This state may offer a cautionary tale
That's the question Wyoming is grappling with. Earlier this year, Wyoming lawmakers passed a 25% cut to property taxes. The tax exemption applies to 'primary residential structures up to the first $100 million of the structure's fair market value.' At first glance, it looks like a win for homeowners, but municipalities are bracing for impact, according to the Tribune News Service.
Like Florida, Wyoming doesn't impose a state income tax, making property tax revenue a key funding source for cities and municipalities — including fire and police departments, schools and other services.
Fremont County, the fifth most populous in the state, has announced $300,000 in library cuts and warned that other services may see deeper cuts. Most troubling is the possibility of cuts for public schools, which receive 70% of their funding from property taxes and now face a serious deficit. According to the state's April 2025 long-term revenue expenditure forecast, Wyoming's school foundation program account — which is responsible for funding public schools — is projected to experience a $686 million deficit by 2029-30.
While Wyoming has a population of 587,618, and is far different demographically from Florida — with a population of 23 million spread over 67 counties — the struggles Wyoming residents are facing may offer a preview of challenges Florida could expect if DeSantis' proposal becomes reality. Florida's unique challenges — including rapid population growth, the housing and insurance crisis and hurricane risks — create strong fiscal demands that exceed what Wyoming faces. These realities make property tax elimination, or even a deep cut, more problematic for the Sunshine State.
The Florida Legislature recognised the need to think things through before barreling ahead to help DeSantis eliminate property taxes. The Legislature allocated $1 million in its proposed state budget for state economists to study the elimination of property taxes, a responsible position. The study would've given Florida's leaders a clearer picture of the implications of such a significant change.
But DeSantis vetoed the budget item, dismissing it by saying, 'We don't need to give a bureaucracy money to study this. We know what needs to be done, so let's just do it.'
That was a short-sighted move. Cutting or eliminating the state's property tax requires a plan and consideration of the impacts, and maybe even examining what's happening right now in Wyoming.
As Budge Huskey, president and CEO of Premier Sotheby's International Realty, told Fox News Digital, 'At the end of the day, you cannot simply lower property taxes or eliminate property taxes without replacing at least a significant majority of that revenue through alternative means.'
According to the Florida Policy Institute, property taxes make up an estimated 50% to 60% of the state's school district revenue. In order to replace revenue lost, Florida would most likely need to double its state sales tax to 12%, FPI found, resulting in the tax burden being shifted rather than eliminated.
While DeSantis and fellow Republicans love to tout Florida as the 'free state,' removing property taxes from the state's financial equation would put local government into a funding free-fall. Giving Floridians financial relief is critical as the cost of living continues to rise, and Wyoming's efforts may offer some lessons. But slashing property taxes without a serious plan to manage the impacts isn't the way forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
6 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Governor Gavin Newsom is smart to roll the dice
George Skelton, Tribune News Service No outsider politicians venture into sultry South Carolina in July unless they are running for president. Certainly not a West Coast politician. Especially a California governor who lives in delightful Marin County near wonderful cool beaches. A governor who could easily vacation at spectacular Big Sur or hike a wilderness trail into the majestic Sierra. We can assume Gov. Gavin Newsom didn't choose South Carolina for its nightly light show of amazing fireflies or symphony of crickets. He was attracted to something so alluring that he was willing to brave skin-eating chiggers and oppressive humidity. The lure, of course, was that South Carolina will hold one of the earliest — perhaps the first — Democratic presidential primaries in 2028. The precise calendar for contests hasn't been set. But Newsom knows this: South Carolina propelled Joe Biden to the party's nomination in 2020. And it provided a huge boost for Barack Obama in 2008. 'What South Carolinians saw this week as ... Newsom made a two-day swing through the state was more than a highly visible candidate who probably will run for president in 2028,' wrote Andy Brack, editor, publisher and columnist at the Statehouse Report and Charleston City Paper. 'They saw a guy sweating through a white shirt in the South Carolina heat who was having fun. Yep, he seemed to enjoy engaging with voters in rural places too often forgotten by many candidates.' Yes, Newsom, 57, loves campaigning on the stump — a whole lot more than he does toiling in the nitty-gritty of governing. I'd only bicker with Brack's word 'probably' when characterizing Newsom's White House bid. We're talking semantics. California's termed-out governor actually has been running for months. And he'll run as far as he can, slowly for a while and try to pick up speed down the road. That's conventional politics. Most candidates — especially office holders — initially claim that running for president is 'the furthest thing' from their mind, then ultimately declare their candidacy with all the hoopla of a carnival barker. OK, I admit to having been wrong about the governor in the past. I should have known better. I took him at his word. He persistently denied any interest in the presidency. 'Subzero,' he asserted. But to be fair, he and reporters previously were centered on the 2024 race and the distant 2028 contest got short shrift. I figured Newsom mostly was running for a slot on the 'A' list of national political leaders. He wanted to be mentioned among the roster of top-tier potential presidents. He clearly savors the national attention. But I've also always wondered whether Newsom might be leery of running for president because of his lifelong struggle with dyslexia. He could view the task with some trepidation. The governor has acknowledged having difficulty reading, especially speeches off teleprompters. That said, he has adapted and is an articulate, passionate off-the-cuff speaker with a mind full of well-organized data. He excels on the stump — especially when he restrains a tendency to be long-winded and repetitive. Newsom is finally starting to acknowledge the White House glimmer in his eye. 'I'm not thinking about running, but it's a path that I could see unfold,' he told the Wall Street Journal last month. More recently, in a lengthy interview with conservative podcaster Shawn Ryan, Newsom said: 'I'll tell you, the more Trump keeps doing what he does, the more compelled I am to think about it.' Newsom's proclaimed hook for traveling to South Carolina was to 'sound the alarm' about President Donald Trump's brutish policies and to light a fire under Democratic voters to help the party win back the US House next year. He's again trying to establish himself as a leader of the anti-Trump resistance after several months of playing nice to the president in a losing effort to keep federal funds flowing to California. But it's practically inevitable that a California governor will be lured into running for president. Governors have egos and ears. They constantly hear allies and advisors telling them they could become the leader of the free world. And, after all, this is the nation's most populous state, with by far the largest bloc of delegates to the Democratic National Convention — 20% of those needed to win the nomination.
Gulf Today
6 hours ago
- Gulf Today
History of political exiles is repeating itself in El Salvador
The fiercest voices of dissent against President Nayib Bukele have long feared a widespread crackdown. They weathered police raids on their homes, watched their friends being thrown into jail and jumped between safe houses so they can stay in El Salvador. Then they received a warning: Leave immediately. It's exile or prison. A combination of high-profile detentions, a new "foreign agents" law, violent repression of peaceful protesters and the risk of imminent government detention has driven more than 100 political exiles to flee in recent months. The biggest exodus of journalists, lawyers, academics, environmentalists and human rights activists in years is a dark reminder of the nation's brutal civil war decades ago, when tens of thousands of people are believed to have escaped. Exiles who spoke to The Associated Press say they are scattered across Central America and Mexico with little more than backpacks and a lingering question of where they will end up. "We're living through a moment where history is repeating itself," said Ingrid Escobar, leader of the human rights legal group Socorro Juridico, who fled El Salvador with her two children. "We've lost everything," she said. Bukele's administration did not respond to requests for comment. Bukele, 43, has long been criticized for chipping away at democracy and committing human rights abuses in his war on gangs, in which the government waived constitutional rights and arrested more than 1% of El Salvador's population. Activists and journalists say for years they have faced mounting harassment and threats from the self-described "world's coolest dictator," whose tongue-in-cheek social media persona, bet on bitcoin and tough-on-crime discourse has gained him the adoration of many on the American right. Despite 60% of Salvadorans saying they fear publicly expressing political opinions in a recent poll, Bukele continues to enjoy soaring levels of approval because violence plummeted following his crackdown on gangs. Escobar — one of the populist's most vocal critics — said that as her organization challenged the government through thousands of legal cases, police constantly surveilled her family, showing up outside her mother's house and her 7 and 11-year-old children's schools. "One day, we'll have to leave this country," she told them, hoping it wasn't true. But things have reached an inflection point in recent months as Bukele grows emboldened by his alliance with President Donald Trump, namely due to the detention of hundreds of Venezuelan deportees in a Salvadoran prison made for gangs. In May, the El Salvador government passed a "foreign agents" law resembling legislation used by Russia, Venezuela and Nicaragua to criminalize dissent by targeting organizations receiving overseas funding. Shortly after, police detained Ruth López, an anti-corruption lawyer at El Salvador's top human rights organization Cristosal, accusing her of corruption. López denies the allegations. As police escorted her in shackles to a June court appearance, she shouted: "They're not going to silence me! I want a public trial!" Her detention came amid the arrests of several critics. On Thursday, Cristosal announced it had quietly evacuated all of its staff to Guatemala and Honduras, and shut down operations in El Salvador. "The justice system has been weaponized against us," said Cristosal leader Noah Bullock. "Nobody in El Salvador has any doubt that the government can detain whoever it wants and disappear them in prisons indefinitely." Escobar soon received news that her name appears on a list with 11 other journalists and activists targeted for detention. Escobar, who was about to enter treatment for sarcoma, a rare form of cancer, worried that if she was thrown in prison, she wouldn't receive care. Around a third of hundreds of deaths in prisons under Bukele were caused by a lack of medical attention. "I asked myself one question: 'If I stay, will I die?'" she said. In June, she and her children slipped across the Guatemala border, flew to the US and then to another Latin American country. She looks over her shoulder every day. Many of the exiles asked AP to not disclose their locations, fearing they could be tracked down. Others who have fled were too scared to speak on the record, even anonymously. Journalist Mónica Rodríguez, 40, and her husband, 37-year-old activist Steve Magaña, are in exile. They were among a handful of people who documented on video Salvadoran police violently quashing a peaceful demonstration. Hundreds of protesters, including children and elderly people, wanted the president to stop the eviction of their rural community on a road near his house. "It contradicted Bukele's discourse," Rodríguez said. "They were repressing people and we were the ones evidencing it." Bukele later posted on the social platform X that the community had been "manipulated" by NGOs and journalists, then announced the foreign agents law. Soon came the arrests and more people fled the country. Rodríguez said police showed photos of her and her husband to the community, asking where they were. Rodríguez and Magaña were already scared after masked police officers raided their home months earlier, seizing computers, cellphones, Magaña's credit cards and hard drives containing Rodríguez's reporting materials. The couple went into hiding, hopping between four safe houses in San Salvador before leaving the country. In June, the Association of Journalists in El Salvador reported that at least 40 journalists fled the country in a matter of weeks. For some, including 55-year-old Jorge Beltrán, a reporter who served in the Salvadoran military during the civil war, it's a case of déjà vu. Associated Press
Zawya
10 hours ago
- Zawya
Africa's minerals are being bartered for security: why it's a bad idea?
A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one where a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security. The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda. A key part of the agreement binds both nations to developing a regional economic integration framework. This arrangement would expand cooperation between the two states, the US government and American investors on 'transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains'. Despite its immense mineral wealth, the DRC is among the five poorest countries in the world. It has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector. The US has in turn touted a potential multi-billion-dollar investment programme to anchor its mineral supply chains in the traumatised and poor territory. The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington's powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight. The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda. But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US. The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marred by war and tension since the bloody First (1996-1997) and Second (1998-2003) Congo wars. At the heart of much of this conflict is the DRC's mineral wealth. It has fuelled competition, exploitation and armed violence. This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren't new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country's minerals. We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources. Based on our research on mining, development and sustainability, we believe this is unlikely. This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC. Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola. Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements. DRC's security gaps The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world's third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices. For almost 30 years, minerals have fuelled conflict and severe violence, especially in eastern DRC. Tungsten, tantalum and gold (referred to as 3TG) finance and drive conflict as government forces and an estimated 130 armed groups vie for control over lucrative mining sites. Several reports and studies have implicated the DRC's neighbours – Rwanda and Uganda – in supporting the illegal extraction of 3TG in this region. The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometres) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces. This context makes the United States' military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps. What states risk losing Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control. Here's how this happens: - certain clauses in such contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limiting legislative autonomy - other clauses may lock in low prices for years, leaving resource-selling states unable to benefit when commodity prices surge - arbitration clauses often shift disputes to international forums, bypassing local courts - infrastructure loans are often secured via resource revenues used as loan security. This effectively ringfences exports and undermines sovereign fiscal control. Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa. For instance, Angola's US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan's design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted. These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defence, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain. In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit. Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion. These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming permanent features, not temporary costs. What needs to change Critical minerals are 'critical' because they're hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn't trade that future away. In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage. But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means: - investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals - demanding local value creation and addition - requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements - refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards. Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
