Transcript Highlights:

• The deficit.
• We addressed the deficit grant program across the board.
• In this bill, we focused on actual spending reductions.
• There are some automatic reductions that happen in this.
• We focus on spending reductions in program integrity.

Transcript Highlights:

• The annual deficit for this particular FY 24 year, recall, was $1.9 trillion.
• Still have a deficit. That's just how large it is.
• if a bill is passed to increase the deficit.
• And the deficit spending that's triggered by H.R. 1 is.
• Deficit spending that would be triggered. Why am I freaking out about this?

Transcript Highlights:

• we also would propose considering a trigger so that when there are revenue surpluses, tax rate reductions
• include limiting spending to trend revenue growth along with Minnesota's economic performance, with a deficit
• we also would propose considering a trigger so that when there are revenue surpluses, tax rate reductions
• we also would propose considering a trigger so that when there are revenue surpluses, tax rate reductions
• We propose considering a trigger so that when there are revenue surpluses, tax rate reductions go into

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 4, first adopting the H004A1 amendment without objection. The author described the bill as a constitutional amendment intended to create a tax relief account funded from projected budget surpluses, defined as revenues exceeding 105% of projected expenditures based on the November forecast. Supporters framed the proposal as a way to return excess taxpayer money to families, homeowners, and seniors rather than allowing the state to retain or redirect it. Testimony in support came from Ranna Lee of Americans for Prosperity, who praised the bill’s clarity and argued that taxpayers are overburdened and should receive surplus funds back; she also suggested broader tax and budget reforms, including rate reductions and tighter spending limits. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project testified in opposition, saying the legislature already has authority to use surpluses for rebates or tax cuts and warning that constitutionalizing tax policy would reduce flexibility, weaken accountability, and make it harder to respond to changing conditions, emergencies, or recessions. Members then briefly commented, with Republicans expressing support for returning money to taxpayers and citing cost-of-living pressures and fixed incomes. The committee did not hear a formal department position. At the end of the hearing, Representative Johnson renewed the motion that House File 4, as amended, be recommended to pass and sent to the Ways and Means Committee; the motion prevailed on a voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are... is about a 28 percent reduction at USDA.
• In the case of the efficiency reductions, what we’re seeing is that there’s already offsetting reductions
• In the case of the efficiency reductions, what we're seeing is that there's already offsetting reductions
• In the context of the state's projected multi-year budget deficit, this will inevitably require reductions
• require reductions elsewhere or revenue increases.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• would result in larger reductions to funded child care slots.
• And when we talk about harm reduction, we can think...
• The May Revision is proposing a reduction of $62.6 million.
• This is a technical budget reduction, which is actually very good.
• We are also concerned with the reduction.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senators tell us how they hope to avoid a deficit while also avoiding cuts to state services Minnesotans
• Reductions in federal funding will result in increased cost to the state budget.
• know we've heard that there's a deficit know we've heard that there's a deficit on<00:04:50.680>
• and of our looming budget deficit.
• and of our looming budget deficit and of our looming budget deficit deficit deficit and<00:15:29.440

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that the product we are delivering today is going to make significant progress on our structural deficit
• budget actions, and I’m proud that we are going to make real progress on those out-year structural deficits
• In addition, the budget reduces the out-year structural deficits that were identified in the Governor's
• Instead, this budget represents a balance of program reductions and increased revenues to address both
• near-term budget deficits and longer-term structural deficits.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the final three-party agreement for the 2026-27 state budget and 19 implementing bills, including two budget bill juniors and 17 trailer bills. Committee leadership and administration officials described the budget as a balanced plan that reduces out-year structural deficits, maintains large reserves, and makes major investments in health care, education, housing, child care, public safety, and other core services while also responding to expected federal cuts and fiscal uncertainty. The Department of Finance outlined the package’s major components, including Medi-Cal adjustments, education funding increases, higher education changes, child care and human services updates, housing and homelessness funding, energy and transportation provisions, and tax and general government changes. Members asked questions about several provisions, including CSU enrollment targets and turnaround plans, the Prop. 98 settle-up mechanism, the plastics market development payment program, housing accountability measures, NextGen 9-1-1 implementation, and veteran services. Staff and administration witnesses explained that the higher education language is intended to improve campus-by-campus reporting and oversight, that Prop. 98 settle-up would be finalized later through the statutory certification process, and that NextGen 9-1-1 now includes one-time funding, quarterly reporting, an independent technical review, and a state audit. Members also discussed the HAP homelessness funding increase to $900 million and the balance between accountability and timely distribution of funds. The most extended exchange centered on comparisons between funding for veterans and Medi-Cal/immigrant health coverage. Republican members argued the budget spends far more on undocumented immigrant services than on veterans, while Democratic members and Finance staff responded that the comparison was misleading because many veterans’ services are federally funded and the state budget also includes dedicated veteran support. The chair and other members emphasized that the budget reflects difficult tradeoffs and that the package protects vulnerable populations, preserves health care access, and advances affordability. No final vote was described in the excerpt, but members indicated support for the overall package and said they would support it on the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will note that coverage reduction in premium increases coverage reduction in premium increases um<00
• We're looking at a $6.1 billion deficit in two years.
• <00:30:30.159> in<00:30:31.039> um is actually a reduction in um is actually a reduction
• deficit.
• Two years from deficit.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Step two, when the wheels come off this cart and the budget deficit is exposed, blame Donald Trump.
• Even though your budget deficit existed far before Donald Trump even got reelected to the office.
• Even though your budget deficit existed far before Donald Trump even got reelected to the office.
• We couldn't do deficit spending.
• We have a deficit and we borrow from a rainy day fund; that's not good budgeting.

Summary: The Assembly convened after a quorum call and proceeded to floor business, with the main item being SB 101, the state budget bill. Before debate on the bill, Assembly Member Sanchez offered amendments to redirect funding toward Proposition 36 implementation, wildfire prevention, Medi-Cal provider reimbursement, developmental services, and other priorities; the majority moved to lay those amendments on the table, and the motion passed 43-18. The chamber then took up SB 101 as the budget bill for immediate effect. Debate on the budget was extensive and sharply divided. Supporters, including Assembly Member Gabriel and several committee chairs, described the budget as a difficult but responsible compromise that protects Medi-Cal, IHSS, child care, housing, wildfire prevention, and other safety-net programs while responding to a projected deficit and federal uncertainty. Opponents criticized the budget as fiscally unsound and argued it relied on accounting gimmicks, did not adequately fund Proposition 36 or wildfire prevention, and continued spending on high-speed rail and Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants. Several members also raised concerns about gas taxes, provider reimbursement, probation funding, and the impact on vulnerable Californians. After debate, the Assembly voted on SB 101 and passed it 57-19. The measure was sent immediately to the Senate. The body then announced upcoming session schedules, with no floor or check-in sessions on June 14 and 15, and a floor session set for June 16 at 1 p.m., before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the good news is in that second biennium of the projected deficit nearly 90% of that has been erased
• With that, I will turn it over to Senate Leader, uh, Erin Murphy. deficit nearly 90% of that has been
• Um, if they can, that's where we get the reduction in costs.
• we were seeing out in the out years and a 45% reduction in the structural imbalance.
• reduction in the structural imbalance. reduction in the structural imbalance.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:18:15.240> uh or other incentives or tax reductions uh or other incentives or tax reductions
• Of reduction in their aid award.
• The reductions do vary. The dollar reductions do vary by student.
• would<01:49:40.280> differ reductions would differ reductions would differ um<01:49:42.240
• <01:54:00.880> in on top of the significant reductions in on top of the significant reductions

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I was very pleased to hear, though, that the governor has realized that we are heading toward a deficit
• We're seeing a budget where we have a deficit coming at us of $6 billion.
• where we have a deficit coming at us<00:03:45.120> of<00:03:45.360> $6<00:03:45.879>
• , when our schools are billion deficit, when our schools are just<00:08:12.960> buckling<00:08
• when he was talking about the deficit? when he was talking about the deficit?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• and actually if you structural deficit and actually if you look<00:02:17.840> at<00:02:18.000
• in um the effect of the reduction in um the effect of the reduction<00:09:43.800> in<00:09:44.000
• solves half of the um structural deficit solves half of the um structural deficit into<00:12:02.639
• <00:36:21.720> or what is considered uh cost reductions or what is considered uh cost reductions
• Yes, there are going to have to be some hard decisions made to deal with the deficit.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee met to hear a presentation from the Commissioner of Revenue on Governor Walz and Lieutenant Governor Flanagan’s tax proposal, with members told no public testimony would be taken because bill language was not yet available. The commissioner said the proposal would lower the statewide sales tax rate by 0.75 percentage points while expanding sales tax to selected professional services such as legal, brokerage, banking, and accounting, with several carve-outs. He emphasized that the plan would not add business-to-business sales taxes, arguing that taxing business inputs leads to tax pyramiding and higher hidden consumer costs. The commissioner said the rate cut would be the first sales tax rate cut in state history and estimated it at about $95 million annually, while the service expansions would raise about $203 million to $205 million annually, for a net increase of roughly $110 million per year. He said the proposal is part of the governor’s broader budget, which he described as addressing long-term structural deficits and funding other priorities such as an R&D credit, an expanded sustainable aviation fuel credit, fraud prevention, and service-member retention bonuses. He also said the carve-outs and exemptions would be reflected in the revenue estimate. Members questioned whether the proposal was truly a tax cut or instead a tax increase, and several asked for a revenue-neutral rate if all or more services were taxed. One member raised concerns about how pro bono legal work with a fee would be treated, and another asked about possible streamlining issues and whether fees are treated as taxes in statute. The commissioner said a fee would be taxable depending on the arrangement and that the department would review the language carefully once drafted. He also said the department would provide more detailed estimates later, including what the rate would be if the tax were made revenue neutral. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• For instance, up to 38% reduction in sulfur oxides, 11% reduction in carbon monoxide, 62% reduction in
• Cost reductions, future emissions reductions, and if we carefully manage the unintended consequences.
• So any reduction is significant.
• So any reduction is significant.
• and almost 100% sulfur reduction.

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a $1.1 billion deficit.
• We're at a billion dollar deficit right now.
• deficit. He had a $4.5 billion surplus. deficit. He had a $4.5 billion surplus.
• at a billion dollar deficit right now. at a billion dollar deficit right now.
• targeted rate reductions. targeted rate reductions.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . reduction. reduction. on<00:18:32.960> line<00:18:33.360> 87<00:18:33.919> and
• <00:20:46.640> um<00:20:46.799> to<00:20:47.039> that reduction um to that reduction
• general fund reductions. The only area general fund reductions.
• funding source to cover these reductions funding source to cover these reductions into<00:38:24.240
• > include<00:38:52.000> reductions<00:38:52.560> to bill, which include reductions

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And do the math, that's a $6 million deficit.
• And do the math, that's a $6 million deficit.
• And do the math, that's a $6 million deficit.
• And do the math, that's a $6 million deficit.
• And do the math, that's a $6 million deficit.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:07 Roll Call 00:00:13 Approval of Minutes from August Meeting 00:01:55 Discussion of County Jails 00:03:31 Discussion of Centralized Collection of Net Profits and Occupational License Taxes 01:02:12 Adjournment 01:54:56, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the August 26 minutes, and then took up a discussion of county jail funding. KACO representatives and county officials said jail operations are an ongoing strain for counties because they must pay for inmate care, facilities, and mandated standards, while many counties also rely on jail revenue to offset costs. They described Kentucky’s jail system, including 77 jails, 43 closed counties without jails, and the mix of county, state, federal, and controlled-intake inmates. KACO emphasized that counties remain financially responsible for inmates even when they must contract with other jails, often at costs above the state’s per diem rate, and said it is developing a broader proposal to present later. The testimony focused on rising expenses and shrinking revenue. KACO said counties spent about $374 million on jail operations in FY24, up 24% from FY19, and about $41 million on jail medical costs, up 40%. General fund support for jails was said to total $147 million in FY24, more than double pre-COVID levels. Speakers also noted that state inmate populations in county jails have fallen from about 11,500 in 2019 to 7,212 in 2025, while federal inmates have increased because they are more lucrative for counties. The state jail per diem of $35.34 was described as insufficient to cover actual costs, especially medical care. County judges from Webster, Knox, and Hardin counties gave examples of local budget pressure. Webster County said it now houses 114 state prisoners, 47 county prisoners, and 24 out-of-county prisoners, and that it transferred $512,000 from its general fund to the jail last year, about $77 per taxpayer. Knox County said its jail budget has grown from an initial $2.8 million projection to $5.7 million, with $3 million coming from occupational tax revenue. Hardin County said its jail has an approximate $11 million expense budget against $5 million in revenue, creating a $6 million deficit, driven by higher payroll, medical, and insurance costs and a 29% drop in state prisoner revenue. The judge said the county has responded with property tax increases and an expanded occupational tax district, but still uses reserves to cover other county services. A Grant County magistrate then began speaking from the perspective of magistrates and commissioners, describing her background working at a local jail before serving in county government. The discussion remained centered on the fiscal burden of jails and the need for counties and the legislature to work together on a long-term solution.

Transcript Highlights:

• Nebraska's projected budget deficit grows to $471 million ahead of the 2026 legislative session.
• You can see the surplus and deficit may be better charted for you on the far right here.
• Surplus in 2024 is about $168 million; deficit in 2025.
• So we can see baked into this some... ...reductions, particularly around the Medicaid side.
• The reduction to that was about $75 million in one quarter.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• because um you gave us a deficit because um you gave us a deficit appropriation<00:11:27.839>
• Um and that would separate deficit bill.
• So a little bit of a reduction there. And may I just say one thing?
• So a little bit of a reduction there.
• So a little bit of a reduction there. And may I just say one thing?

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 216, 5 February, 2026; 8:30 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first heard from the Board of Registration for Foresters, which said it is self-funded through applications and renewals and receives no general fund support. The board requested a budget increase from $62,755 to $77,035, mainly for technology upgrades to its database and website, a social media presence, and about $3,000 more for board travel. Members asked about contractual expenses, staffing, renewals, reserves, and office location; the witness said most renewals are now online, the board has a reserve but he did not know the exact amount, and the board is leased space in the Robert E. Lee Building. No vote was taken, and the chair moved on to the next agency. The Mississippi Board of Examiners for Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists then presented its budget and operational needs. The board described its 10-member structure, three employees, and oversight of about 4,450 social workers and 210 marriage and family therapists. It explained that a prior $50,000 deficit appropriation was approved too late to spend, and asked to include that amount in the current budget for technology upgrades and equipment. The board also requested salary increases, additional travel funds, money for out-of-state compact participation, more contractual funds for database enhancements and digitizing records, and one additional computer. Members questioned the board about its large cash balance, staffing, office location, and the social work compact; the board said it has about $1 million in cash, is in leased space at Old River Place, and needs database changes to support the compact. No action or vote was taken. Finally, the Cosmetology and Barbering Board discussed major licensing and regulatory changes and its budget request. The board said it had already adopted a passing score for the licensure exam, ended the practical exam, extended testing approval periods, removed barriers to temporary work permits, and opened a path for apprenticeships, mobile establishments, and online licensing software. It also described recommendations in SB 2566, including a low-income first-license fee waiver, sanitation warnings, reduced education and instructor-hour requirements, and removal of some display requirements. The board said these changes had already led to new applications and test signups. On the budget side, it said it was withdrawing a prior request for $6,340 for practical-exam contractors because that exam was eliminated, but still sought $120,000 for certified mail, $49,000 for recruitment and retention salaries, and continued flexibility for possible live-streaming requirements under pending legislation. Senators asked whether the practical exam had been eliminated and whether the board could still ensure competency and inspections; the board said skills are still assessed through program completion and theory testing, and it asked to retain inspector positions because it oversees roughly 6,000 to 6,500 licensed shops and salons with only two inspectors.

Transcript Highlights:

• We intend to discuss those as part of our comprehensive Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
• With the legislature in developing an overall framework for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
• The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is balanced at May revision?
• Given that we're facing out-year structural deficits, how will the administration approve this issue
• We are talking about a reduction of up to $3 billion between now and fiscal year 2028-2029.

Keywords: 988, house, all