When Gov. Wes Moore van Maryland signs the budget of his state in law as soon as Tuesday, this will mean the end of a difficult Saga in which local leaders reduce the expenditure and have increased some reimbursements to close a greater than expected $ 3 billion deficit.
But Mr. Moore, a Democrat, is already bracing for the next tax fight. Maryland and her finances are strongly influenced by the federal government and the Trump government wants huge parts of the help it sends to states.
“We have just made the biggest cuts on our budget in Maryland in 16 years,” Mr Moore said in a recent interview, adding that the steep cuts that are considered in Washington can quickly be “deeply harmful”.
Throughout the country, the state leaders are starting to express the alarm about the budgetary consequences of President Trump’s economic agenda, warning that they will not be able to collect the bill if the federal government reduces its financing for large public services. For governors and other officials, many of whom are democrats, the fear that Washington is federal programs that can help states to improve their infrastructure, to limit them sharply, respond to natural disasters, expand education and offer a series of health, housing and nutritional benefits to the poor.
Republicans have framed their thinking as a matter of tax necessity and federalism and claim that states should bear more of the financial burden for their citizens at a time when the national debt is more than $ 36 trillion. But Mr. Trump has made no secret about the fact that many of his preferred budget reductions are intended to compensate for his valuable and ever -increasing legislative ambitions, including his desire to lower taxes.
In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has suggested that Washington states could offer less in response to large storms, forcing local officials Assume more repair costs. Are New budget Proposed to scale back federal help to states about programs that vary from public education to mental health. And Republicans in the Congress proposed this week to force local authorities to take a larger part of the costs food vouchers And other federal anti-armed programs.
For states such as Colorado, who recently shrinking his expenditure to conclude a shortage of around $ 1 billion, a sharp fall in federal financing can lead to even more stunning cuts. Jared Polis government, a democrat, pointed to the example of Medicaid, the federally supported program, managed by the States that offers health insurance to families with a low income.
If Congress Republicans reduce the amount they have reimbursed for Staten for Medicaid, as some legislators have proposed, it is unlikely that Colorado can pick up the entire bill, Mr Polis said. The result, he added, would probably be “hundreds of thousands of Coloradans who lose the health care they have today.”
On Sunday, Huis Republicans A draft plan released for Medicaid That would limit the future capacity of states to tax hospitals and other medical care providers, a step that is intended to undermine a strategy that has a historically helped civil servants to obtain federal financing.
In the meantime, at least eight states have warned that they expect budget disruptions on the horizon because of the federal uncertainty, according to an analysis of the National Association of State Budget Officers. Some mentioned specific cuts and other federal developments, including the global rates of Mr Trump, as a source of their complicated tax -perceived pastors.
Brian Sigritz, the director of the state’s fiscal studies at the organization, said that many states have already experienced less than expected growth and “cannot absorb the federal cuts” that chase republicans.
The dynamics emphasized the difficult and consistent math with which Mr. Trump is confronted. Any tax change that he and his party are considering could have significant wrinkle effects throughout the economy, which influences public services in which millions of Americans and companies trust.
Publishing his first budget since the return to the office, Mr Trump called for a major cut in Washington this month. The Trump Government proposed $ 163 billion in cuts Focused on a stunning range of federal climate, education, health and housing programs, while the military expenditures increase and the promise of the president to perform more aggressive deportations.
Explanation about the recalibration, Russell. T. Vought, the budget director of the White House, denounced broad categories of federal editions as Waste or “wake up”. Mr. Vought added that some of the proposed cutbacks reflected a belief that federal services “can be better provided by national or local authorities (if provided at all).”
Under the banner of “Revitalize federalism,” The Trump administration ordered to cut $ 4.5 billion in education funds under a structure Those officials of the White House have said: “authorizes states.” Mr. Trump also focused on more than $ 1 billion on the Environmental Protection Agency and argued that its pollution reduction of subsidies had become a financial ‘crutch for states’.
And the administration seemed to rid $ 2.4 billion from a federal program to help local officials finance clean water improvements. The president’s budget stated that “being responsible for the financing of local water infrastructure projects, not the federal government.”
“It is amazing, and what they said with it was:” You have already had enough. You should have reconstructed all your infrastructure, “said Deborah B. Goldberg, the treasurer of Massachusetts, on a call organized by a representation of interest for democratic financial officials.” Well, every state has an outdated infrastructure and you can’t rebuild it all at the same time. “
A spokeswoman for the Budget Office of the White House did not respond to a request for comment.
David Ditch, a senior analyst in the tax policy for the Economic Policy Innovation Center, a conservative group, described the president’s strategy as a necessary corrective, with reference to the fact that Washington is borrowing too much. “That money is now extremely expensive,” he said, referring to high interest rates.
Mr. Trump’s budget threatened to leave States in a “precarious position to fill billions of dollars for people, and to be frank, states cannot do that,” says Kim Johnson, the senior director of public policy at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, who supports greater federal spending on rental aid.
According to Mr Trump’s budget, the housing programs would be reduced by $ 26 billion next year, as part of a revision intended to shift more of the burden of managing rental aid to the States. Many states already have a high demand for these programs, and Mrs. Johnson said that few would have the means to absorb the loss of billions of dollars in federal help.
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if this proposal were to continue, there would absolutely be people who lose their help,” Mrs Johnson added.
Mr. Trump’s budget is not a law, and it is ultimately for the congress to determine the spending levels of the nation. Republican legislators have eagerly embraced the cost -saving philosophy of the President because they are participating in reducing the expenditure and finding ways to compensate for the price tag of them tax package.
Huis republicans have looked at it to achieve significant savings from safety network programs, including the additional food utility, or Snap, which aims to combat hunger. Under a blueprint that was released late on Monday, party legislators proposed to force states to assume some costs of providing food benefits from 2028. Historically, these food vouchers are federally financed.
GOP legislators have also focused on Medicaid, apart from sometimes or the amount that they have to reimburse states for patients with a low income. Although Republicans have called some of their earlier, more aggressive proposals to reduce the program, they have still tried to reconsider part of the financing in Medicaid, so that they can extract more than $ 800 billion in health -related savings in the coming decade to pay for their tax officials.
The non -party -related budget office studied a menu of early options and found in an earlier this month in an analysis that was released earlier this month that state budgets could be possible some, but not all, absorb the financial blow From a loss of federal financing, probably that millions of people lose benefits. In an updated report Published by Democrats on MondayIn general, the spending watch dog concluded that 13.7 million people could lose insurance of the full series of health changes that Republicans are looking for.
“With the size of the reduction of federal financing for Medicaid, it seems to be very challenging for states to make and compensate for that amount and that size of reduction,” said Robin Rudowitz, the director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured at Kaiser Family Foundation.
Faced with the potential loss of billions of dollars, a growing schedule of state leaders had already been alarms before Republicans had released that Medicaid plan, and emphasizes that they cannot make up for a considerable shortage of federal support.
“We do not have the opportunity to fill some loss of federal financing,” said Mr Polis.
- Advertisement -
