Latest news with #appropriations
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Maine Legislature at stalemate over budget addition
Budget committee co-chair Sen. Peggy Rotundo (left) and Assistant Majority Leader Jill Duson (right) listen to debate on the budget on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) This story will be updated. The chambers of the Maine Legislature are in disagreement over a roughly $320 million budget addition to the $11.3 billion biennial budget passed in March. With some Democrats joining Republicans in opposition, the Maine House of Representatives failed to advance the plan Wednesday morning, while the Senate cast a party-line vote in favor. The initial conflicting votes come after the Democratic majority on the Legislature's Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee set the budget proposal early Saturday morning without Republican support. While added appropriations in the plan total about $320 million, the bill has a lower fiscal note — $117 million — due to a range of cost cutting measures — taxes, some cuts, and transferring unexpected surpluses. The net cost is also lower than the roughly $127 million that remained after the initial budget passed in March. The plan rejects some of Gov. Janet Mills' proposed cuts, such as to childcare programs and low-income food assistance, as well as proposed taxes on ambulances and pharmacies. However, the plan includes Mills' proposed tax additions on streaming services, cannabis, pensions and cigarettes — the latter at an even higher amount than the governor requested. 'Republicans had started from a position of no new taxes and we remain in that posture,' Republican budget lead Rep. Jack Ducharme of Madison said on the House floor. On the Senate floor, Minority Leader Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook) also criticized the majority party for not taking 'a serious look back about our state's financial disrepair,' nodding to the state budget audit he called for before session began. Committee sets budget plan with party-line vote But Republicans were not the only members of the House to have objections, as the budget bill failed 71-77 on the first vote before the chamber then voted against its passage without a roll call. Following the Senate's vote 19-15 in favor, the bill now heads back to see if the House will change its stance. Through tears, Rep. Nina Milliken (D-Blue Hill), who voted against the budget, urged her colleagues to reject regressive taxes, which have a greater impact on people with lower incomes, and instead push for a model that taxes the wealthy more — even if the governor, who has opposed any income-based tax reform, ultimately vetoes it. 'Democrats across this country right now are calling for Republican members of Congress to stand up to the executive branch, because they are a separate co-equal branch of government and they should be asserting their power as such,' Milliken said, referring to push back against President Donald Trump. 'We are a separate co-equal branch of government,' she added. 'We owe it to our constituents to do better, to tax people who are super wealthy, so that the poorest people in our communities see some relief.' After both chambers narrowly rejected a 'millionaire's tax' in initial votes, the Senate reversed its stance Monday night, sending the measure back to the House to reconsider. The proposal would place a tax surcharge of 2% on the portion of a resident's taxable income beyond $1 million for single filers to be used to fund public K-12 education. As the Legislature continues to debate the budget bill Wednesday, lawmakers are expected to propose a number of floor amendments. One proposal, filed by Rep. Sally Cluchey (D-Bowdoinham), would tack on this 'millionaire's tax.' The budget plan being considered also effectively stops the state's free community college program for future graduating classes, against the governor's request to make it permanent. Several bills currently pending were also worked into the budget plan, including proposals to alter the child tax credit and real estate transfer tax. Read about more of the details of the plan here. Sen. Cameron Reny (D-Lincoln), an appropriations committee member, said in a floor speech that the budget is as much about avoiding harm as it is about providing for Mainers, a sentiment both of the committee chairs also shared. 'This is not a flashy budget,' co-chair Sen. Peggy Rotundo (D-Androscoggin) said. 'It's a workhorse — steady, thoughtful and grounded in real need.' Rotundo asked her colleagues to vote for the budget 'not because it gives everyone everything they want' but because 'it reflects who we are, a state that cares deeply, spends responsibly and plans wisely for the future.' Rep. Drew Gattine (D-Westbrook) made a similar plea in the House earlier Wednesday. 'This budget meets the moment,' Gattine said. 'It addresses the biggest issues that Maine people are facing, and protects critical investments that we've made in the past in health care, food security, education, housing and child care.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Meanwhile, Rep. Amy Bradstreet Arata (R-New Gloucester), another member of the appropriations committee, argued the budget plan was built on a 'house of cards,' pointing out that it was balanced, in part, by an unexpected $24 million estate tax after two recent deaths and that it doesn't provide the full expected cost-of-living increase for direct care workers. Also, projections for the following biennium present an approximately $246 million increase based on the ongoing spending in the budget plan. Republicans have filed several floor amendments to the budget, including to increase MaineCare funding for veterans homes, hire more state troopers, remove the proposed increase to the cigarette tax and ensure timely payments to service providers. Arata and Rep. Ken Fredette (R-Newport), who is also on the committee, argued that the state's budgetary needs for the next fiscal year have already been met. 'This is a tax and spend supplemental budget,' Fredette said. In March, the Democratic majority pushed through a 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, which will be on Friday. 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. That budget 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 Mills proposed to address the deficit and flattening revenues. Some Republican legislators tried to collect signatures to allow Maine voters to overturn the budget passed in March but failed to reach the needed threshold, the leader of the people's veto effort, Rep. Gary Drinkwater of Milford, announced on Tuesday. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
White House directs DOT to ignore GAO ruling on EV funding pause
The White House's Office of Management and Budget told the Transportation Department on Tuesday to disregard a ruling by the Government Accountability Office that the Trump administration violated the law by freezing electric vehicle funding. Mark Paoletta, OMB's general counsel, in a letter to DOT called the congressional watchdog's ruling 'wrong and legally indefensible.' The letter responds to the GAO's report that found DOT broke the law by withholding money already approved by Congress for the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, which was funded by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. Paoletta contends DOT's recording of obligations for the NEVI program complied with the statutory language that created the program and was aligned with DOT past practices regarding other highway formula programs. He also argues DOT didn't violate the Impoundment Control Act by rescinding the Biden administration's NEVI program guidance and 'temporarily pausing new obligations until new guidance could be issued.' Further, he notes DOT does not need to 'take any action to adjust the recording of its NEVI program obligations, nor change its practices with respect to obligating funds for any of its [Federal Highway Administration] programs in response to GAO's incorrect opinion.' The GAO in its report said the White House needs to send a recissions request to Congress to make changes to funding mandates already in law. The watchdog also said DOT incorrectly interpreted the way funds were obligated under the program. The Paoletta letter called the report "part of a troubling trend of partisan opinions" by the GAO. "Your agency, and all Executive Branch agencies, should not feel compelled to cooperate at all with GAO in its efforts to thwart President Trump's agenda, nor give any weight or deference to GAO's opinions," he wrote. Sarah Kaczmarek, a spokesperson for GAO, said the agency disagrees with OMB and stands by its ruling. 'We stand behind our analysis and conclusion for both the appropriations law issue for recording obligations in the NEVI program and the illegal impoundment of funds under the ICA,' Kaczmarek said in a statement. 'GAO's work in this area, as with all of GAO work, is non-partisan, independent, and consistently follows a process that allows agencies to provide their views.' Nathaniel Sizemore, a DOT spokesperson, said GAO's report 'conflicts with Congress' intent, and completely misunderstands the Federal-aid highway program and how Congress structured the NEVI program.' The GAO's assessment also is 'at odds with its own reports on how Federal-aid Highway programs similar to NEVI receive and use appropriated funds,' he said, adding the agency is updating the NEVI program guidance because its implementation failed. OMB Director Russell Vought is scheduled to testify before the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday on the Trump administration's budget.
Washington Post
28-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Will Democrats rescue the national debt?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. House Republicans advanced a tax bill last week that an independent assessment says would increase deficits by upward of $3 trillion over the next decade. A shaky bond market seems to be signaling that investors would like lawmakers to take long-term debt concerns more seriously. But this behavior from Congress isn't new: The latest bill extends budget-busting tax cuts from Trump's first term, which were followed by a $1.9 trillion pandemic stimulus package under President Joe Biden. I spoke to our columnists Jim Geraghty and Catherine Rampell about the growing national debt and whether the politics around it might change. — Benjy Sarlin, assignment editor 💬 💬 💬 Benjy Sarlin How big a problem is the deficit in your eyes and how urgent a priority is reducing it? Jim Geraghty The deficit is a very big problem, and a country with responsible leadership would prioritize reducing it. Alas, the electorate shows just about zero interest in higher taxes, lower spending, entitlement reform or any other serious steps to address it, and politicians have responded to those incentives by largely ignoring the increasing debt. Catherine Rampell In the long run, the deficit is a huge problem. Our debts will have to be paid back at some point, in the form of higher taxes and/or lower spending. We've been able to skate these consequences thus far because the rest of the world is still willing to lend us money in huge sums. But at some point the chickens will come home to roost. The challenge is we don't know when that will happen, and it could be a long ways from now — which is why the public and politicians have been shrugging off warnings from the usual deficit worrywarts. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Jim Republicans strongly object to higher spending when Democrats control the appropriations process. When they're running the show, not so much, as the 'Big Beautiful Bill' demonstrates. Catherine I sometimes think back to Jude Wanniski's two Santa Clauses analogy from the [1970s]. Republicans were the tax-cut Santa Claus (give out goodies to the public in the form of lower taxes). Democrats were the spending Santa Claus (give out goodies in the form of more generous government programs). Today, both parties are both Santa Clauses. Jim By the way, did you notice that Build Back Better and Big Beautiful Bill are both 'BBB'? It is fitting, because that's what America's credit rating is going to be, at this rate. Benjy Jim, you mentioned the electorate. Is it naive to think Democrats might run on cutting deficits in 2026 or 2028 if these issues persist? And, if so, what might a partisan Democratic plan to do that look like? Jim I'd love it if the Democrats became the debt-and-deficit focused party in 2028. I find that extremely unlikely, other than the usual pro forma talk that America's deficit and debt problems can be solved by raising taxes on the rich. Democrats' enthusiasm for raising taxes on 'the rich' has waned, or at least stalled, now that in many corners of America's wealthy, the Democrats are the party of the rich. Kamala Harris won 52 percent to 46 percent among those making $200,000 or more, according to the 2024 exit poll. Jim First, Democrats need candidates who are willing to spell out how deficit spending has resulted in inflation and spooked the bond markets. There's always going to be some other candidate who's willing to blame a more convenient villain — i.e., 'greedflation,' big corporations and 'Washington fat cats.' Catherine I think it's very unlikely Dems run on deficit reduction. Voters don't care about it. If anything they will hate (nearly) all of the measures required to actually reduce deficits. The last major party candidate I can remember putting forth a plausible budget plan that didn't massively increase deficits was Hillary Clinton in 2016. The net fiscal impact of her plans was pretty close to zero. And didn't seem to do her much good at the time, either. Jim If anything, the electorate punishes candidates who dare tell them they can't afford everything they want. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Benjy This is the second presidency in a row where deficits seem to be creating some visible real-world headaches, not just scolding from budget wonks. How bad would that have to get before we saw a clear pivot toward some kind of emergency response from either or both parties? Catherine I think both parties have learned approximately zero lessons from major fiscal stimulus (in the form of both tax cuts and higher spending) from the past few years. The past few years obviously proved there are trade-offs we can't ignore — we can't just spend or tax-cut indefinitely without major unintended consequences. But lots of party operatives disagree with me. Jim Part of the problem for deficit hawks is that higher interest payments on the debt aren't very visible. It's just numbers on a page. If those lost billions upon billions looked like Godzilla, Americans would treat it like a crisis. Catherine Or, if those interest payments started crowding out our ability to pay for other government services Americans depend on (like Medicaid, Medicare, etc.). But we're not there yet because the rest of the world keeps lending to us. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Benjy Let's get to Washington's favorite idea since before I was born: Bipartisan deficit talks. There were high-profile efforts in the Obama era to find a spending and revenue deal, but nothing since then. Is there any way both parties (perhaps post-Trump) could decide to take a shared political hit by making some deal on this together? Or is that just my inner Aaron Sorkin talking? Jim 'And then President Bartlet gave a stirring speech that brought Democrats and Republicans together …' I don't think that will happen until those long-discussed dire consequences kick in — and by then the only options remaining will be bad ones. Catherine There are some models for this kind of thing that have sort of worked on a smaller scale (like independent commissions to close military bases). But it's really hard to see it working now. The scale of the changes needed here — and the political pain that goes with them — are just orders of magnitude larger. Unfortunately, I think we will need to face an actual crisis — like a much more painful bond market revolt — before the parties try to fix anything, whether unilaterally or together. Jim Trump-era politics made it harder for bipartisan cooperation on relatively easy issues, and the debt was an issue that almost everyone preferred to ignore long before Trump came down that escalator. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Benjy Since it seems up to Washington columnists to carry the deficit scold torch then, what would be the number one proposal you'd each bring to the table if they asked you how to find some real savings? Catherine The easiest thing would be to just do nothing on taxes right now — and let Trump's 2017 tax cuts expire as scheduled. For everyone, to be clear. (Biden and Dems wanted to extend the cuts to all but the very wealthiest.) Jim Means-test Social Security. (Jim dodges thrown fruits and vegetables.) A whole lot of retirees are wealthy and don't need the Treasury Department sending them checks. Of course, people believe their Social Security payments have been in a (Al Gore voice) 'lockbox' all their working years. Nah, the government spent that money as quickly as it came in.
NZ Herald
22-05-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Budget 2025: Every budget item in one interactive
This year's Budget details $187,993,985,000 of government spending. That's nearly $200 billion dollars. The interactive below shows this spending is shared around. See how the Budget's major spending categories have changed since last year's Budget. Click on a category title to see how spending has changed since 2014. Or click on a category to drill down into the 1316 low-level categories used to group government spending. Many of the spending announcements for the budget cover multiple years of spending. The spending in this interactive is just for a single year. Budget spending is grouped by categories the Treasury calls 'votes'. The groupings in the interactive above are based on votes with the following modifications: Spending on NZ Superannuation has been separated from the rest of 'Social Development' spending. The new Defence and Defence Force spending has been combined. Spending on Corrections, Court, Justice and Police has been combined. All votes where total spending is less than $1b have been combined into 'Other spending'. Individual spending allocations in the Budget are called 'appropriations'. If you click on any of the categories above you can see the individual appropriations. Due to a large non-cash change in the accounting related to veterans' entitlements the appropriations Service Cost - Veterans' Entitlements has been excluded from the interactive. at 9.30am, Friday, May 23.
E&E News
12-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Appropriators to question Zeldin on proposed deep budget cuts
Democratic and Republican appropriators are planning to grill administration officials, including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, on how they will be able to fulfill their agency missions amid the administration's calls for sweeping cuts and reorganizations. A spate of Appropriations committee hearings this week will be lawmakers' first opportunity to get answers from some Cabinet members after President Donald Trump proposed slashing energy and environment programs that have broad bipartisan support. Zeldin and other officials will be testifying about Trump's fiscal 2026 budget request, which has drawn rebukes from both sides of the aisle, but those officials will also face questions about their own plans to restructure their departments and eliminate thousands of positions. Advertisement Appropriators are eager to begin drafting fiscal 2026 spending bills but are still awaiting a full budget request from the White House.
