happening even as research is showing that cannabis is more deleterious to young people than we previously believed. The negative effects of cannabis use on a teenager can be seen across a range of behaviors. Changes may be subtle at first and masked as typical teenage turmoil. But ominous signs can soon emerge, including changes in friends, loss of interest in school and hobbies, and use on a daily basis. The usual pushback against parental rules and expectations becomes anger and defiance. For many, underlying issues of depression and anxiety get worse. And there is a vast body of scientific research indicating that teen-onset use of THC use significantly increases the risk of addiction and can be a trigger for developing psychosis, including schizophrenia. The pro-cannabis trend is not occurring in a vacuum. Those entrusted with protecting the health and well-being of youth — parents, community leaders, policy makers — have dropped the ball on the issue. Policymakers tout exaggerated claims that THC is a source of wellness and safer than alcohol or nicotine. In some states, cannabis-based edibles are sold in convenience stores. Many parents have a rearview-mirror perception of cannabis, as they assume the products these days are the water-downed versions from the 1960's and '70s. Aggravating matters are the influences of some business interests. The playbook from Big Tobacco is now being used by Big Cannabis: political donations, legislative lobbying, media support, and claims that solutions to social problems will follow legalization. The debate on the public health impact of legalizing cannabis will continue. We hope the discourse and policies will follow the science and give priority to the health and well-being of youth. An international panel of elite researchers on cannabis recently concluded that there is no level of cannabis use that is safe, and if use occurs, it's vital to refrain until after puberty. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute on Drug Abuse also agree with these guidelines. One state — Minnesota — is requiring school-based drug prevention programs to include specific information on cannabis harms, a hopeful trend for other states to follow. When recreational cannabis is made available to adults, perhaps we assume that legal restrictions to those age 21 and older is a sufficient guardrail. But history tells us that youth will indulge in adult-only activities. The pro-cannabis environment in the U.S. poses a public health challenge to young people. There isn't a single challenge of being a teenager that cannabis will help solve. Sadly, this is a message that is not getting enough attention. Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where she focuses on child welfare and foster care issues. Ken Winters is a senior scientist at the Minnesota branch of the Oregon Research Institute and is the co-founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana Minnesota. This essay is adapted from a chapter in the forthcoming edited volume, 'Mind the Children: How to Think About the Youth Mental Health Collapse.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Social media exposes CA Dems with receipts on illegals after they attack Trump for cost of riot response
Social media exposes CA Dems with receipts on illegals after they attack Trump for cost of riot response

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Social media exposes CA Dems with receipts on illegals after they attack Trump for cost of riot response

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have lambasted President Trump for the financial cost of sending troops to quell anti-ICE riots in their jurisdiction, which came with a price tag dramatically less than the bill taxpayers foot to pay for illegal immigrants in the state. "Just an absolutely shameful use of taxpayer dollars that could be used to actually HELP people," Bass recently posted on X. "Despicable." "$134 million that should be going to LA's fire recovery," Newsom posted on X. "Shameful." Many on social media responded to the posts from Newsom and Bass and commented on how illegal immigrants cost taxpayers billions of dollars in California, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller. Gop Lawmaker Demands Accountability For Lapd's Delayed Response Time Helping Assaulted Ice Officers "Wait till you find out how many trillions we have to spend on illegal aliens," Miller posted on X in response to Newsom. Read On The Fox News App "Now do the $9 billion you drained out of our state treasury to fund your free healthcare for illegals immigrants scheme," campaign strategist Andrew Clark posted on X. "How many billions have you spent on illegals Gavin? It's well into the hundreds of billions,"Conservative activist and filmmaker Robby Starbuck posted on X. "THAT money should have gone to your citizens and fire recovery but you gave it to illegals. Recent studies reviewed by Fox News Digital show that California spends at least tens of billions on illegal immigrants each year, far more than the $134 million cost of sending in federal troops to respond to rioting. A Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) cost analysis, promoted by the House Budget Committee in a 2023 press release, found that "benefits and services provided to illegal aliens in California alone in 2022" amounted to more than $22 billion. In a more recent cost analysis, FAIR calculated that services for illegal immigrants cost California taxpayers $31 billion per year. A 2019 study from FAIR found that incarceration costs of illegal immigrants going through the court process and being housed in jail cost California over $2 billion per year. Earlier this year, Newsom asked for an additional $2.8 billion loan to address a bloated deficit in the state's Medicaid program, which has surpassed budget expectations largely due to coverage for illegal immigrants. Watch: Dem, Media Outlets Insist La Anti-ice Riots Are 'Peaceful' Despite Violence, Injured Cops Last year, California expanded Medi-Cal to cover all low-income adults ages 26 through 49, regardless of immigration status, making it the first state to do so. Roughly 1.6 million illegal immigrants are enrolled in the state's healthcare program, according to state data, and 15 million California residents are enrolled. In addition to the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on individuals illegally in the country, a recent study by Wallethub found that California ranks nearly last in the country when it comes to return on investment for taxpayers. Wallethub examined state and local tax collections and then compared that with the quality of services received in education, health, safety, the economy, and infrastructure and pollution. The Golden State ranks 47th in taxpayer efficiency in the United States. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back at California Democrats and pointed to the cost the rioters could inflict, already estimated in the millions as of Thursday, on the taxpayers in terms of property damage if not quickly quelled by federal troops. "Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass are conveniently ignoring the high price of mass looting, rioters destroying LA's family businesses, public property, and setting cars and other property on fire," McLaughlin said. "President Trump will not stand by while these lawless rioters loot and destroy a great American city. Newsom and Bass should be thanking President Trump for providing additional support to restore law and order and stop the destruction of LA." In a statement to Fox News Digital, Newsom Communications Director Izzy Gardon said there is an "irrefutable return on investment when Californians have access to education and healthcare." "There's zero return for taxpayers when Trump blows $140 million of YOUR dollars to pull troops off the border and away from wildfire prep just so they can sit idle in L.A. while he cosplays as a dictator and chases Fox News headlines. This isn't public safety — it's a political stunt and a disgrace." Bass's office directed Fox News Digital to a comment the mayor made on MSNBC. "We are a city of immigrants," Bass said. "We have entire industries that wouldn't even be able to function without immigrant labor. So this is terrible to families, but it also is a very powerful blow to the local economy if this is going to continue." Late Thursday, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday directing President Donald Trump to return control of the National Guard to California. The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. The Trump administration appealed that decision and hours later the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the federal judge's order. The court said it would hold a hearing on the matter on June 17. Fox News Digital's Jamie Joseph and Associated Press contributed to this reportOriginal article source: Social media exposes CA Dems with receipts on illegals after they attack Trump for cost of riot response

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store