Ohio Senate budget eyes flat income tax, $600M toward Cleveland Browns
Jun. 3—The Ohio Senate unveiled a plan this week that makes hundreds of tweaks to the state's proposed two-year spending plan, including measures to set a flat income tax rate and tweak how the state would help finance the Cleveland Browns' new stadium.
The Senate-amended House Bill 96, released Tuesday, is the Senate's first swing at shaping the state's behemoth operating budget — a gargantuan piece of legislation that sets spending, taxes, and a wide range of other policy.
"What we're unveiling today is a bold, transformative and balanced budget," Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, told reporters. "It's something we've spent an awful lot of time on in the last several weeks, something that we entered into knowing that it had to be a pro-growth, positive budget for the state of Ohio."
The budget process starts with a draft from the governor (which is the office's biggest opportunity to create a legislative wish-list). That draft is then sent to the Ohio House, which amends the governor's draft and passes it along to the Senate.
What the Senate received this year from the Ohio House contained some substantial proposals: A plan to sell $600 million in public bonds to help fund the Cleveland Browns' proposed stadium in Brook Park; a plan to refund property taxes by cutting down on many Ohio schools' financial reserves; a much-contested change to how Ohio funds its public libraries; a late switch from a multi-year funding formula for Ohio's K-12 public schools that has raised alarms for local school districts and much more.
Some of the Senate changes would: — Create a flat, 2.75% income tax rate for all Ohioans who earn more than $26,050 annually. The proposal eliminates Ohio's highest tax bracket for earners pulling over $100,000 per year, eliminating over a billion in state tax revenue over a two-year period. — Expand access to Ohio's "homestead exemption" property tax relief program by increasing income threshold from $40,000 to $42,000 and allowing slightly more of a qualifying participants' home value to be tax exempt. — Grant county budget commissions the authority to reduce property tax millage "if the commission finds it reasonably necessary or prudent to avoid unnecessary, excessive, or unneeded property tax collections." — Eliminate replacement and substitute property tax levies. — Cap a school district's financial reserves at 50% of the prior year's operating expenses, as opposed to the House-proposed 30% carryover cap. General funds in excess of that 50% cap would then be portioned back out to the property taxpayers of that district. — Direct $600 million of the state's $3.7 billion in unclaimed funds to the Cleveland Browns new stadium project, instead of issuing public bonds. — Require school boards to obtain a 2/3 vote from members before putting a property tax levy on the ballot. — Add $633.9 million more to the state's K-12 public schools than the current biennium, phased in largely through new "performance-based" incentives that will reward high-performing and improving districts with more cash. — Establish a $100 million set-aside to potentially withhold from state universities that do not come under compliance of the newly-passed Senate Bill 1, which eliminates university-sanctioned diversity, equity and inclusion programs on public campuses.
The bill now awaits further hearings before the Senate Finance Committee, which is expected to approve a slate of amendments to the bill in the coming weeks.
Senate Democrats said the bill was unveiled to them only shortly before it was unveiled to the public, but that they already took issue with much of it. That includes the Senate's flat tax proposal, which Democrats framed as policy that puts an outsized tax burden on lower earners.
"We talk about this every time we have a flat tax discussion," Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said Tuesday. "They're inequitable in that they fall short of a 'flat' tax — actually what ends up happening is that they pay off the folks at the top of the income brackets and the folks at the lower end are the losers."
Local testimony
A variety of Dayton-area organizations and residents testified to senators in recent weeks about what they'd like to see in the state budget, particularly regarding education funding.
For example, Dayton Early College Academy asked the Senate to maintain the House's provisions that would increase community school funding from $1,000 today to $1,500 per pupil over the biennium. The Senate's proposal lowered the proposed rate to $1,100 in 2026 and $1,200 in 2027.
Meanwhile, the Clark Shawnee School District testified merely as an interested party, saying the district wanted the state to enact the third and final round of its so-called fair school funding plan, which would have pumped an additional $1.8 billion into public schools over 2026 and 2027 compared to the previous biennium.
Springfield City School District, meanwhile, testified in opposition to the House's budget on the basis of the House's provision that would cap districts from carrying financial reserves greater than 30% of the district's operating cost in the previous year.
Superintendent Bob Hill argued that the provision takes away schools' safety net and creates a system "penalizing fiscal responsibility rather than curbing waste."
The Senate's proposed change from a 30% cap to a 50% cap would address much of Hill's concerns, but his district today is clocked with carrying a 66.6% year-over-year reserve and could therefore still be docked under the Senate's plan.
Miami University encouraged the Senate to maintain House provisions that would route $14 million for the university to create the Ohio Institute for Quantum Computing Research, Talent, and Commercialization in partnership with the Cleveland Clinic. The two institutions will invest $70 million in the program over the next 10 years with the goal of making Ohio the "global epicenter of quantum computing medical research."
The Senate eliminated the earmark entirely.
------
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Scoop: $5 million ad blitz targets GOP senators over "big, beautiful bill"
Two nonpartisan groups are launching a $5 million advertising campaign urging vulnerable Republican senators to oppose the GOP's mega budget reconciliation bill, Axios has learned. Why it matters: It's one of the first major media campaigns against the tax and spending cut package, landing as Senate Republicans negotiate changes to the bill. The two groups, Unrig Our Economy and Families Over Billionaires, will air the ads in seven states with Republican senators up for re-election next year. The first ads launching on Friday will run in North Carolina, Maine and Iowa. Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Susan Collins (R-Me.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) are considered potentially vulnerable. Ads will follow in Alaska, South Carolina and Ohio, The big picture: The ads focus on three main aspects of the GOP reconciliation bill that are causing heartburn for Republican moderates: Provisions that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would lead to 16 million people losing health insurance. Medicaid cuts that health care CEOs have warned could put rural hospitals at risk of closure. A spike in preventable deaths that the University of Pennsylvania estimates would top 50,000 a year. Between the lines: Trump's "big, beautiful bill" can afford to lose no more than three Republican votes in the Senate. And GOP lawmakers are eyeing cuts to Medicare on top of Medicaid, senators said after a meeting at the White House on Wednesday. "The president is willing to eliminate any waste, fraud and abuse anywhere," Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), who attended the meeting, told Axios, adding that that "opens up Medicare, as well." What they're saying: Unrig Our Economy spokesperson Kobie Christian told Axios in a statement: "Republican Senators can try to minimize the effects of the Republican Tax Scam, but if they pass it, they would be putting hundreds of thousands of their constituents in danger."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP Sorts Out Which Poison Pills It Can Swallow To Pass House's ‘Big Beautiful' Bill
Senate Republicans began the work this week of deciphering what exactly House Republicans' have stuffed into President Trump's massive spending package — and what elements of it they can live with. One thing is clear: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Republican leadership have their work cut out for them. And in a few key cases, senators might soon find themselves caught between what Trump demands of them, and what's good for their reelection prospects. Similar to the competing pain points that surfaced among members of the House Republican conference, several Senate Republicans have gone on the record to object in various ways to either the bill's extensive gutting of social safety net programs or — on the other end of the spectrum — the extent to which it will add to the deficit, a Republican sin many in the party have built their brands opposing. At this point, it looks almost inevitable that senators will make changes to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which House Republicans drafted after weeks of intraparty quarrels. That means the House will have to vote on the bill again. Any major shifts could backfire, breaking the delicate balance on which House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) built the bill. Thune can only lose three votes from his caucus and still pass the legislation. Here are four places in which Republicans are likely to have to cut a deal, potentially tweaking just how destructive the final bill is. Several Senate Republicans have been publicly declaring that they are opposed to the ways in which the bill currently cuts social safety net programs, while, in most cases, still suggesting there are some cuts they'd support. Several Republican senators, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), have already indicated they won't get behind certain kinds of cuts to Medicaid and other programs, which are widely utilized by their constituents. 'I am not going to vote for Medicaid benefit cuts,' Hawley told reporters in the Senate basement in March. 'Work requirements, I'm totally fine with. But 21% of Missourians either get Medicaid or CHIP so I am not going to vote for benefit cuts for people who I think are qualified.' Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) has made similar statements, telling reporters on Wednesday that he is ok with freezing the provider taxes House Republicans took up in their bill but not cutting them back. Meanwhile Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), who recently announced a gubernatorial bid in his state, has said he is opposed to the way in which the legislation cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The House bill includes deep cuts to that program, including a cost-sharing plan that would require states to cover a portion of SNAP benefit costs; the benefits are currently completely covered by the federal government. 'Everybody that's going to be in state government is going to be concerned about it,' Tuberville said, according to Politico. 'I don't know whether we can afford it or not.' In recent days, some Senate Republicans have also indicated that they are exploring ideas to slash what they claim is 'waste, fraud and abuse' in Medicare —- despite President Donald Trump's previous vows to 'love and cherish' the program and promises not to touch it. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on Thursday said that Republicans are looking at changes to Medicare, telling The Hill there are 'a number' of reforms he'd like to see to programs maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 'I think anything that can be — that's waste, fraud and abuse are open to, obviously, discussions,' Thune also told reporters of Medicare. Meanwhile Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) took a stronger stance, saying Republicans shouldn't be afraid of cutting waste from the program. 'Why don't we go after that? I think we should,' Cramer told NBC. 'Some people are afraid of the topics; I'm not,' he added, noting that they would focus on waste, fraud and abuse. That phrase — 'waste, fraud and abuse' — has, of course, become the go-to terminology for Republicans who want to justify their cuts to largely popular programs, despite the fact that rooting out supposed 'waste, fraud and abuse' roughly translates to hidden, hard-for-the-public-to-understand cuts. This new proposal, too, is already stirring some pushback. 'What a terrible idea. We should not be touching Medicare,' Hawley told NBC. Sens. John Curtis (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Tillis and Murkowski have warned leadership about provisions of the bill that would gut Biden-era clean energy tax credits passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. The House bill's cuts were largely added to the House bill at the last minute in order to appease House Freedom Caucus members who were threatening to sink the bill on the House floor unless leadership made more cuts. They include plans to repeal residential energy-focused credits and several electric vehicle-related credits — both used by individual taxpayers — as well as almost immediately phasing out the clean electricity production and investment tax credit that aims to boost zero-emission electricity production from industry, utilities and manufacturing. 'I want to make sure that we are making good on the investments that we have made with those tax credits,' Murkowski told reporters in the Senate basement on Wednesday when asked about the tax credits. Meanwhile, Tillis — one of the most vulnerable Republicans in 2026 — on Wednesday indicated he wanted to see negotiations around the requirements and duration for the programs in question. He also specifically called out the foreign entity restrictions House Republicans put in the bill, which experts described to TPM as a 'bad faith' and 'unworkable' provision that Republicans say will prevent nations like China, Iran, North Korea and Russia from having access to the tax subsidies. Tillis described them as 'a big problem.' 'As I understand it, the level of granularity proposed by the House renders the programs inoperative,' Tillis told reporters on his way up to a floor vote. While several Senate Republicans are opposing cuts to programs that are crucial for their states, others, on the other end of the spectrum, are calling for more spending cuts than what are included in the House Republican package. (These Republicans have, lately, found a surprising ally in the president's erstwhile advisor, Elon Musk.) Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) are loudly asking for deeper cuts, saying they are worried about the impact of the megabill on the deficit. 'I refuse to accept $2 trillion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see as the new normal. We have to address that problem, and unfortunately this bill doesn't do so,' Johnson, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said Wednesday during an ABC News interview. Paul has made a career of libertarian budget hawkery, and is objecting, in particular, to a provision of the bill that raises the debt ceiling, something that must happen this summer in order for the U.S. to avoid default. He has previously indicated he does not believe 'expanding the debt ceiling more than we've ever done it before' is fiscally conservative. 'This will be the greatest increase in the debt ceiling ever, and the GOP owns this now,' Paul told reporters after the House passed their version of the bill.
an hour ago
Johnson tries to protect fate of megabill from Trump-Musk crossfire
Speaker Mike Johnson is working to keep the focus on the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on Friday as all eyes remain on President Donald Trump and Elon Musk amid their bitter public feud. Johnson is pushing the House-passed bill that advances Trump's legislative agenda, which is being negotiated in the Senate. Musk has publicly criticized the bill, calling it a "disgusting abomination" and encouraging members of Congress to "kill the bill." Musk's criticism reached a boiling point on Thursday -- ending with an explosive spat between the president and the tech billionaire. On Friday morning, Trump told ABC News that Musk had "lost his mind." Johnson was once one of Musk's most powerful boosters on Capitol Hill. Johnson met with Musk repeatedly and would even talk him through legislation by phone. Musk even addressed a meeting of House Republicans in March. Asked by ABC News if it was a mistake to trust Musk, Johnson dismissed the question and turned the focus back to the bill. "I'm not going to engage in this back-and-forth stuff. I don't think the American people care much about Twitter wars. I think they care about us accomplishing our legislative agenda, and the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' does that." Johnson reiterated Friday that he has a job to do -- and it's not to get involved in the Musk-Trump squabble. Still, Johnson engaged in the online battle Thursday, responding to a Musk post criticizing the speaker. Several other House Republicans are weighing in on the dispute and whether Musk's influence and strong opinions about the megabill could influence its passage. "I think Elon probably did change the trajectory of this bill two or three days ago when he came out against it because people trust the guy who can land rockets backwards more than they do the politicians," Republican Rep. Thomas Massie said. Massie was one of two House Republicans who opposed the bill when the House voted on it last month. GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene sided with both Trump and Musk on different aspects of the bill -- favoring Musk on the price tag. She said ultimately she thinks the focus should be on passing Trump's agenda. "I don't think lashing out on the Internet is the way to handle any kind of disagreement, especially when you have each other's cell phones," Greene told reporters Friday. "I hope this gets worked out, but I will tell you right now that people are going to be focused on making sure that we get the agenda that we voted for." Republican Rep Troy Nehls, a staunch Trump ally, called for an end to the spat between the president and Musk, saying "enough is enough." Despite Musk publicly clashing with the head of their party -- even seeming to suggest the House should impeach the president -- some Republicans didn't go out of their way to bad mouth the billionaire. "Elon Musk can use his funds as he sees fit," Republican Rep. Ralph Norman said when asked if he's worried Musk would primary Republicans. "Again, he's a patriot and if he disagrees, I respect the honesty, really." Republican Rep. Warren Davidson called for unity. "I just hope that people that I care a lot about get along, that they mend, that they patch up their relationship," he said. "It's disappointing to see them arguing in public that way." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries capitalized on the clash, calling it a "welcome development." "To the extent that the developments of this week will make it more likely that we can kill the GOP tax scam, that's a welcome development," he said.
