Saving for a storm while it's already raining: Florida readies budget fund to offset federal cuts
The state relies on federal dollars for nearly one-third of its budget and any disruptions from D.C. could have a ripple effect here on the state level. So, the question is, are lawmakers doing enough to protect Floridians from the unexpected?'I do not believe in raising taxes. We agree in the opposite. Cutting taxes, cutting spending, wasteful spending,' said House Speaker Danny Perez (R-Miami). 'What we're doing is, we are putting the state in a position that, god forbid, we are in a recession, we are in the 2000s all over again, we have a budget stabilization fund that would be able to backstop and protect Floridians from having to be in an uncomfortable position.'
Senate and House leadership say they are leaning on the budget stabilization fund, the state's rainy day reserve, in case of a recession, rising costs, or federal pull-back.
'We're doing things to make Florida's balance sheet more durable and difficult times, and we're setting more money aside to have as rainy-day reserves if things get difficult, that's a win that's a win,' said Senate President Ben Albritton (R-Wauchula).
But not everyone at the statehouse agrees that leadership's strategy is hitting the right mark.'You don't get to talk about saving money for a rainy day when it's still raining, when it's already raining on the people of Florida,' said State Rep. Fentrice Driskell (D-Tampa).
House Minority Leader Driskell said we shouldn't be cutting funding, we should be expanding the budget.
'It seems to me there's a lot of hot air about this Budget Stabilization Fund. There's a lot of hot air about saving money for a rainy day. But guess what? You only get to do that after you've met all of your other obligations,' said Driskell.
'The question is, do I believe this budget prepares Florida for what could be coming out of the DOGE cuts or just the changes that come out of Washington, D.C? And I would say yes,' said Senate President Albritton.
It's now day 102 of the 60-day session, and Budget Chairs have been working all week, racing to finalize the final spending plan, which is now expected for a Monday vote.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Federal bill brings changes, uncertainty to Mower Health and Human Services
Jul. 11—SNAP and medical assistance will be impacted by sweeping changes of One Big Beautiful Bill Act Named by the Trump administration as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," the 2025 budget reconciliation bill is creating concern as effects reverberate down the pipeline for governmental entities like Mower County. On Tuesday morning, during the Mower County Board of Commissioners meeting, Health and Human Services Director Crystal Peterson laid out a stark picture of how the act could cast a shadow over the county in the coming years. In particular, Peterson warned the board of impending impacts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and medical assistance programming that could have significant effects for both the department and those it serves. Adding to the pall being cast by the bill is the amount of unknown currently coming along with the changes. "It's terribly confusing for us as professionals so I can't imagine how confusing it is for the public," Peterson said Wednesday afternoon. While the bill makes wide-ranging changes to a variety of areas, the areas that would impact the county's HHS come primarily to the SNAP benefits and medical assistance programming. In regard to SNAP, which acts as a supplemental food income for families, the bill would affect the reimbursement scale of the department. In the past, the department received around 50% reimbursement federally, however, with the bill's signing by President Donald Trump, that will be cut in half down to 25% representing a significant reduction in revenue. This part will be effective on Oct. 1, 2026. "That's an automatic cost shift to our local levy because there are no other payments for that sort of thing and that's just to administer the SNAP program," Peterson said. "Our piece of the pie is going to get larger." A year down the line, starting on Oct. 1, 2027 (fiscal year 2028 for the federal government), counties will have to start paying for a share of the benefits administered at the county level, which Peterson believes Mower will have to pay around 10%. "Again, a big hit," Peterson said. "We're hovering right around $500,000, $600,000 a month in benefits that we're administering." On the medical assistance side, those participating in the program will have to now register twice a year where in the past it required renewal just once a year, which would create an additional work load for current employees. On top of all of this is a tiered implementation by the federal government with few known details currently, something the State of Minnesota is having to deal with as well. "From a policy procedural standpoint, as far as what the workers can do with these changes, it's all directed to us from the state," said Jennie Crews, financial assistant supervisors for HHS. "At times they are scrambling to figure it out as much as we are. It's kind of last minute and our systems are not updated quite the way we want them to be." What that means for the HHS is that the department will have to begin looking ahead with vision. Even though there is a tiered approach over the next three years, there are still questions HHS and the county in general will have to keep a close eye including any possible impacts this could cause in the coming year. "I think first of all, we need to spend some time just reviewing exactly what we're looking at," Peterson said. "Get a feel for the implementation dates and kind of work backwards. What do we need to look at for next budget year? We're just in the planning for 2026 right now. Are any of these going to impact 2026?" The notion of what the impacts could entail is a sobering reality as it's likely that because of these cuts from the federal bill, it's likely that less people will be served through these two programs. The effects on SNAP in particular are unfortunate in the wake of efforts of programs like the Hometown Food Security Project, which is putting a renewed and group focus on lessening the impact of food insecurity in the county. "Our community really invested in trying to get people all the resources they need for food," Peterson said. "Are we going to be serving less people? Probably. Our fear is we're going to start serving them through other venues like perhaps child protection or adult protection because SNAP was the glue that held the household together. That extra income or extra food allowed that family to be self-sufficient." Another factor is the impact on HHS itself as it seeks not only answers to questions of revenue, but staffing questions as well. Already, the department has put a hold on filling positions where people have left in an effort to make up for any potential lost revenue. The positions themselves, however, are not being eliminated and when they are filled, Peterson said that steps will be taken to ensure that "we've tried every creative solution and we're filling it in the most cost effective way to still meet the needs of the public." What's not being considered is the laying off of staff. "That's not something we're even considering at all," Peterson said. "Again, that's why we're being so mindful of when we have a natural opening holding or not filling it until we're absolutely certain there is no additional solution." Still, there is reason for optimism as Peterson said that HHS is backed by a supportive board and a department with employees that are all in to making any changes work. "That's everything," Peterson said. "We have heard directly from commissioners that there are so many other things we can do besides lay people off. That's the last thing they want to do as well." "We see staff already invested in trying to figure out how to provide services at the lowest cost possible," Peterson added. In the meantime, both Peterson and Crews said that HHS will continue looking ahead as much as possible, adapting and relaying information to the public as soon as it's available to make sure the situation is as clear as possible. "There will definitely be communications coming, probably by mail," Crews said. "The state has taken a proactive approach by texting and emails. There will be a lot of communication."
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Colorado agency that administers Medicaid will make big changes under new federal law
Agency that administers Medicaid will make big changes under new federal law, state official says Agency that administers Medicaid will make big changes under new federal law, state official says Agency that administers Medicaid will make big changes under new federal law, state official says As executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Kim Bimestefer oversees the state's largest health insurance program. Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing CBS Medicaid covers 1.2 million Coloradans, or one in five residents. Verifying the eligibility of so many people each year is already a colossal task. Bimestefer says, under President Donald Trump's new tax and spending law, it will become far more challenging. "We've got to set up an entire industry in 18 months," Bimestefer said. Bimestefer says the state has sophisticated software that can automatically check things such as age, income, address and citizenship. But the new law creates new requirements, including 80 hours of work, school or community service each month for people between the ages 19 and 64 who aren't pregnant, disabled or have kids under age 14. There is no automated system for that or a master list to know who's in school and who's volunteering to verify eligibility. And Bimestefer notes the state now must do that verification twice a year. "We have to build the entirety of the infrastructure to capture and automate and to make sure that we don't have people impeded of getting through the eligibility process and therefore losing coverage," Bimestefer said. "Because the down-streaming impacts of people losing coverage are absolutely catastrophic." Bimestefer says up to 377,000 Coloradans could be impacted by the new eligibility requirements. It's estimated about 56% of them are already working, but Bimestefer says verifying that will be the challenge. Bimestefer worries thousands of Coloradans will lose coverage. "They'll move. They'll change their email address. They won't realize have to do it," Bimestefer explained. That will lead to more uninsured patients, Bimestefer says, and more uncompensated care, which will increase costs for everyone. "The north star is to have people covered but, again, this is going to be part of many difficult decisions that this state is going to have to step up and make," Bimestefer said. While most of the changes to Medicaid -- including the new eligibility requirements -- don't take effect for at least a year and a half. Bimestefer says she needs to start preparing now, which takes money. Bimestefer says lawmakers -- who decide what services are covered -- will have to make tough decisions soon. Gov. Jared Polis is expected to call them back to work next month. The new law provides $200 million to help with implementation, but the money will be shared among all states. The state of Kentucky alone spent about $270 million on a work requirement only before a court blocked it. "Are we going to lower provider reimbursements? Are we going to change benefits? All those are very difficult decisions," Bimestefer said. "But were going to have to move some of those levers in order to deal with the fiscal realities that the costs will continue to go up, and the revenues available will continued to be strained." Bimestefer says, not only will Colorado have to spend millions of dollars on new hires and new systems to implement the law, it will have to do so as it loses millions of dollars. Starting in 2027, the law limits federal matching funds that Colorado has used to increase provider reimbursements. The state budget is already expected to take a billion-dollar hit from other provisions in the law, so the legislature won't be able to backfill the lost revenue, which Bimestefer says could be as much as $2.5 billion. She says the money has helped double the number of providers that accept Medicaid over the last 5 years. If reimbursement drops, providers may limit how many Medicaid patients they see. The law provides $50 billion to help offset the loss of funds for rural hospitals, which see the most Medicaid patients. Bimestefer says the state should know in the next few months how much of that money Colorado will receive. The original bill included a provision that cut additional federal funding to states like Colorado that pay for health care for undocumented immigrants, but that was dropped from the final bill. Bimestefer says that doesn't mean the Cover All Coloradans program won't face cuts. It was expected to serve about 3,600 people this year at a cost of $27 million, but it serves nearly six times that -- 21,000 -- at a cost of more than $50 million.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats join fired State Department employees to rally against layoffs
Senate Democrats on Friday joined State Department employees in protest of the Trump administration's decision to layoff 1,300 employees this week. 'This is not America first. This is America in retreat,' Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on Friday at a protest outside the department's headquarters in Washington. 'And we don't want America retreating, do we?' 'Hell no,' the Maryland Democrat exclaimed. A number of workers gathered outside after the department sent reduction in force (RIF) notices Friday morning to about 1,100 civil servants and 250 foreign service officers stationed in the U.S., with plans to cut its workforce further. Workers were instructed to return their government-issued belongings on Friday. The move, which comes months after Secretary of State Marco Rubio led the department in shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has been broadly condemned by Democrats on Capitol Hill. 'There are active conflicts and humanitarian crises in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Haiti and Myanmar—to name a few. Now is the time to strengthen our diplomatic hand, not weaken it,' Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in a statement backed by all Democrats on the committee. Van Hollen echoed these concerns on Friday, stating the layoffs make the American public 'less safe.' 'When we retreat, that helps our adversaries and it hurts our friends and allies. When we retreat, it helps the autocrats and the dictators,' he said. 'And it undermines those fighting for human rights and democracy around the world.' Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) also attended the Friday rally, describing the reduction in force as 'devastating' earlier in the day. Rubio has long maintained that efforts to reshuffle the Department are 'deliberate' and focused on boosting efficiency. 'It's not a consequence of trying to get rid of people. But if you close the bureau, you don't need those positions. Understand that some of these are positions that are being eliminated, not people,' Rubio told reporters while in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. But concerns have also been raised by the American Foreign Service Association, a union that represents tens of thousands of former and current diplomats. They argued the workforce reduction would 'damage our credibility abroad.' 'Diplomats are not faceless bureaucrats. They are America's forward presence, serving in war zones, evacuating citizens, negotiating for the release of detained Americans, and steadying allies in turbulent times. Like military personnel, they move every two to three years, serving wherever America needs representation, often in dangerous and difficult places,' the union wrote. 'Their mobility is a strategic asset. Firing them based solely on their current office location discards that asset and damages our credibility abroad,' the group added.
