logo
GOP-led Legislature expects less federal funding, focuses on emergency fund in budget talks

GOP-led Legislature expects less federal funding, focuses on emergency fund in budget talks

Yahoo3 days ago

Senate President Ben Albritton said on July 5, 2025, the framework for Florida's budget would prepare the state for future uncertainties. (Photo by Jackie Llanos/Florida Phoenix)
Acknowledging the uncertainty of how profound the federal funding cuts could be and the possibility of a recession, Florida legislative leaders want to set aside $1.5 billion over the next two fiscal years.
As Florida lawmakers continue meetings this week in Tallahassee to pass a budget after the process fell apart earlier in the year, Senate President Ben Albritton and House Speaker Daniel Perez are touting the plan to bolster a $4.4 billion fund, called the Budget Stabilization Fund.
A dispute over the state budget, the only bill lawmakers must pass, caused the Legislature to extend the 60-day regular session, and lawmakers voted Thursday to extend their time to finish the budget until June 18. Although lawmakers agreed to spend $50 billion in general revenue the next fiscal year, they're still working out the details of how that money will be spent.
The Legislature started advancing on Thursday a 2026 ballot amendment to increase the cap on how much money can sit in the BSF from 10% to 25% of revenue collections. At least 60% of voters will need to approve the proposed constitutional amendment, but lawmakers still plan to set aside $1.5 billion over the next two fiscal years in the meantime.
Federal funding made up a third of the state budget last year, and Albritton told reporters Thursday that the state shouldn't expect to receive the same level. His comments come as Congress considers hundreds of billions in cuts to Medicaid and food assistance over the next decade.
Medicaid cuts could rock state's budget, provider pay, and the care being delivered
'Should we have the expectation that if the federal government is spending less to get their budget and their debt more under control, that we should be held harmless? I don't think it works that way,' he said. 'We're the third-largest state in the country.'
Lawmakers want authorization to dip into the emergency reserves when revenue falls to the point that the BSF's balance is more than 20% of net revenue going into the state's primary general revenue fund to cover 'critical state needs,' a term that hasn't been defined. The last time the state withdrew money from the fund was during the Great Recession, according to a legislative analysis.
Meanwhile, Perez said the BSF serves as a way to prevent lawmakers from having to raise taxes in the future in case of a recession.
'None of us know what the future holds,' he said Thursday. 'I think this is just a preparation of being prepared for the unexpected, and none of us know what the unexpected is, but we have a sample to look at in the 2000s when we had a recession. The state of Florida was not prepared for that recession.'
Regarding federal assistance during the Atlantic hurricane season, which started June 1, Perez said decisions at the state level would come as the federal government solidifies a plan. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1.
'The federal government right now is somewhat of a moving target. I think we're seeing decisions transpire in real time, not knowing all of the effects at the same moment. Us as a state, and I don't just say us, I say that the Senate as well, will make decisions on how to deal with federal laws that are coming into play as they kind of come along,' he said.
But Democrats view the resolution to annually place $750 million aside in the BSF as tying the state's hands to respond to economic downturns and current needs because accessing the fund is not as easy as spending money in the state's normal reserves. Accessing the funds would take a two-thirds vote in each chamber.
House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell voted against the resolution to grow the BSF, saying the state needed to invest in stimulating the economy.
'You don't get to talk about saving money for a rainy day when it's still raining, and it's already raining on the people in Florida,' she said.
Rich Templin, director of politics and public policy for the Florida AFL-CIO, likened the resolution to bolster the BSF to having to pay $1,000 rent and placing that money in a savings account instead.
'When we consider this joint resolution in the midst of this budgeting process that we are in, it seems that what we value is putting money into an account that may or may never be used as opposed to funding kids having access to healthcare, or education, or teacher salaries.'
Both Albritton and Perez say their plan to eliminate taxes on business rent coupled with $350 million in permanent sales tax exemptions will help Floridians save money. However, they haven't reached an agreement on what items will be included in the sales tax exemptions and when.
Eliminating the tax for commercial leases, which is expected to cost $900 million, doesn't translate to direct savings to the average person, but it would be good for the state as a whole, Albritton said.
'I'll be the first one to say, of course, that doesn't apply to everyone in every situation, but the fact of the matter is, nothing we do, nothing you do, is perfect, and nothing we do can be perfect for every single Floridian,' he said. 'But in totality, when you are lowering what is a competitive disadvantage in Florida compared to other states, you're doing good for Florida as a whole.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How the Republican Budget Bill Will Raise Your Electric Bill
How the Republican Budget Bill Will Raise Your Electric Bill

Bloomberg

time29 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

How the Republican Budget Bill Will Raise Your Electric Bill

Three years ago, largely in response to disruptions in the global energy supply triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, electricity prices in the US skyrocketed — and they have remained strikingly high, as the US grid is stressed by the growth in electric-car charging and a huge surge in data-center construction. To address rising consumer prices, America needs to generate more electricity. The budget bill currently being debated in the Senate would have the opposite effect. It would kneecap America's short-term wind and solar installations while undermining the hope for innovative new ' clean firm ' solutions such as geothermal and nuclear.

GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever
GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever

If death and taxes are the only certainties, Joni Ernst is here to cut one and fast-track the other. 'We all are going to die," she said. You might think that's a line from a nihilistic French play. Or something a teenage goth said in Hot Topic. Or an epiphany from your stoner college roommate after he watched Interstellar at 3 a.m. But that was actually the Iowa Senator's God-honest response to concerns that slashing Medicaid to achieve President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would lead to more preventable deaths. The full exchange at a May 30 town hall included one audience member shouting at the stage, 'People will die!' And Ernst responding, 'People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven's sake.' That's not a health care policy — that's a horoscope for the terminally screwed. As you can imagine, the internet didn't love it, because losing your health should not trigger the equivalent of a shrug emoji from someone elected to serve the public good. But rather than walking it back, Ernst leaned in, filming a mock apology in a graveyard because nothing says, 'I care about your future,' like filming next to people who don't have one. Opinion: Nurses are drowning while Braun ignores Indiana's health care crisis Ernst's comments aren't just philosophical musings. She's justifying policy choices that cause real harm. If passed, this bill would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, remove health coverage for up to 7.6 million Americans. That's not just 'we all die someday' territory. That's 'some people will die soon and needlessly.' What makes this even more galling is that the people pushing these cuts have access to high-quality, taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. Congress gets the AAA, platinum, concierge-level government plan. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are told to try their luck with essential oils or YouTube acupuncture tutorials. Honestly, it felt more like performance art than policy: 'Sorry about your grandma getting kicked out of her assisted living facility. Please enjoy this scenic view of her future! LOL!' We're not asking you to defeat death, senator. Death is both inevitable and bipartisan. But there is a broad chasm between dying peacefully at 85 and dying in your 40's because your Medicaid plan disappeared and your GoFundMe didn't meet its goal. Fundamentally, governing is about priorities. A budget is a moral document. When a lawmaker tells you 'we're all going to die' in response to a policy choice, they're telling you 'I've made peace with your suffering as collateral damage.' And if a U.S. Senator can stand in a cemetery and joke about it, you have to wonder — who do our federal legislators think those graves are for? Opinion: Indiana DCS cut foster care in half — and now claims children are safer This isn't just about one comment or one bill. It's about a mindset that treats healthcare as a luxury rather than a right. If death is inevitable, then access to healthcare you can afford is what helps determine how long you have, how comfortably you live, and whether you get to watch your kids grow up. Healthcare isn't about escaping death. It's about dignity and quality of life while we are here. Ernst got one thing right: death will come for us all. But leadership, real leadership, is about helping people live as long and as well as they can before that day comes. You want to make jokes, Senator? Fine. But if your punchline is 'You're all going to die anyway,' don't be surprised when your constituents realize the joke's on them. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Joni Ernst films graveyard video after telling sick people "we all die" | Opinion

Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.

An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on

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