The debate over using unclaimed funds to support Browns dome
'That $600 million giveaway that's a pocket picked of your taxpayer dollars they're picking your pocket,' County Executive Chris Ronayne said Tuesday. 'That could actually support 50,000 persons on Medicaid.'
I-Team: Governor reviewing proposal to use unclaimed funds to help fund Browns dome project
And talk about perfect timing. Just weeks ago, Ohio's top money managers made it easier for residents to be reunited with their lost or forgotten money, even beyond state lines.
Cuyahoga County Treasurer Brad Cromes said the website missingmoney.com will help disperse the state's current balance of $3.7 billion in unclaimed funds, to their true owners.
'The main circumstances that lead to unclaimed funds at the state level, are forgotten rent deposits, bank remainders that may not have been claimed or older insurance claims that weren't fully completed,' Cromes said.
And Ohioans are saying show me the money. Last year alone, more than $149 million were returned to rightful owners, through more than 26,000 claims.
Since Tuesday's announcement from the statehouse about using state funds, the county treasurer said the volume of inquiry calls remain steady. He said the process is straightforward and free, ensuring people can reclaim assets that are rightfully theirs.
Wayne Dawson talks about when he'll return to FOX 8
'For locally held funds, most of those are going to be held the Clerk of Courts office, so we encourage people to call 216-443-7982.'
For unclaimed fund inquiries, click this link or email cocunclaimedfunds@cuyahogacounty.gov.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Man Who Thinks Medicaid Cuts Won't Cut Medicaid
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. The Trump administration's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' will reduce Medicaid spending by about $800 billion over the next decade by kicking some 8 million Americans off the program's rolls. That is, if you listen to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the hospital industry, or the basic intuition that any plan to spend drastically less money on giving health care to poor people will result in those people ceasing to have health care. But the Trump administration's own projection is that the giant cuts in Medicaid will result in nobody losing coverage. If true, this would be astonishing, the fiscal equivalent of the immaculate conception. Fortunately, the administration has just the man to explain this economic miracle to the public: Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council and a professional soothsayer of implausible events that Republicans hope, or at least claim, will occur. Appearing on CBS's Face the Nation over the weekend, Hassett made his sales pitch. 'It's sound budgetary politics,' he said. 'And I think that nobody's going to lose their insurance.' Sadly for those Americans at risk of losing their access to medical care, and unsurprisingly for those familiar with Hassett's track record as an economic forecaster, his explanation was not particularly convincing. If the Trump administration's estimate is based on an alternative model, Hassett did not share it. Instead, his argument was a purely negative one. The CBO, he explained, cannot be trusted, because it has been wrong in the past—specifically, during the debate over legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) during the first Trump administration. 'Go back to 2017, when we had work requirements for Obamacare: They said that we'd lose about 4 million insured between 2017 and 2019, and about double that over the next 10 years,' he said. 'And in fact, the number of insured went up.' This sounds like a devastating indictment of CBO's ability to measure the effect of work requirements on the uninsured rate. It becomes less impressive when you recall that the bill in question—Donald Trump's attempt to repeal Obamacare—never became law. Trump proposed a national Medicaid work requirement in 2017, and Republicans passed a bill including that provision in the House, but it died in the Senate. (John McCain? Thumbs-down? Remember?) Trump did, however, sign executive orders designed to undercut Obamacare. One of those orders allowed states to implement requirements for Medicaid. Arkansas took Trump up on the offer. The new requirements proved very hard for users to navigate, and caused significant coverage losses without any evidence of having increased employment. This real-world experiment informs the CBO's model of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. [Annie Lowrey: Annoying people to death] Now, it's possible that other states will design systems for verifying employment status that work more smoothly than Arkansas's. If that happens, however, it will defeat the Republican Party's purpose for implementing them. The whole point is to save money, and the only way to save money is by kicking people off the program so that the government doesn't have to pay for their medical treatment. (In addition to those who will lose their health insurance because of Medicaid cuts, the CBO projects that another 8 million people will lose their insurance by 2034 because of changes to the ACA private marketplaces.) Hassett has not only made up a history of CBO being wrong about work requirements; he argues that this imagined sequence discredits the agency. 'They should look back at all the things they got wrong, and explain what they're going to do to get it right in the future and to do a better job,' he said on Face the Nation. 'And if they do that, we'll take them more seriously.' If the administration wishes to hinge its defense of its signature domestic legislation on the premise that sources of inaccurate historical predictions cannot be trusted, it has picked an especially unfortunate spokesperson. Hassett comes from the 'supply-side economics' wing of the Republican Party, a school of pseudo-economic thought once famously derided by George H. W. Bush as 'voodoo economics' for its unlikely claims that cutting taxes can yield higher government revenue. In 1999, Hassett co-authored Dow 36,000, which asserted that the stock market was wildly undervalued and was poised to more than quadruple in a few years. In fact, it would be more than two decades before the Dow Jones hit 36,000. Hassett proceeded to serve as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the first Trump administration, where his capacity for optimistic projection again proved useful. During the first weeks of the coronavirus pandemic, in 2020, Hassett designed a 'curve-fitting exercise' indicating that deaths from the virus would peak in April and trail off to almost zero by mid-May. That is not, in fact, what happened. In a normal administration, an episode like that, let alone two of them, would kill an economist's career. But it is perhaps because of, rather than despite, these absurd predictions that Hassett has found his way into an even more influential role in Trump's second term. Now here he is arguing that people should refuse to take the Congressional Budget Office seriously, because the Congressional Budget Office has made some embarrassing predictions in the past. Instead, we should believe that the CBO's projection of 8 million people losing Medicaid is 8 million too high. Can we at least see the model that arrived at this amazing conclusion? No, we can't. But we should trust the proven track record of Kevin Hassett. Article originally published at The Atlantic
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Russ Vought on Trump's megabill: ‘There's like, no downside'
Trump budget chief Russ Vought proclaimed that there were no 'downsides' to the 'big, beautiful bill' in a Fox Business appearance Monday, the latest in a series of praises for the GOP's landmark piece of legislation. 'It is a home run. There's like, no downside to this bill. This is not one where you have to say pros and cons. It's all good,' Vought said on Larry Kudlow's show. Vought, the director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, was among the key figures who pushed the megabill over the finish line, persuading fiscal hawks in the House Freedom Caucus to swallow their discontent over its cost, Politico reported. The sprawling legislation package makes permanent many of the tax cuts Republicans passed during Trump's first term and includes new deductions and exemptions for seniors and tipped workers. It includes some $170 billion in funding for immigration enforcement and mass deportations. The bill also has significant cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and other welfare programs. Democrats have assailed it as being a wealth transfer to rich Americans, who stand to benefit most from its tax breaks. All of this is projected to be expensive. The conservative Cato Institute estimated that the bill would add to the national debt by $6 trillion, while the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office put that figure at $3.4 trillion. To Vought, the bill is 'all good.' 'That is the story we're going to continue to explain to people as we focus in on each aspect of the bill,' he said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kansas Education Task Force debate over how to manage ‘at risk funding'
TOPEKA (KSNT) — Lawmakers once again met to discuss a new education funding formula on Wednesday. The current plan is set to expire in 2027 and the Education Funding Task Force is deliberating over what to do with 'at risk funding.' The state puts more than half a billion dollars into at risk funding every year. This money goes towards resources and programs that are designed to help Kansas students who are considered to be at risk. Marshall says he doesn't expect Medicaid cuts to impact Kansas However, some members of the task force are questioning whether or not the money is actually helping these students. Data presented to the committee suggests that over the past four years, students that are considered to be 'at risk' are not showing improved performance. 27 News talked with Kansas Republican Senator Beverly Gossage who believes this data is concerning. 'I think there is always frustration when you feel like there's no accountability,' Gossage said. 'We all have the same goal, we want students to achieve and show progress, but the question is how do we do that, what tools do we use, is the funding that we're getting now adequate, is it used properly?' Students need to meet one of 14 qualifications in order to be considered at risk. Some of these qualifications include chronic absenteeism and poor academic performance. The Task Force is hoping to agree on a new funding formula before the 2026 legislative session. Evergy customers in Kansas could soon have lower taxes For more Capitol Bureau news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news in northeast Kansas by downloading our mobile app and by signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track Weather app by clicking here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
