Latest news with #Republican-controlled
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
With time running out, Florida's GOP-led Legislature forges budget deal
TALLAHASSEE, Florida — Florida legislative leaders said late Friday they have forged a budget deal that will guarantee $2.25 billion shifted into tax cuts and reserves while also establishing a path for legislators to avoid a potential shutdown of state government this summer. The agreement does not include a permanent reduction in the overall sales tax rate, which at one point had been a top priority of state House Speaker Daniel Perez but had come under fire by Gov. Ron DeSantis amid a bitter feud between Sunshine State Republicans. The deal announced late Friday by Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton is on top-line level spending levels that will be used to hammer out a final budget in June. In a memo to senators, Albritton said the plan is for lawmakers to start budget conference meetings Tuesday, with the goal to work over the next two weeks and vote out the budget no later than June 16. 'The framework set forth in these allocations provides for a fiscally responsible, balanced budget that reduces state spending, lowers per capital spending, and reduces the growth of state bureaucracy,' Albritton wrote. Albritton and Perez have been at odds for weeks over the size and scale of potential tax cuts, as well as a disagreement on how much spending should be authorized in the coming year. Perez had maintained that the Republican-controlled Legislature and DeSantis had spent too much the last several years. The state House and Senate on Friday evening did not release all the details of the proposed deal, including the amount of state tax dollars that will be allocated to specific areas such as the environment, health care and education. A spokesperson for Albritton said those numbers would be released Monday. But the agreement calls for the Legislature to reduce 'recurring revenue' by $2.25 billion including the elimination of sales tax charged on commercial leases and what is being billed as 'permanent sales tax exemptions targeted toward Florida families.' This was not explained further, but Albritton earlier in the year had proposed the permanent elimination of sales taxes on clothing and shoes valued at less than $75. The $2.25 billion, however, also includes $750 million for the state's main budget reserve while also setting aside $250 million a year to pay off outstanding debt — another top priority for DeSantis. Legislative leaders also announced that they would ask voters to increase the size of the Budget Stabilization Fund mandated in the state constitution. The fund is currently capped at 10 percent of the net revenue collected for the state's main budget account. Lawmakers want voters to increase the amount authorized for the fund to 25 percent and to require the state to set aside $750 million a year until that cap is reached. The proposed amendment would go on the November 2026 ballot. Perez and Albritton have promised to keep $1.5 billion in reserves over the next two years before the ballot measure goes before voters. During their regular 60-day session, the state House and Senate initially pushed out starkly different spending plans that had a $4.4 billion spending gap as the House proposed a massive $5 billion permanent reduction in the state's sales taxes. The session was supposed to end earlier in early May, but lawmakers were forced to extend it beyond the normal 60 days due to their budget disagreement. On what was supposed to be the final day of the session, Albritton and Perez said they had agreed to slash taxes by $2.8 billion, including a permanent reduction in the state sales tax rate. But that deal blew up after DeSantis threatened to veto the sales tax plan, saying it would undermine efforts to cut property taxes the governor has been championing. Albritton earlier this month stated in a memo that many senators were also concerned about the impacts of such a large cut. Perez reacted harshly, saying Albritton had broken his promise.
Politico
11 hours ago
- Business
- Politico
With time running out, Florida's GOP-led Legislature forges budget deal
TALLAHASSEE, Florida — Florida legislative leaders said late Friday they have forged a budget deal that will guarantee $2.25 billion shifted into tax cuts and reserves while also establishing a path for legislators to avoid a potential shutdown of state government this summer. The agreement does not include a permanent reduction in the overall sales tax rate, which at one point had been a top priority of state House Speaker Daniel Perez but had come under fire by Gov. Ron DeSantis amid a bitter feud between Sunshine State Republicans. The deal announced late Friday by Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton is on top-line level spending levels that will be used to hammer out a final budget in June. In a memo to senators, Albritton said the plan is for lawmakers to start budget conference meetings Tuesday, with the goal to work over the next two weeks and vote out the budget no later than June 16. 'The framework set forth in these allocations provides for a fiscally responsible, balanced budget that reduces state spending, lowers per capital spending, and reduces the growth of state bureaucracy,' Albritton wrote. Albritton and Perez have been at odds for weeks over the size and scale of potential tax cuts, as well as a disagreement on how much spending should be authorized in the coming year. Perez had maintained that the Republican-controlled Legislature and DeSantis had spent too much the last several years. The state House and Senate on Friday evening did not release all the details of the proposed deal, including the amount of state tax dollars that will be allocated to specific areas such as the environment, health care and education. A spokesperson for Albritton said those numbers would be released Monday. But the agreement calls for the Legislature to reduce 'recurring revenue' by $2.25 billion including the elimination of sales tax charged on commercial leases and what is being billed as 'permanent sales tax exemptions targeted toward Florida families.' This was not explained further, but Albritton earlier in the year had proposed the permanent elimination of sales taxes on clothing and shoes valued at less than $75. The $2.25 billion, however, also includes $750 million for the state's main budget reserve while also setting aside $250 million a year to pay off outstanding debt — another top priority for DeSantis. Legislative leaders also announced that they would ask voters to increase the size of the Budget Stabilization Fund mandated in the state constitution. The fund is currently capped at 10 percent of the net revenue collected for the state's main budget account. Lawmakers want voters to increase the amount authorized for the fund to 25 percent and to require the state to set aside $750 million a year until that cap is reached. The proposed amendment would go on the November 2026 ballot. Perez and Albritton have promised to keep $1.5 billion in reserves over the next two years before the ballot measure goes before voters. During their regular 60-day session, the state House and Senate initially pushed out starkly different spending plans that had a $4.4 billion spending gap as the House proposed a massive $5 billion permanent reduction in the state's sales taxes. The session was supposed to end earlier in early May, but lawmakers were forced to extend it beyond the normal 60 days due to their budget disagreement. On what was supposed to be the final day of the session, Albritton and Perez said they had agreed to slash taxes by $2.8 billion, including a permanent reduction in the state sales tax rate. But that deal blew up after DeSantis threatened to veto the sales tax plan, saying it would undermine efforts to cut property taxes the governor has been championing. Albritton earlier this month stated in a memo that many senators were also concerned about the impacts of such a large cut. Perez reacted harshly, saying Albritton had broken his promise.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's reality TV–style pardon spree has real consequences for the justice system
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. There's a new legal process in America. It used to be that a guilty verdict or plea was followed by years of appeals and, perhaps years after that, a prayerful pardon application. This week showcased a new playbook: skirt your tax obligations by millions of dollars to fund a lavish lifestyle, plead guilty and, instead of going to prison or paying restitution, have your mom raise money for the president and then get pardoned. That's the case of Paul Walczak in a nutshell, but he's not the only new clemency recipient. Among this week's winning contestants were the reality television couple Todd and Julie Chrisley, whom President Donald Trump sprung from hefty prison terms for financial fraud. Their daughter spoke last summer at the Republican National Convention, where she likened her parents' purported persecution to Trump's indictments. You could say they're kindred spirits with the president when it comes to reality TV, fraud and, with those first two commonalities in mind, a knack for casting their cases as coming from unscrupulous prosecutors (in the Chrisleys' case that prosecutor being a Trump appointee, by the way). Remember, Trump's pardon spree didn't start this week or even this year. In his first term, he kicked things off by pardoning Joe Arpaio, the Arizona lawman convicted of contempt for disobeying a court order to stop racial profiling people for immigration enforcement. That set the 'law and order' tone that carries through to this day, when shirking court orders in the name of immigration enforcement sums up the Trump administration's legal work. Another former sheriff was among the lucky winners on Trump's clemency show. When Scott Jenkins of Virginia was sentenced to 10 years for bribery in March, the acting U.S. attorney had the temerity to criticize him for having 'violated his oath of office and the faith the citizens of Culpeper County placed in him when he engaged in a cash-for-badges scheme.' The prosecutor's statement from that bygone era continued, 'We hold our elected law enforcement officials to a higher standard of conduct and this case proves that when those officials use their authority for unjust personal enrichment, the Department of Justice will hold them accountable.' That is, until — well, you know. 'No MAGA left behind,' Ed Martin tweeted upon Jenkins' pardon. You may recall Martin as having effectively been deemed too extreme for confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate for Washington, D.C.'s top prosecutor job. So the administration shifted his duties, and his portfolio now includes being the DOJ's pardon attorney (the last one, Liz Oyer, was fired in March after she refused a speedy request to recommend restoring Mel Gibson's gun rights, which the Trump-supporting actor lost due to his domestic violence conviction). One gets the sense that corruption prosecutions are not a priority in the Trump administration. That's evident not only through the president's clemency but also through his Justice Department's actions in court — perhaps most notably in moving to dismiss New York City Mayor Eric Adams' corruption case for overtly political reasons. Ryan Reilly of NBC News observed a connection between the Adams and Jenkins cases, noting that they're linked by the DOJ's Public Integrity Section, which, he reported, 'has shrunk in both size and influence during the Trump administration.' The Adams connection leads us to another big story this week: Trump announced his intention to nominate Emil Bove to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Bove came onto the scene as then-candidate Trump's criminal defense lawyer, losing the hush money trial alongside his co-counsel Todd Blanche. Blanche is now the DOJ's deputy attorney general and Bove is principal associate deputy. Putting Bove on the bench would reward a sinister use of his law license with a lifetime judicial appointment. His handling of the Adams case is just one example but it's enough to show that he hardly deserves to be a lawyer, much less a judge. Recall that Bove not only pushed for an overtly political dismissal of the corruption case but caused several ethical prosecutors to resign rather than do his dirty work. And after all that, Bove failed to get the case dismissed in the shady way he wanted to — that is, in a way that would've given Trump's DOJ the option of holding the charges as political leverage over the Democratic mayor. The reason Bove failed in his corrupt mission was that the judge presiding over the case, Biden appointee Dale Ho, saw through the farce and refused to allow it. To be sure, Democrats are at fault for failing to confirm a deserving nominee to the Philadelphia-based circuit when they had the chance last year, leaving a vacant seat for Republicans to fill. The consequences of that failure shouldn't be forgotten, then, if Bove is privileged to be in the position of making decisions like the one Ho had to make, in rising above the base impulses of lawyers like Bove. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them on this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal blog and newsletter. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Teases Extra Episode of Elon Show After Icing Him Out
Donald Trump praised Elon Musk while announcing a joint press conference Friday that will take place amid tension with the billionaire DOGE head who is departing his government position. In making the announcement, the president hinted that while Friday will officially mark his last day, he is expected to be a regular in Trump's orbit. 'This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way,' Trump wrote amicably on Truth Social. 'Elon is terrific! See you tomorrow at the White House.' Trump's words echoed that of Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, who expressed a similar rosy outlook Thursday night. 'I know Elon is still very very close to the President,' he said on Fox News' The Ingraham Angle, 'and I think he's going to stay exactly there.' The Oval Office gathering comes as Musk has publicly distanced himself from a major piece of legislation to be considered by the Republican-controlled Senate: Trump's so-called 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' The legislation, which passed the House by a single vote, would curtail the effectiveness of DOGE's work over the last few months, Musk worried. 'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,' Musk told CBS Sunday Morning in a preview released earlier this week. Musk's Tesla opposes the bill as well, warning that an end to certain energy tax credits would 'threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid.' Musk had a back-and-forth with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller about the bill this week, with Miller claiming that DOGE's cuts couldn't be codified. 'You cannot cut discretionary spending (only mandatory) in a reconciliation bill. So DOGE cuts would have to be done through what is known as a rescissions package or an appropriations bill,' he wrote on X. The bill's fate in the Senate remains uncertain, with some Republican calling for more cuts. In addition to the budget proposal, Musk caused a stir last month when he objected to the president's sweeping tariffs, which he said would harm Tesla manufacturing. He and others in the administration, like Miller, also differed when it came to visas for highly-skilled workers, with Musk opposing a clamp-down. Yet Musk's departure was on 'good terms,' and the X owner is 'still friends with the president,' a senior Trump administration official told CBS. 'This isn't a separation, but just a return to the private sector for Musk,' the person added. 'He will continue to be a friend to the president, and we can characterize that as an 'adviser.'' Musk's status as a special government employee, which began January 20, lasted 130 days.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The White House Is Big Mad That a Court Blocked Trump's Tariffs
White House officials claimed to be the victims of a judicial coup amid a battle between federal courts to determine the legality of President Donald Trump's attempts to unilaterally impose potentially economically ruinous tariffs on the bulk of U.S. imports. On Wednesday, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade determined that the president had 'exceed any authority' granted to him by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — a 1970s law that allows the president to implement embargoes and levy sanctions during a national emergency, but has nothing to do with tariffs. Trump has cited the IEEPA as the legal justification to levy steep retaliatory tariffs on the nation's biggest trade partners, leading to panic throughout virtually every sector of the economy. The following day, a federal judge in the District Court for the District of Columbia also ruled that Trump lacked the appropriate authority under the IEEPA. The Trump administration quickly appealed the trade court's ruling on Wednesday, and on Thursday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the ruling. The White House has been livid over the judiciary trying to stop Trump from imposing tariffs. Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote Wednesday on X, for example, that 'the judicial coup is out of control.' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt elaborated during a press briefing on Thursday, telling reporters that the 'three judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump to stop him from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him.' 'These judges failed to acknowledge that the president of the United States has core Foreign Affairs powers and authority given to him by Congress to protect the United States economy and national security,' Leavitt argued. Meanwhile, Peter Navarro, one of Trump's trade advisers, went on Fox Business to bash the 'rogue judges' who blocked the tariffs, before changing the subject when the host pointed out that one of them was appointed by Trump. Navarro also slammed a reporter as 'biased' when he was asked in front of the White House about he and the administration's criticism of judges who rule against them. Trump could avoid all of this by simply asking Congress to green-light his tariffs — which isn't likely to happen because even congressional Republicans recognize the damage the tariffs will do to the economy, and would not likely pass legislation allowing them. Trump's only recourse, then, is to circumvent Congress, and then lash out at the judiciary when it tries to stop him. Fox News asked Leavitt during the press briefing on Thursday why the president couldn't ask the Republican-controlled Congress to pass new laws that the courts couldn't claim he was violating. Leavitt said that 'these laws have already been granted to the president by the Constitution and by laws that have been previously passed.' They haven't, though, and the president and the White House seem determined to strip the federal judiciary of its core function: interpreting the laws passed by Congress and the edicts issued by the president, and determining their legality. More from Rolling Stone Trump Admin Misleads the Supreme Court About Its South Sudan Deportations Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs Blocked by Federal Court Can Dems Save Themselves by Spending $20M on 'Speaking With American Men'? Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
