logo
In the Trump Era, Crafting a State Budget Becomes More Complicated

In the Trump Era, Crafting a State Budget Becomes More Complicated

New York Times25-02-2025
Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey proposed a $58 billion budget on Tuesday that would keep spending roughly flat as the state braces for potentially drastic reductions in federal funding, including Medicaid.
State officials acknowledged that drafting the final budget of Mr. Murphy's second term had proved challenging amid uncertainty in Washington, where Republicans are mulling deep cuts in spending on health care for low-income people to help pay for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.
New Jersey estimates it could lose as much as $5.2 billion in Medicaid matching funds that help provide health coverage to roughly 700,000 residents.
'There are some draconian cuts that might be presented,' the state's treasurer, Elizabeth Maher Muoio, said.
'That is the real game changer that we all have to be aware of,' she added.
New Jersey, she noted, is not the only state grappling with such uncertainty.
Last week, the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures warned that any dip in Medicaid funding could lead to devastating results, noting that roughly 79 million Americans depend on it for health care.
'Medicaid accounts for over half of all federal funds to states and is the largest source of federal funding for state budgets, making it essential to states' ability to design and administer health care programs that meet the unique needs of their populations,' stated a letter from the conference and other organizations sent to Washington lawmakers.
The budget Mr. Murphy unveiled included $1.4 billion more than the one he approved for the current fiscal year, but $70 million less than what the state expected it would actually spend by July, after midyear adjustments.
Still, the budget blueprint, which will now be refined by the State Legislature before it is approved by July 1, required what officials described as difficult choices.
Months ago, all agencies were asked to trim spending by 5 percent and to limit new hiring.
The proposed spending plan sets aside $1 million to pay for as many as 10 additional lawyers who will focus on challenging Trump administration policies deemed harmful to New Jersey. But it also includes cuts to college affordability programs and only small increases in municipal aid. Taxes would be increased on sports betting and recreational activities like bowling and laser tag, as would fees on cigarettes, vaping items and drone purchases.
'While I sincerely hope that the situation in Washington settles down, and that we in turn have a normal, healthy budget season over the next few months, that is by no means a guarantee,' Mr. Murphy, a Democrat, told state lawmakers in a budget address in Trenton.
'There is a distinct possibility that we will, instead, need to pursue a 'break the glass' strategy,' he said. 'What that looks like, we cannot yet say. But we must acknowledge, and adapt to, this new reality.'
New Jersey this year received about $28 billion from Washington, and roughly 15 percent of the state's public work force is paid with federal funds. Officials have said there are also concerns about potential cuts in federal funding for New Jersey Transit, which raised bus and train fares by 15 percent in July and still faces a large deficit.
'If that money were to be cut, we would either have to make up the difference somehow with state dollars, or our residents would be essentially denied the services,' Ms. Muoio said.
'This is all a big question mark right now, but the numbers we're hearing are sobering,' she said.
The governor's proposed budget increases aid to schools and continues to fully fund New Jersey's pension obligations for public employees while setting aside about $6.3 billion for a rainy day surplus fund for emergencies. It also includes promised funds for Stay NJ, an initiative approved last year to cut property taxes by as much as $6,500 a year for older homeowners.
Since taking office in 2018, Governor Murphy has prioritized efforts to pad the surplus and meet the state's pension obligations, resulting in a series of improved credit score ratings. And Ms. Muoio recoiled at the suggestion that, in the face of cuts in Washington, New Jersey might scrimp on pensions to balance the budget — a tactic regularly used by prior administrations that had caused interest payments to balloon.
Had the pension payments been fully funded for the last 25 years, Mr. Murphy said costs would be about $1 billion a year. Instead, New Jersey spends $7 billion annually on its pension obligations.
'Over the past five budgets alone, we have paid, in total, a $30 billion penalty,' Mr. Murphy told lawmakers.
'That is $30 billion that should be going back into our hospitals, our schools, our public transit system,' he added. 'But instead, we are literally paying the price for decades of short-term, sloppy and selfish decision-making.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How the 2017 Trump tax cuts made the ‘big, beautiful bill' so expensive
How the 2017 Trump tax cuts made the ‘big, beautiful bill' so expensive

Politico

time21 minutes ago

  • Politico

How the 2017 Trump tax cuts made the ‘big, beautiful bill' so expensive

Congressional Republicans really like the 2017 Trump tax cuts. It's why the 'big, beautiful bill' costs so much. The decision to either extend those cuts or make them permanent before their year-end expiration date was the driving force behind the original, $2.4 trillion price tag of the House-passed megabill. Then the Senate GOP went even further, deepening the financial impact of the vast domestic policy package. That exacerbated the string of intraparty fights that consumed Republicans for weeks. Even as different factions squared off over issues such as slashing Medicaid — hundreds of billions here, tens of billions there — the extension of the 2017 tax cuts had already set the table. In the end, the Senate added another $1 trillion to the price tag. Detailed final estimates from Congress' scorekeeper haven't yet been released, but the overall picture is clear: The cost of President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending legislation was inflated by the desire to extend the tax cuts from his first administration. Other political fights shifted the price tag from there, but there was not much the staunchest deficit hawks could do but chip away at the margins. 'This was going to be a fiscal challenge from the start, because of how expensive it is to extend [the 2017 cuts],' said Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center. Here's how the bill's cost ballooned, starting with its initial cost: $2.4 trillion added to the federal deficit over 10 years.

Talk about no taxes on tips, less about Medicaid cuts: How GOP is trying to sell Trump's landmark law
Talk about no taxes on tips, less about Medicaid cuts: How GOP is trying to sell Trump's landmark law

CNN

time21 minutes ago

  • CNN

Talk about no taxes on tips, less about Medicaid cuts: How GOP is trying to sell Trump's landmark law

The White House just spent six months jamming a massive legislative package through Congress with almost no margin for error. Now comes the real challenge. Donald Trump's aides and allies are embarking on a concerted bid to sell the president's 'big, beautiful bill' to voters who are mostly unfamiliar with its specifics and skeptical of what little they have heard about the administration's central domestic accomplishment. The yearlong mission — relying in part on dispatching top Trump officials across the country to highlight the bill's economic benefits — is seen as critical to preserving GOP control of Congress in next November's elections, according to interviews with more than half a dozen White House aides, allies and Republican lawmakers. And for a White House that's cast Trump's agenda as a financial boon for Americans, the midterms represent a high-stakes referendum that could determine the course of his final years in office. 'It comes down to whether people feel like they're doing better and have more money in their pockets,' said one Trump political adviser. 'And if they don't think the economy's going well, then we've got a problem.' Republicans will have several months to make headway with voters before the midterm season heats up, after lawmakers passed nearly the entirety of Trump's domestic agenda in a single multitrillion-dollar package just ahead of the White House's self-imposed July 4 deadline. But the urgency behind an extended campaign for the bill underscores how little time the GOP had to explain what was actually in the package before passing it — and signals a recognition of the steep uphill battle the party now faces in selling it after the fact. What Americans did learn about the bill amid the rushed process was largely negative, polling has shown. Perhaps most alarming for Trump and Republicans, party operatives said, is that many voters remain concerned that rather than juicing the economy as the president promised, a package that includes deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance might end up leaving them worse off overall. 'I'm not sure anybody completely understands what's in it, including most of the people who voted for it,' said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster. 'But there are a lot of provisions in it that will be challenging to sell to many of the Trump voters who live in small-town and rural areas, a great many of whom are on Medicaid.' White House officials and their allies have coalesced behind a plan to bolster enthusiasm for the sprawling bill by focusing mainly on the narrow slice of policies that have proved most popular — such as provisions eliminating taxes on tips and on overtime pay, according to GOP lawmakers and campaign officials. Republican leadership has also encouraged lawmakers to tailor their messaging on Trump's agenda to their specific constituencies' priorities. 'Energy states are going to talk about the things that are going to really help us build our energy dominance; border states, probably more about border security,' said Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota. 'You've got all those general concepts that are important, and then how you present it is going to be a function of what you work on as a member and what's really important in your state.' That strategy is aimed primarily at reframing voters' view of what Republican lawmakers privately acknowledge is an unwieldy and vaguely named bill, while also allowing them to paper over more unpopular elements such as the hundreds of billions of projected cuts to health care spending needed to help pay for the array of tax breaks. Democrats have seized on those Medicaid cuts, betting that the backlash will propel them back into power next year. Within GOP circles, strategists plotting out the next several months are operating under the theory that if they can simply contain the damage done to the party on health care issues, they'll be able to press advantages elsewhere. 'As long as we level the playing field on the Medicaid aspect, we can talk about tax cuts and border security all day,' said one Republican campaign official. 'It's something we think about every day: What is the narrative of this cycle?' In eastern Pennsylvania on Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance offered an early look at how Trump officials will try to execute on the strategy in forthcoming trips to key districts, touting the bill's tax breaks and energy policies in a state where the coal and gas industry plays a major role. He made no mention of Medicaid and the broader health provisions expected to eliminate coverage for nearly 12 million people over a decade, instead urging attendees to talk up the bill's benefits in their own communities. 'Go and talk to your neighbors, go and talk to your friends about what this bill does for American citizens,' Vance said. The White House is still finalizing which Cabinet officials to send where to promote the bill over the next several months. In a statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called the bill 'an encapsulation of the campaign promises that the American people elected President Trump to enact.' 'The Trump administration plans to communicate the massive achievements in the One Big Beautiful Bill at every opportunity,' she said. Still, there are lingering doubts across the GOP about how quickly the White House and Republican lawmakers can turn around public opinion — and whether enough voters will feel enough of the benefits in time to salvage their congressional majorities. The bill's passage further widened an advantage Democrats hold over Republicans over which party's base is more energized to vote, CNN polling released last week shows. The GOP has so far made little progress toward countering Democratic attacks over Medicaid cuts as well, even as Republicans point to data showing the specific policies in the bill imposing work requirements and restricting eligibility have majority support. And while Republicans believe they will eventually find their footing, much of their fate may depend on whether Trump and his GOP allies can stay focused on promoting the bill for more than a year. In the weeks since July 4, Trump's heightened attacks on the Federal Reserve chair and his administration's botched handling of promised Jeffrey Epstein disclosures have created days of news cycles that distracted from the administration's core agenda. 'The sales job is important, and when the administration then gets in its own way with things that are going to garner a lot of media attention — let's say, Jeffrey Epstein, for instance — that impacts that,' said Doug Heye, a longtime Republican strategist. The White House in the coming weeks is likely to face another decision point that could alter Republicans' trajectory ahead of the midterms: Whether to push Congress to pass new legislation enacting even more spending cuts, and potentially even pursue a second major policy bill at some point next year. The prospect has animated budget hawks in the White House and on Capitol Hill eager to further shrink federal spending. But others are wary of the political fallout of slashing more from popular programs after congressional Republicans just passed a $9 billion cuts package taking aim at PBS and NPR. And with little GOP consensus on what policies the party should pursue next, some Republicans say focusing on how to sell their one 'big, beautiful bill' is challenge enough for the coming year. 'Given the fact this bill is enormous,' Ayres said, 'I don't know that you really need much of anything else to try to explain.'

Republicans keep voting for bills they say they don't like
Republicans keep voting for bills they say they don't like

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Republicans keep voting for bills they say they don't like

WASHINGTON — Two weeks after he cast a decisive vote to pass a sweeping domestic policy bill that cuts Medicaid by about $1 trillion, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill to repeal some of those cuts. 'Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect,' Hawley said in a statement. It sparked mockery from the normally mild-mannered Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who posted on X: 'Just so I'm clear… he's introducing a bill….to repeal the bill… he voted for….two weeks ago?' Hawley said he feared the party's megabill would cause long-term harm if the Medicaid cuts are fully implemented, but still voted for it because it will deliver more hospital money for Missouri in the first four years. 'You can't get everything you want in one piece of legislation. I like a lot of what we did. I don't like some of it,' he told reporters after unveiling his own measure on Tuesday. The move represents a trend in Congress during President Donald Trump's second term. Republican lawmakers across the ideological spectrum keep casting votes in favor of bills even while warning that they're deeply flawed and may require fixing down the road. In some cases, lawmakers explicitly threaten to vote 'no' on bills before eventually folding and voting 'yes.' It isn't unusual for lawmakers to back legislation they call imperfect. But this year, that contrast has become more stark. It comes as Trump has solidified his grasp over the GOP base, resulting in lawmakers growing increasingly leery of crossing him and risking their political futures. Nowhere has that dynamic been more pronounced than with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members have repeatedly threatened to oppose bills before acquiescing under pressure from Trump. With Trump's megabill, they complained about red ink: It's expected to add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 'What the Senate did is unconscionable,' Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said in a Rules Committee meeting, vowing that 'I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor.' He ultimately voted for that bill, unamended, after conservatives were told Congress would consider future bills to lower the debt. In the House, a faction of swing-district Republicans voted for clean energy cuts in the "big, beautiful bill" while voicing their hope that the Senate would undo them. That didn't happen, and nearly all of them voted for the legislation regardless. Across the Capitol, after Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, cast another key vote to approve the megabill, she said she 'struggled mightily with the impact on the most vulnerable in this country, when you look to Medicaid and SNAP,' and called on the House to make changes. They didn't. The House passed it as written and sent it to Trump to become law. "Do I like this bill? No. But I tried to take care of Alaska's interests,' Murkowski told NBC News after the Senate vote earlier this month. 'But I know, I know that in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that,' she added. In another case, Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., who represents a battleground district with a high share of Medicaid recipients, threatened to vote against the entire Senate bill if it maintained the steeper cuts to the program. 'I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on, including provider taxes and state directed payments,' he said in a statement, urging the Senate to 'stick to the Medicaid provisions' in the earlier House version of the bill; 'otherwise, I will vote no.' Valadao's request was ignored. Five days later he voted for the Senate bill when it returned to the House, securing final passage. (His office didn't respond to queries about the contradiction.) In the end, just three Republicans who expressed concerns about Medicaid voted against the bill: Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who had just announced he wouldn't seek re-election, as well as Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick R-Pa., who are set to face tough races in next years midterms. And Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who consistently voted against the megabill throughout the process over deficit concerns, is now facing the threat of a Trump-backed primary challenge. A similar trend occurred on the $9 billion package of spending cuts to NPR, PBS and foreign aid that passed Congress this week and was sent to Trump's desk. In the run-up to the votes, multiple Republicans expressed serious concerns with the substance of the bill, its deference to the executive branch and the damage it could do to bipartisan dealmaking on government funding if one side can undo the parts it doesn't like on a party-line basis. 'I suspect we're going to find out there are some things that we're going to regret. Some second and third order effects. And I suspect that when we do we'll have to come back and fix it,' said Tillis, before voting in favor of the bill. Tillis told NBC News that he was 'trying to have a positive view about how this rescission is going to be implemented' and that if he's unsatisfied it will change his attitude to future rescission bills. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the chair of the Armed Services Committee, said he was troubled that Congress wasn't detailing which programs were cut and deferring to the White House. 'It concerns me — as perhaps approaching a disregard for the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch under Article I,' said Wicker, who voted for the bill. 'And in this situation it will amount to the House and Senate basically saying: We concede that decision voluntarily to the executive branch.' This article was originally published on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store