Catch up on the latest state budget decisions in the Maine Legislature
Entrance to the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee room in the Maine State House in Augusta. (Photo by Jim Neuger/Maine Morning Star)
A budget plan is taking shape and the clock is ticking.
Maine Morning Star will have regular updates as the committee tasked with setting that plan, the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee, takes straw votes on what to include ahead of a final vote on the budget proposal to be sent to the Maine Senate and House of Representatives for consideration.
Legislative leaders have said the intention is to complete all work by June 18, what had been the statutory adjournment date for the first regular session. Though, the Legislature is now in a special session, without a formal deadline.
In March, the Democratic majority pushed through a roughly $11.3 billion, two-year budget plan without Republican support and formally adjourned in order to start the clock for those funds to become available in 90 days.
Senate Republicans refused to back an alternative short-term plan that would have immediately filled the current deficit for MaineCare, the state's Medicaid program, because it did not include structural reform to the program.
The budget that did pass continued funding for state services at the same level while also providing one-time funding for MaineCare and other urgent needs. But it didn't include any of the policy changes Gov. Janet Mills proposed, such as tax increases and program cuts, to address the deficit and flattening revenues.
These proposals and others from lawmakers are now being weighed by the appropriations committee as it crafts the next iteration of the budget.
Follow along below:
8 mins ago
10 mins ago
8 mins ago
Monday morning at the State House began with more talk about taxes as the Appropriations Committee continued its line-by-lines votes on what to include in the budget.
The majority of the committee voted to remove Mills' proposed tax on ambulance services, which is one of several tax increases the governor proposed as a means to address the deficit and flattening revenues.
The tax on non-municipal ambulance service providers would have been equal to 6% of their net operating revenue, which the Mills administration said it would have used to leverage additional federal dollars and eventually increase MaineCare reimbursements.
While Republicans on the committee said they supported removing the tax — as the minority party has made clear it will not support tax increases of any kind — they questioned how the state will deal with those shortfalls and pay for additional spending the committee has approved.
One example from Monday was reallocating the cost of an emergency coordinator position that is partially funded through federal expenditures to being completely supported by the general fund.
'We're moving positions and costs into the general fund, and my only question is, where is that money coming from?' Sen. Sue Bernard (R-Aroostook) asked. 'Is it coming from more tax increases? Is it coming from cutting other programs that we haven't gotten to yet, or what?'
Sen. Peggy Rotundo (D-Androscoggin), who co-chairs the committee, responded, 'As we build this budget, we will take care of that in one way or another so that the budget will balance at the end.'
It is not yet clear whether the committee will support some of Mills' other proposed taxes or the cuts she proposed to health and child care programs. So far, the committee also voted out a proposed pharmacy tax.
Implications from federal funding cuts were also top of mind.
The coordinator position was one of several that the committee readjusted to be more reliant on state funding, though Mills made those recommendations before President Donald Trump's administration began rescinding congressionally appropriated funds.
'We have talked about the fact that if federal funds disappear, positions disappear,' Rotundo said.
But some concerns about federal funding predated Trump's second term. During the public hearing for the budget bill, the Maine Emergency Management Agency said budget deficits related to federal funding had already resulted in the agency leaving two positions vacant.
The committee voted to fund two positions fully with the general fund, after they'd previously been supported solely by federal dollars.
'It was important to make sure that these positions were preserved and that it was worth the investment in additional general fund dollars,' said Rep. Drew Gattie (D-Westbrook), the other co-chair of the committee.
10 mins ago
During the committee's last meeting on Thursday, the majority of its members rejected a tax on Maine pharmacies the governor had proposed, while voting in favor of additional funding and rate reform for nursing homes.
The pharmacy tax would have imposed a 70-cent tax on every outpatient prescription filled by Maine pharmacies, the revenue from which the Mills administration said it would use to leverage additional federal dollars and eventually increase MaineCare reimbursements.
'I haven't voted for any items,' said Republican budget lead Jack Ducharme of Madison on Thursday. 'Yet, this will be my first, because I believe that we already collect too much taxes.'
With a 10-2 vote, other Republicans backed removing the tax too, though the holdouts noted that their opposition was because of a lack of clarity about the overall budget plan.
'I applaud the work of the majority in terms of removing this,' Rep. Ken Fredette (R-Newport) said. 'However, I will be consistent in reviewing the overall global budget in determining whether or not I will support it.'
That sentiment was also shared ahead of the committee voting 9-3 in favor of $20 million in additional funding for nursing homes over the biennium. This includes a $6.5 million investment for rate reform to support the direct care workforce and incentivize permanent staff, which would in turn unlock $12.2 million in funding from the federal government.
'Nursing home rate reform is very important to us, however at this particular time we have not had a discussion about where additional general funds come from that we're going to need,' Ducharme said. 'In order for me to support this, even though I would historically support something like this, I want to know where the money's coming from.'
Other Republicans had a different take. While Rep. Amy Bradstreet Arata of New Gloucester would also like to know where the funds are coming from, 'I feel right about supporting this,' she said. 'I might not support the entire package, but I feel better knowing that this is in there, ultimately.'
Read more here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Senate Readies Tax Bill for Vote With Holdouts Threatening Delay
President Donald Trump's tax-and-spending agenda is nearing a climatic vote in the Senate this week in the wake of air strikes on Iran, which risk embroiling the US in a prolonged Middle East conflict. Trump's $4.2 trillion tax-cut package, partially offset by social safety net reductions, does not yet have the support it needs to pass the Senate. Fiscal hawks seeking to lower the bill's total price tag are at odds with Republicans worried about cuts to Medicaid health coverage for their constituents and phase-outs to green energy incentives that support jobs in their states.
Indianapolis Star
28 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Why won't Republicans call on Joe Hogsett to resign?
It is shocking that only one out of six Republicans on the Indianapolis City-County Council have called on Mayor Joe Hogsett to resign following sexual harassment allegations that have rocked his office in recent months. Many constituents of Republican councilors are frustrated that their caucus has been more passive than council Democrats, three of whom are on record saying Hogsett should resign. It is hard to trust your leaders when they stay silent about a moral and ethical issue, especially involving one of their political enemies. If anyone should have the courage to speak up, it should be Republicans. Unlike their Democratic colleagues, Republicans don't have to worry about Hogsett continuing to be a power broker in their party for several years due to their trouble building an independent political machine. '[Calling on Hogsett to resign] could cause personal financial hardship to people,' Democratic Councilor Jesse Brown, the first to call on Hogsett to resign, told me. '[And he] is in good with all the biggest donors and he has a ton of money in the bank and so … he absolutely could you know levy those connections or that money to sink people's political careers.' Briggs: Hogsett's texts to women show Indianapolis mayor embodied toxic culture When I asked Republican Minority Leader Michael-Paul Hart why he hasn't called on Hogsett to resign, he said he didn't want to get political. He has focused his criticism on the investigation into Hogsett, rather than Hogsett himself. After all, many are starting to think the investigation was just a PR stunt aimed at clearing him of legal liability. 'I try to be as apolitical as possible because I think local government is just non-political … we're always talking about roads, water, trash, public safety,' Hart said. 'At the end of the day, we've got to focus on what we can control and what is symbolic.' Gov. Mike Braun expressed a similar sentiment when asked by WIBC-FM (93.1) host Nigel Laskowski about the scandal. 'What I'm more concerned about would be the potholes per linear mile,' Braun said June 18. I don't think fixing potholes, criticizing a political process and taking a moral stance against political leaders engaging in ethical violations should be mutually exclusive. However, Hogsett still controls the city budget and Council President Vop Osili appears to be positioning himself to succeed Hogsett. Either person could retaliate against Republicans who chose to make trouble and divert city funds away from their districts. Opinion: I was dragged out by sheriff's deputies. Indiana Democrats stayed silent. 'I try to remind folks all the time there's … 240,000 people that the six of us (Republicans) represent and I would certainly not want them to be disenfranchised,' Hart told me when I asked if he thought Hogsett would retaliate against Republicans. 'But I would hope that the mayor wouldn't punish the people of our districts for something of that nature.' Several councilors and their employers are also financially dependent on contracts with the city-county government, which Hogsett could push to terminate if councilors call on him to resign. Hart, for example, is employed as a director by SHI International, which has a six million dollar contract through 2027 with Indianapolis. The risk of retaliation, however, did not stop both Democratic and Republican leaders from calling on former Attorney General Curtis Hill to resign after he faced allegations of groping, and did not stop both Democratic and Republican leaders from condemning former Indiana Senate Minority Leader Greg Taylor after he faced allegations of sexual harassment. Taking the personal risk to call for greater ethical standards for political leaders may not fix the roads, but it will do something just as important. It will rebuild public trust in local leaders by providing some concrete evidence that they subscribe to a set of moral standards, and that they want our political system to be just and fair for both their constituents and employees.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
WASHINGTON (AP) — The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill. The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called 'suppressors' by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks. The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns. Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful." 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.
