No budget talks until after June 2, Florida legislative leaders tell members
The latest news about budget negotiations between the Florida House and Senate is that there really isn't any news to report.
House Speaker Daniel Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton issued brief statements late Friday afternoon telling their members that they do not need to plan on returning to Tallahassee next week.
'I hope to have a better idea of our scheduling moving forward in the next few days and will share another update after the Memorial Day Holiday,' Albritton wrote.
'We continue working closely with the Senate toward a final budget agreement,' added Perez in his own statement to his members. 'We will ensure you have the necessary notice to make travel and scheduling arrangements when the time comes.'
The 60-day regular legislative session was scheduled to end three weeks ago, on May 2. However, the two chambers have not been able to come together on a budget, the only job that they are constitutionally required to accomplish. The dispute mainly centers on the issue of tax cuts.
The session was originally extended to June 2, but the House returned to Tallahassee for one day last week to extend until June 30 – something that the Senate has yet to do. The fiscal year ends on June 30. If lawmakers don't pass a budget by that time it would mean a government shutdown.
The budget passed by the House in April was $113 billion, about $4.4 billion less than the Senate's spending plan.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Redistricting in Indiana: Republicans raise questions, Democrats have limited options if special session called
As Texas Democrats eye an end to their nearly two-week walkout to block Republican efforts there to redistrict, a growing number of Indiana Republicans have been voicing questions and concerns about redistricting in Indiana. The Texas Democrats announced Thursday they will return provided that Texas Republicans end a special session and California releases its own redrawn map proposal, both of which were expected to happen Friday. Democrats did not say what day they might return. Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott still intends to push through new maps that would give the GOP five more winnable seats before next year's midterm elections. Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows has said that if Democrats don't return the next time lawmakers reconvene on Friday, the session will end and the governor will immediately benign another one. Abbott put redistricting on the agenda at the urging of President Donald Trump, who wants to shore up Republicans' narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of his first presidency, when the 2018 midterms restored Democrats to a House majority that blocked his agenda and twice impeached him. It is unusual for redistricting to take place in the middle of the decade and typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade to coincide with the census. Last week, Vice President JD Vance visited Indiana to meet with Gov. Mike Braun and other state Republican leaders to discuss redistricting Indiana's nine congressional districts. Braun told the Indiana Capital Chronicle Tuesday that he hasn't yet decided if he'll call a special session for redistricting, but said he and state leaders are 'considering it seriously' as they wait to see what comes out of Texas. 'I think mostly what happens here is going to depend on where Texas goes, because I think they've got five seats in play,' Braun said. The Indianapolis Star reported Friday that Trump invited Indiana Republican lawmakers to the White House for an Aug. 26 meeting. Molly Swigart, a spokeswoman for Senate Republicans, said the meeting was scheduled 'to discuss President Trump's agenda.' Indiana University Professor Emeritus of Political Science Marjorie Hershey said the effort to redistrict is 'a power politics move' because the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is 'as narrow as it could be.' In the last 100 years, there have been two midterm elections where the party that holds the White House hasn't lost seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, Hershey said. If Republicans lose a handful of seats, they would lose control of the House, she said. 'That would essentially mean the end of President Trump's dominance of the political agenda. He's gotten where he has as a result of having complete control of the Congress,' Hershey said. 'In order to maintain his edge in the House of Representatives in 2026, Trump wants a cushion for Republican House members because he's afraid that otherwise he's almost guaranteed to lose the House.' Historically, redistricting has occasionally occurred between censuses, Hershey said, but it goes against precedent. 'This is not normal in American politics,' Hershey. 'It's not the way that the constitution was written. It's not the way the supreme court has structured election law over time.' Indiana Republican response Indiana was last redistricted in 2021, which left Congressional Republicans with seven seats and Democrats two seats. 'It's not as though Indiana isn't already redistricted in a highly partisan way to favor Republicans, it is,' Hershey said. 'Even squeezing out one more Republican district in Texas or in Indiana might save President Trump from becoming as much of a lame duck as he otherwise would in 2026.' Indiana's First District, held by Democrat U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan, D-Highland, would be the most under threat for redistricting because it's become more Republican over time — though still Democratically held, Hershey said. The First Congressional District remains Indiana's most competitive seat. In 2022, Mrvan won nearly 53% of the vote against Republican Jennifer-Ruth Green. In 2024, Mrvan saw a small increase in the number of votes to just over 53% when he won against Republican Randy Niemeyer. The problem for Republicans with redistricting the First District, Hershey said, would be Democrats from the First District would be moved into other districts, which could make the other districts more competitive for Democratic candidates. 'Sometimes the majority party in a state gets a little too greedy and thinks, 'we might have a shot at this one additional seat,' and then they end up losing the seat next door and not winning the seat that they had hoped to gain,' Hershey said. Aaron Dusso, an associate professor of political science at Indiana University Indianapolis, said he hasn't seen an appetite from Indiana Republicans to redistrict because of the risk that it will make safe Republican congressional districts more competitive. State Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, said party leadership has reached out to him to gauge his thoughts on redistricting Indiana. Soliday said he told the leadership 'show me the facts, tell me the unintended consequences, then I'll tell you how I'll vote.' 'I haven't seen anyone show me about how this would work,' Soliday said. 'I have a lot of questions before I jump on board with this.' Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, said he's discussed redistricting with his colleagues but he's still thinking about his position on redistricting. 'I'm not committing one way or the other,' Niemeyer said. 'We're looking at it and have not made a decision yet. That's where I'm at.' State Rep. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron, said the state legislature 'did a good job' redistricting in 2021, but he's waiting to see what the leadership decides about a special session for redistricting. 'I don't think it's necessary, but we'll wait and see what the caucus says,' Aylesworth said. 'I'm hesitant to change things, but we'll see what leadership says.' State Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, said he's spoken with leadership about redistricting, but that he needs more facts and the 'why' of redistricting. 'I don't see a need for it. I don't want to say yes or no, we're a work in progress on it,' Dernulc said. Indiana Democratic redistricting maneuvers In the Indiana House and Senate, two-thirds of members — or 67 House members and 34 senators – have to be present to call a quorum, according to each chamber's rules. In the House, Republicans hold 70 seats to Democrats 30. In the Senate, Republicans hold 40 seats to the Democrats' 10 seats. Indiana Republicans have enough members to call a quorum. Indiana Democrats 'wouldn't have a lot of options,' Dusso said, other than short-term delay tactics, like requiring readings of the whole redistricting bill or talking for long periods of time on the floor. Democrats can talk about the issue publicly to try to rally support from voters to put pressure on Republicans to not hold a special session on redistricting. 'It doesn't really stop anything from happening, it just slows it down,' Dusso said. The best move, Dusso said, would be for Democrats and lobbyists to talk with Braun now to persuade him not to call a special session. 'I think that's where they can win. Once it's called, I don't think they have a chance,' Dusso said. 'If you can get Braun to relent, I think that's where they're going to have their success.' If redistricting were to occur in Indiana, Hershey said it's likely that lawsuits would be filed. 'I'm sure that the Democrats will fight as hard as they can because there's a point at which the party that's trying to take this unfair advantage just starts to look bad,' Hershey said. 'It's a game of chicken, and we'll have to see who it is who veers away first.' State Sen. Rodney Pol Jr., D-Chesteron, said it's 'problematic' that President Trump has been pressuring Republican states to redistrict in the middle of a census. Trump's decision to do so shows he's scared to face the voters given the policies he's passed. 'He's afraid of his own base,' Pol said. 'It's not how our democracy works.' Given Indiana's Republican supermajority, Pol said Indiana Democrats couldn't leave the state to delay the vote. If a special session were called, Pol said the Democrats would attend and voice their opposition from the House and Senate floors. 'The only thing that we have is our voice,' Pol said. 'We're going to have to show up.'
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.
The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president. Even, so, commentators declared a ' coup ' because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a 'freedom fighter' against 'the Gestapo.' The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because 'American citizens lack the protections of statehood.' Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as 'D.C. shadow senator,' an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that 'it's entirely possible that people will die as a result' of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: 'We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.' Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came. D.C. needs to return to Maryland through 'retrocession.' In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called ' modified retrocession ' where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called 'the federal city.' The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole. Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state. That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation. Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest. It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions. So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn't Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature. The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical. Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It's not good enough to give them Maryland's senators. What's more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state's political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state. This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland. Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment. The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection. The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, ' We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' They complain that 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities.' The 'rescue' would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny. What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality. Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit. The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe 'shadow senators' and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem. Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.
