Maine Democrats move to adopt partial budget, with or without Republicans
Mar. 15—Democrats in the Maine Legislature said Friday they would move forward without Republican support, if necessary, to fund a MaineCare shortfall in this year's budget and ensure that essential services are funded for the next two years.
The announcement came a day after lawmakers killed a supplemental budget deal that Senate Republicans refused to support without structural reforms to the MaineCare program. The stalemate means the state is having to reduce MaineCare payments to health care providers, who have warned of the resulting financial challenges and impacts to patient services.
Democratic leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives on Friday brought forward a "continuing services" budget that includes the $118 million in MaineCare funding that was blocked Thursday, along with funds for other core government functions in the upcoming two-year budget cycle, and avoid the possibility of a government shutdown in July.
"While we had hoped to pass a responsible supplemental budget to address urgent needs, political brinkmanship prevented that from happening," Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, said in a written statement. "Now, we must focus on passing an initial budget to ensure critical services remain funded and our constituents are not the ones who suffer from partisan gridlock."
House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, D-Biddeford, also expressed support for the new budget plan Friday, saying that nursing homes, hospitals and health care are suffering because the MaineCare funding has not been approved.
"We must urgently address the supplemental budget in combination with the biennial budget, in order to put Maine people first and end the political posturing," Fecteau said in a written statement. "Democrats are not willing to risk a government shutdown or neglect our state's health and well-being. It's time to move forward."
In addition to the MaineCare funding, the plan also includes $2 million to combat the forest-damaging spruce budworm, a spokesperson for Fecteau said Friday. That funding also failed to get approved in the proposal that was defeated Thursday.
Democratic leaders said that they hope Republicans will join them in supporting the new plan — though that seemed unlikely as of Friday afternoon.
The Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee approved the continuing services budget in a 7-3 vote Friday evening, sending the new proposal to the full Legislature.
"This initial budget provides a foundation for our legislature as we move forward with our work," Daughtry said in a written statement following the vote. "It ensures that partisan fights will not shut down our state. This is about doing right by the people of Maine. A continuing services budget maintains the state's vital operations, protects healthcare access and ensures stability for Maine."
The proposal was met with opposition from Republicans and led to a tense Friday afternoon meeting of the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee, which gathered to take up the new proposal and began voting on line items around 5 p.m.
Sen. Sue Bernard, R-Caribou, the ranking Republican member of the committee, refused to attend the work session after Republicans said they received little notice of the new plan. And in a news release, Senate Republicans said they are united in opposition to the plan.
"I don't know how much the rest of the committee knew of this plan, but our caucus was not given an adequate heads up," Bernard said in the release. "The Democrats have abused the budget process, the members of my committee and the public.
"The problems that existed in the supplemental budget continue to be completely unaddressed. MaineCare is on the verge of collapse and won't be available for those who truly need it. ... I cannot be a part of this plan."
In a text message, House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham, R-Winter Harbor, also blamed Democrats for the supplemental bill, which was meant to fill gaps in the current budget, getting killed Thursday.
"There were myriad options to not let that critical bill end up in the dead file," Faulkingham said. "(Democrats') failure to negotiate with Republicans will delay this funding by more than 100 days."
Meanwhile, Sen. Peggy Rotundo, D-Lewiston, Senate chair of the appropriations committee, said at the onset of Friday's meeting that the items being taken up in the new plan constitute a "skinny budget" that includes money only for items currently funded by the state, as well as items from the supplemental budget that failed, including the MaineCare and spruce budworm funding.
The proposal includes no new initiatives, programs or taxes and no new positions with the exception of one, Rotundo said.
Lawmakers are expected to vote on the proposal in the coming weeks. After it is approved, Democratic leaders said, they will continue policy discussions with Republicans on a second budget proposal to make changes beyond the essential services.
Rotundo said Democrats have heard concerns from Republicans about being shut out of budget negotiations, but she said in the last two two-year budgets, the committee has in each session voted out a second, bipartisan part of the budget. "We continue to be committed to work hard to do the same this year," Rotundo said.
Republican committee members said they are frustrated. "The long and short of it is, we are terribly concerned about the way this process has been," said Rep. Jack Ducharme, R-Madison. "Sen. Rotundo says we've done bipartisan biennial budgets. I've been here since 2021, and sometimes I feel like if Republicans are in the building, they call that a bipartisan budget."
If Democrats approve the plan without Republican support as a simple majority and then formally adjourn the regular session, the budget would take effect 90 days later. That means lawmakers would need to act by the end of March in order for the plan to take effect in time for the start of the fiscal year on July 1.
The Legislature would then reconvene at that point to finish its business — a tactic that Democrats have used before in recent years.
A group that included two Republican lawmakers sued Democratic leaders in 2023 for passing a party-line budget, adjourning and then reconvening to take up other business, arguing the move violated Maine's Constitution.
But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court decision to dismiss the case last year, saying the group lacked standing and had not shown proof of suffering an injury sufficient for them to bring the case.
Staff Writer Katie Langley contributed to this report.
Copy the Story Link
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.
