A plan to boost weight limits for trucks on Georgia state highways is proving a heavy lift against determined opposition.

After the scope of the bill was cut down earlier in the House and still garnered barely enough votes to pass, the Senate Transportation Committee on Monday took a few more logs off the truck.

The committee, on a 7-4 vote, approved a new version of House Bill 189 that would allow trucks moving agricultural and forestry commodities to carry up to 88,000 pounds on state roads. Now, the limit on state roads is 80,000 pounds, but trucks are allowed a variance of up to 84,000 pounds.

The bill goes to the full Senate for more debate. The House would have to approve the changes.

The higher limit would only be good until July 1, 2024. Heavier trucks wouldn’t be allowed in 13 core metro Atlanta counties, and local police and sheriff’s deputies could for the first time write tickets for overweight trucks. Now, only the state Motor Carrier Compliance Division can write tickets.

By next year, senators said, Georgia leaders need to try to find ways to increase funding for the state’s transportation system. Lawmakers have been pushing for a statewide freight and logistics plan, but it would cost another $1 billion a year, at least, to pay for projects including wider highways, improved interchanges and expanded railroads.

‘I think it’s important that this committee be engaged fully with the business community, the ag community and also the Department of Transportation over the next six to eight months,’ said Senate Majority Leader Steve Gooch, a Dahlonega Republican. ‘We have to get this freight and logistics plan implemented but we have to have lots of money to do it.’

A House committee had originally sought to permanently raise the weight limit to 90,000 pounds for all trucks, before voting 93-81 to allow that heavier weight for only logging, farming and mining commodities. But Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Greg Dolezal, a Republican from Cumming, bluntly told supporters ‘there are not the votes on this committee’ to pass even the bill the House passed.

City and county governments and the Georgia Department of Transportation have ferociously opposed the increase, warning that heavier weights will cause much more expensive damage to roads and bridges. They also say many more bridges would have to be posted as too weak to allow 88,000-pound trucks, taking away some of the advantages of the higher limit. Other opponents warn heavier trucks could cause more crashes because of increased stopping distance.

Trucks would remain limited to 80,000 pounds on interstate highways.

Logging, farming and trucking groups have long been seeking the increase, saying they could save money by hauling more freight per trip. Loggers particularly argued that higher weight limits could make the difference between profit and loss in their low-margin industry.

Gov. Brian Kemp had been allowing heavy trucks that get special permits to haul up to 95,000 pounds, under a supply chain emergency order that he repeatedly renewed. But that order finally expired on March 11, reducing the limit to 84,000 pounds.

Former President Donald Trump has not been formally notified about whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg plans to bring charges against him, sources familiar told Fox News Digital, amid speculation of a possible imminent indictment.

Sources told Fox News, though, that there remains a real chance that Bragg does not choose to indict the former president.

Multiple sources told Fox News that at least one more witness is expected to appear before the grand jury when it convenes Wednesday at 2 p.m. in Manhattan. It is unclear at this point who the witness or witnesses are.

Grand jury deliberations and votes are secret proceedings, and an indictment typically remains under seal until an arraignment.

If an indictment is brought, Trump’s attorneys would immediately be notified. If indicted and notified, Trump’s attorneys would be able to begin negotiating the terms of a court appearance with the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

An indictment, if brought, could come as early as Wednesday, a source told Fox News, adding that the earliest Trump could appear in court if charged would be next week. If indicted, the U.S. Secret Service and the New York Police Department would discuss how the former president would surrender.

The possible charges stem from the $130,000 hush-money payment that then-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, in the weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006.

Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York opted out of charging Trump related to the Stormy Daniels payment in 2019, even as Cohen implicated him as part of his plea deal. The Federal Election Commission also tossed its investigation into the matter in 2021.

Cohen has said Trump directed the payments. Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 through his own company and was later reimbursed by Trump’s company, which logged the payments as ‘legal expenses.’ Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who allegedly had a relationship with Trump, received a $150,000 payment through the publisher of the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer.

The Trump Organization ‘grossed up’ Cohen’s reimbursement for Daniels’ payment for ‘tax purposes,’ according to federal prosecutors who filed the 2018 criminal charges against Cohen for the payments.

Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing with regard to the payments made to Daniels, and he has repeatedly said the payments were ‘not a campaign violation’ but rather a ‘simple private transaction.’

Robert Costello, a former legal adviser to Cohen, appeared before the grand jury Monday and testified that Cohen is a ‘serial liar.’

Costello testified before the grand jury for more than two hours Monday. Costello said he testified that Trump did not know about the payments made by Cohen to Stormy Daniels.

The Manhattan DA’s investigation into Trump began in 2019 by then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance. The probe was focused on possible bank, insurance and tax fraud. The case initially involved financial dealings of Trump’s Manhattan properties, including his flagship Fifth Avenue building, Trump Tower, and the valuation of his 213-acre estate Seven Springs in Westchester.

The investigation last year led to tax fraud charges against the Trump Organization and its finance chief, Allen Weisselberg.

North Carolina’s public schools, colleges and universities would be prohibited from requiring a student to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 under a bill that advanced Tuesday in the state House.

Promoted by Republican sponsors to protect free choice, the proposal would also ban state agencies, cities and counties from denying employment to someone who refuses to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit proof they have already done so. Private businesses could still opt for mandates.

The proposal passed the House Health Committee Tuesday after some Democrats questioned the need for it given that religious and medical exemptions are already common. The bill must clear two other committees before it can be voted on by the full House.

‘It should be my choice as to whether I get the shot,’ said Forsyth County Republican Rep. Donny Lambeth. ‘I don’t think government should tell us one way or the other.’

While some North Carolina private schools, such as Duke University, require up-to-date COVID-19 vaccinations for students and staff, the state’s public schools do not. State law does require students at public, private and religious colleges and universities to receive other vaccinations in most circumstances, including for mumps, measles and hepatitis B.

A spokesperson for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on the legislation.

Now that the Food and Drug Administration has granted full approval of two COVID-19 vaccine options, public health officials have said they anticipate more U.S. colleges and universities to consider new requirements.

The bill would also prohibit state universities from requiring booster shots. Of all North Carolina residents who’ve received the first COVID-19 vaccine, 59% have been vaccinated with at least one booster and 22% have received the updated Omicron variant booster, according to NCDHHS data.

‘I think North Carolina, and America, is saying we want to slow it down a little bit with the boosters,’ said Rep. Brian Biggs, a Randolph County Republican and primary sponsor. ‘There needs to be more research.’

But Rep. Maria Cervania, a Wake County Democrat and epidemiologist, said the vaccine has been more thoroughly researched than Biggs indicated. The basis for coronavirus vaccines was first developed in the 2000s, she said, which enabled scientists to quickly create the COVID-19 version. She stressed the need for widespread vaccination to protect public health.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is framing his plan to defeat President Joe Biden should he ultimately decide to toss his hat into the 2024 presidential race.

During an interview with Fox Nation’s Piers Morgan, which will air Thursday on ‘Piers Morgan Uncensored,’ DeSantis pointed to his massive reelection victory in Florida last year as the formula for him to prevail in a potential matchup with Biden.

‘I won with independents by 18 points,’ he told Morgan, ‘and so that will be the same formula that we would take, and honestly forget about me, I think anybody should take the formula like that nationally.’

‘You can’t win with just Republicans. You’ve got to win with independents, and you need to convince some of these Democrats, which I was able to do in Florida because they’re not woke, they don’t like some of the nonsense going on. They want their streets safe, and they want quality education. So, I think you could appeal to people across the canvas,’ he added.

DeSantis told Morgan that if he ‘were to run,’ he would put his focus squarely on Biden and his failures as president.

‘I think he’s failed the country. I think the country wants a change. I think they want a fresh start and a new direction, and so we’ll be very vocal about that,’ he said.

When asked specifically if he thought he could beat Biden, he said, ‘I think so.’

DeSantis reiterated that he has not yet made a final decision on whether he will ultimately run, but he has begun making trips to the early primary contest states. He visited Iowa for an event earlier this month and is set to headline the New Hampshire GOP’s annual Amos Tuck Dinner on April 14.

He told Morgan it was ‘humbling’ that people have been urging him to run but said to ‘stay tuned’ on what the future holds.

‘That sounds like almost a ‘yes,’ Morgan said.

‘It’s a stay-tuned,’ DeSantis responded.

The Biden administration expressed its concern Tuesday over the Mexican military’s seizure of an American company’s property in Mexico, and suggested the situation could lead to negative impacts on the ability of the country to do business.

According to Vulcan Materials, a Birmingham, Alabama-based company and the largest producer of construction aggregates in the U.S., members of the Mexican navy, local state police, along with federal investigators, entered the quarry just south of Playa del Carmen in Mexico’s Quintana Roo state in the early morning hours of March 14 and has remained since.

The company said the seizure was likely due to the breakdown of contract negotiations between it and CEMEX, a Mexican materials company with which it had previously provided services, and ongoing tensions with the Mexican government over its mining operations.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for the State Department said the administration was concerned about the treatment of American companies in Mexico, and that they speak regularly with Mexican officials about the expectation that they are treated fairly and in accordance with trade obligations.

The spokesperson noted that such obligations provide trade and investment certainty within Mexico, and said that cases like these have the potential to impact the ability of the U.S. to achieve its shared vision with the Mexican government for improving the livelihoods of the country’s economically disadvantaged regions.

They added that the situation could also impact Mexico’s efforts to attract future investments.

The spokesperson also told Fox that the U.S. Embassy in Mexico and the State Department were actively engaged on the issue.

The seizure of Vulcan’s property sparked outrage among U.S. government officials, including Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., who represents the state in which Vulcan is based.

‘For more than 30 years, Vulcan Materials Company has operated a limestone quarry in Mexico that has created good jobs both in Mexico and in Alabama,’ he said in a statement. ‘Yet time and again, President López Obrador and the Mexican government have undermined Vulcan’s ability to operate in Mexico.’

Tuberville said he urged President Biden to confront Mexico’s president about its aggression toward Vulcan last year, but that Biden ‘buried his head in the sand.’

‘President Biden’s failure of leadership has only emboldened Mexico to continue taking hostile action against Vulcan that puts employees at risk and jeopardizes our supply chains in the southeast region of the United States. The illegal seizure of Vulcan’s port facility is just the latest example of the Mexican government exploiting President Biden’s weakness, and the situation will only get worse until the President addresses it head on,’ he said.

U.S. regulators say they need more time to wrap up a final safety report and make a decision on whether to license a multibillion-dollar complex meant to temporarily store tons of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants around the nation.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a new schedule Monday, citing unforeseen staffing constraints. The agency was initially expected to issue a decision by the end of March. It will now be the end of May.

The announcement comes just days after New Mexico approved legislation aimed at stopping the project. It’s expected that supporters of the storage facility will take the fight to court, but New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Tuesday asked the NRC to suspend its consideration of the license application.

New Jersey-based Holtec International already has spent an estimated $80 million in its pursuit of a 40-year license to build and operate the complex in southeastern New Mexico. Company officials said Tuesday that the delay in licensing would have only a minimal impact on the original timeline.

‘With a project of this complexity, we understand the need for the regulating and licensing authority to have all the time and resources necessary to issue a licensing decision,’ Holtec spokesman Patrick O’Brien said in an email.

Holtec, elected officials from southeastern New Mexico and other supporters have been pushing hard to offer what they call a temporary solution to the nation’s problem of spent nuclear fuel, which has been piling up at commercial reactors for years.

Since the federal government has failed to build a permanent repository, it reimburses utilities to house the fuel in either steel-lined concrete pools of water or in steel and concrete containers known as casks at sites in nearly three dozen states. That cost is expected to stretch into the tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.

The legislation signed by Lujan Grisham last week requires that the state provide consent for bringing in such radioactive material. Consent from the Democratic governor would be unlikely, as she has argued that without a permanent repository, New Mexico stands to be the nation’s de facto dumping ground.

She reiterated her opposition in the letter to NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson.

‘Thank you for respecting the state of New Mexico’s laws and the voices of our citizens, tribes and pueblos who overwhelming(ly) supported this legislation,’ she wrote.

Similar battles have been waged in Nevada, Utah and Texas over the decades as the U.S. has struggled to find a home for spent fuel and other radioactive waste. The proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada was mothballed and a temporary storage site planned on a Native American reservation in Utah was sidelined despite being licensed by the NRC in 2006.

That project would have been located on land belonging to the Skull Valley Band of Goshute. Utah’s governor at the time — Republican Mike Leavitt — was among those fighting the effort. He and others were successful in getting Congress to amend a defense spending bill, essentially landlocking the site by creating the Cedar Mountain Wilderness and blocking a rail spur that would have delivered casks.

But it was only six weeks later that the NRC issued a license for the project.

ADVOCATES ASK NM COURT TO RECONSIDER ELECTRICITY RATE CASE

Don Hancock with the nuclear watchdog group Southwest Research and Information Center pointed to the Utah case.

‘If congressional action doesn’t affect NRC decision making, there’s no reason to think that New Mexico action has an effect,’ he said in an email Tuesday.

Elected leaders in Texas also were unsuccessful in keeping a similar project from being licensed by the NRC in 2021. Integrated Storage Partners LLC’s initial plans call for storing up to 5,512 tons of spent fuel and about 254 tons of low-level radioactive waste for 40 years. Future phases could boost that capacity to 44,092 tons of fuel.

Holtec officials are disappointed in the New Mexico legislation and argue that their project is safe, would be an economic boon for the region and would not affect ongoing operations in the Permian Basin, which is one of the world’s most productive oil and gas plays.

‘Passing a bill that is pre-empted by federal law and will be adjudicated accordingly in the courts is a counterproductive action that inhibits the state’s growth in the area of clean energy,’ O’Brien said, adding that local support has solidified the company’s belief that the project is still viable.

President Joe Biden has received dueling letters from supporters of the project and from Lujan Grisham and others in opposition. The administration has acknowledged the role nuclear power will have to play in reaching its carbon emission goals and earlier this year put up $26 million in grants for communities interested in studying potential interim storage sites.

EXCLUSIVE: Subpoenaed documents showed there was ‘no legitimate basis’ for the Biden administration to use federal law enforcement and counterterrorism resources on school board-related threats, the House Judiciary Committee claimed in its interim report on the controversial issue exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital.

The House Judiciary Committee and its subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government completed an interim staff report in its investigation, which alleges the Biden administration targeted parents at school board meetings who were ‘voicing concerns about controversial curricula and education-related policies.’

The GOP-led committee subpoenaed Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona and members of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) for documents related to the investigation.

‘From the initial set of material produced in response to the subpoenas, it is apparent that the Biden administration misused federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources for political purposes,’ the report states.

The report said DOJ’s ‘own documents demonstrate that there was no compelling nationwide law-enforcement justification for the Attorney General’s directive or the Department components’ execution thereof.’

The committee was referring to Garland’s October 2021 memo, which directed the FBI to partner with local law enforcement and U.S. attorneys to discuss parental threats at school board meetings against faculty and ‘prosecute them when appropriate.’

Garland’s memo came after a September 2021 NSBA letter to President Biden requesting federal law enforcement assistance to target parents.

‘After surveying local law enforcement, U.S. Attorney’s offices around the country reported back to Main Justice that there was no legitimate law-enforcement basis for the Attorney General’s directive to use federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources to investigate school board-related threats,’ the report said.

The report said the FBI acknowledged that it opened ’25 ‘Guardian assessments’ of school board threats, and that six of these investigations were run by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.’

‘According to the FBI, none of the school board-related investigations have resulted in federal arrests or charges, highlighting the political motives behind the Attorney General’s actions,’ the report said.

The report claims the Biden administration’s ‘goal’ was to silence the critics of ‘its radical education policies and neutralizing an issue that was threatening Democrat Party prospects’ ahead of the close Virginia gubernatorial election in November 2021.

‘This weaponization of law-enforcement powers against American parents exercising their First Amendment rights is dangerous,’ the report saId. ‘The Justice Department subjected moms and dads to the opening of an FBI investigation about them, the establishment of an FBI case file that includes their political views, and the application of a ‘threat tag’ to their names as a direct result of their exercise of their fundamental constitutional right to speak and advocate for their children.’

The committee has previously called on Garland to rescind his October 2021 memo, but lawmakers said Garland has ‘refused to do so.’

‘From the documents and information received pursuant to the subpoena, it is crystal clear that Attorney General Garland should rescind his unwise and unsupported directive to insert federal law enforcement into local school board matters,’ the report said.

Garland, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month, testified that his October 2021 memo ‘was aimed at violence and threats of violence against a whole host of school personnel.’ 

‘It was not aimed at parents making complaints to their school board,’ Garland said. ‘And it came in the context of a whole series of other kinds of violent threats and violence against other public officials.’ 

The committee’s report cited evidence showing there was no actual sign of rising threats against school board members when the initiative began.

‘If the Justice Department performed due diligence before promulgating the Attorney General’s memorandum, the Department would have learned it lacked a legitimate predicate,’ the report added, saying there was ‘no ‘distributing spike’ in alleged threats and violence at school board meetings.’

The report cited an email from a chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana’s Criminal Division, Brian Frazier, in which he said he met with FBI representatives to ‘ensure coordination, if needed, on any violence or threats related to school board proceedings.’

‘The FBI representatives acknowledged that DOJ has seen fit to elevate perceived school board security issues to a national level,’ Frazier wrote in the email, adding, that, ‘nevertheless they did not see any imminent threats to school boards or their members … nor did they ascertain any worrisome trends in that regard.’

The committee said ‘other reported threats were too vague to be independently substantiated or so innocuous as to not be of any real concern.’

Another email from a U.S. attorney acknowledged that officials ‘could remember only one incident’ regarding an ‘irate parent, who was upset about mask mandates,’ and who ‘had to be removed from a school board meeting by the school resource officer.’ That U.S. attorney clarified that ‘no threats were made to board members or school staff.’

The committee said the Biden administration ‘acted out of political motivations rather than for law-enforcement reasons’ and said, because of that, ‘parents around the country had FBI ‘assessments’ opened into them.’

The committee said its work ‘is not complete’ and that it will continue to conduct its oversight as the Biden administration continues to produce responsive documents.

The committee also slammed the FBI for producing ‘only fourteen pages of documents’ in response to the subpoena issued earlier this year.

The committee said it also has outstanding subpoenas for testimony from NSBA officials Chip Slaven and Viola Garcia, who signed the initial letter to Biden in September 2021.

‘Until all responsive documents are produced and interviews with the necessary parties take place, the Committee and Select Subcommittee will continue its oversight to uncover facts that will inform potential legislative reforms,’ the report said.

A divided Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a portion of the state’s near total ban on abortion, ruling women have a right to abortion when pregnancy risks their health, not just in a medical emergency.

It was a narrow win for abortion rights advocates since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

The court ruled that a woman has the right under the state Constitution to receive an abortion to preserve her life if her doctor determines that continuing the pregnancy would endanger it due to a condition she has or is likely to develop during the pregnancy. Previously, the right to an abortion could only take place in the case of medical emergency.

‘Requiring one to wait until there is a medical emergency would further endanger the life of the pregnant woman and does not serve a compelling state interest,’ the ruling states.

In the 5-4 ruling, the court said the state law uses both the words ‘preserve’ and ‘save’ the mother’s life as an exception to the abortion ban.

‘The language ‘except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency’ is much different from ‘preserve her life,’’ according to the ruling.

‘Absolute certainty,’ by the physician that the mother’s life could be endangered, ‘is not required, however, mere possibility or speculation is insufficient’ to determine that an abortion is needed to preserve the woman’s life, according to the ruling.

The court, however, declined to rule on whether the state Constitution grants the right to an abortion for other reasons.

The court ruled in the lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic and others challenging the state laws passed after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

‘People’s lives have been endangered by Oklahoma’s cruel abortion bans, and now doctors will be able to help pregnant people whose lives they believe are at risk,’ Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement after the ruling.

‘We are disappointed that the Court declined to rule whether the state Constitution also protects the right to abortion outside of these circumstances,’ Northrup said.

‘This ruling leaves out too many Oklahomans. Oklahomans shouldn’t have to travel across state lines just to reach an abortion clinic, and it is heartbreaking that many will not be able to do so,’ said Dr. Alan Braid, an abortion provider and plaintiff in the case said in a statement.

Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Great Plains called the ruling a small step toward restoring the right to abortion.

‘The Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized one fundamental truth: patients must be permitted to access critical care to save their lives,’ she said. ‘But the right recognized today is so limited that most people who need abortion will not be able to access it.’

Just six months after passing what was billed as the largest tax cut in Missouri history, the Republican-led state House voted Tuesday for an even bigger income tax cut that could return over $1 billion annually to individuals, corporations and retirees.

The Missouri legislation is the latest in a series of aggressive tax reductions that swept across U.S. states last year and have continued into 2023 — even as some warn that it might be wise for states to hold on to record large surpluses amid economic uncertainty.

‘Wouldn’t it be a good idea for us to all just pause for a year?’ Democratic state Rep. Deb Lavender asked rhetorically before her Republican colleagues endorsed the tax cut on a 109-45 party-line vote.

The Missouri legislation still has a ways to go — it needs a second House approval before it can move to the Senate and then to the governor. But legislatures and governors in several states already have given final approval to tax cuts and rebates in the first few months of this year. In some states, those tax breaks have been pushed by Republicans, but in others by Democrats.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, signed legislation Tuesday that will lower the state’s sales tax for a four-year period, though she had originally wanted the GOP-led Legislature to eliminate the sales tax on groceries.

In Montana, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte last week signed a $1 billion package of bills passed by the GOP-led Legislature that will provide both income and property tax rebates, reduce the top income tax rate and increase income tax credits for lower-income working families.

In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a bill passed by the Democratic-led Legislature that provides tax relief to retirees and to lower-income families.

And in West Virginia, Republican Gov. Jim Justice signed a measure passed by the GOP-led Legislature that reduces the income tax rate while also enlarging an income tax credit to offset personal property taxes paid on vehicles. The tax cut package is expected to return more than two-thirds of the state’s record $1.1 billion surplus to taxpayers, as opposed to spending it on state programs.

Nationwide, states’ total financial balances reached a record $343 billion at the end of their 2022 fiscal years — up 42% from the previous year, according to a recent report by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Two-thirds of states approved some sort of tax relief last year, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Those surplus-induced tax breaks were enabled by stronger than expected state tax collections and an influx of federal pandemic aid both directly to states and to businesses and individuals that, in turn, injected more spending into the economy. But those federal payments are winding down, inflation remains persistently high and new challenges in the banking sector have raised questions about the overall economy.

‘This extraordinary chapter in state finances appears to be coming to an end,’ said Justin Theal, an officer with Pew’s State Fiscal Policy Project.

‘Tax cuts or new spending initiatives aren’t inherently bad or uncommon during good budgetary times,’ Theal said. But ‘if policymakers aren’t careful, these long-term commitments can place them in a more vulnerable fiscal position when the economy inevitably turns.’

In Missouri, some Republican lawmakers argued that more tax cuts ultimately would give residents more money to spend and lead to continued growth in state tax revenues.

Last October, Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation cutting the top individual income tax rate from 5.3% to 4.95% effective Jan. 1 and allowing for an eventual reduction to 4.5% if revenues continue to grow. This year’s bill doesn’t wait to see whether that growth occurs. Instead, it would cut the individual income tax rate to 4.5% beginning in 2024 while also reducing taxes on corporations and Social Security benefits and enabling even more income tax cuts if future revenue targets are met.

‘This is not reckless. This is a meaningful step,’ Republican state Rep. Doug Richey said in response to critics. ‘This is simply slowing down the rate of growth for tax revenue.’

Other states also are following last year’s tax breaks with even more this year.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat up for re-election this year, signed a plan passed by the Republican-led Legislature to cut the state’s individual income tax rate to 4% effective in 2024. That comes on the heels of a tax overhaul passed last year, which lowered the income tax rate from 5% to 4.5% in January.

In 2022, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia suspended the state motor fuel tax for 10 months, and lawmakers approved a $1 billion income tax refund worth $250 to $500 for most tax filers. Earlier this month, Kemp signed an additional $1 billion income tax refund. He also signed a budget bill that includes nearly $1 billion for a property tax break.

Tax cut proposals are awaiting action elsewhere.

New Mexico’s Democratic-led Legislature recently passed a $1.1 billion tax relief package that includes $500 individual rebates, tax credits of up to $600 per child and a gradual reduction in taxes on sales and business services. Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has until April 7 to sign or veto bills.

Debate that began Tuesday on a Nebraska bill to ban gender-affirming care for minors, which led one lawmaker to stage an epic weekslong filibuster, quickly grew contentious, with supporters and opponents angrily voicing their frustration and admonishing each other for a lack of collegiality.

Sen. John Lowe, of Kearney, cited an activist group’s claim that gender dysphoria in youth ‘is just temporary,’ while Sen. Brad von Gillern, of Omaha, compared gender-affirming treatment to shock treatments, lobotomies and forced sterilizations of years’ past. Bellevue Sen. Carol Blood countered that if lawmakers really cared about medical procedures affecting children, ‘how come we’re not talking about circumcision?’

And that was only the first three hours of an eight-hour Senate debate expected to stretch into Thursday.

The bill introduced by Republican Sen. Kathleen Kauth, a freshman lawmaker in the officially-nonpartisan state Legislature, would outlaw gender-affirming therapies such as hormone treatments, puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery for those 18 and younger.

The proposal had already caused tumult in the legislative session, cited as the genesis of a nearly three-week filibuster carried out by Omaha Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh over her opposition. Cavanaugh had followed through on her vow in late February to filibuster every bill before the Legislature — even those she supported — declaring she would ‘burn the session to the ground over this bill.’

She stuck with it until an agreement was reached late last week to push the bill to the front of the debate queue. Instead of trying to eat time to keep the bill from getting to the floor, Cavanaugh decided she wanted a vote to put on the record of which lawmakers would ‘legislate hate against children.’

Lawmakers convened Tuesday to begin that debate with the understanding that the bill didn’t have enough votes to break a filibuster. But Kauth introduced an amendment to drop the restriction on hormone treatments, instead banning only gender reassignment surgery for minors. That amendment, she said, does have enough votes to advance.

Cavanaugh has said if the bill advances on a vote expected Thursday, she will resume filibustering every bill through the end of the 90-day session in early June.

The hard feelings by lawmakers on both sides of the bill emerged almost immediately Tuesday, with Kauth calling Cavanaugh’s filibuster ‘self-serving and childish.’ Kauth said the purpose of her bill is to protect youth from undertaking gender-affirming treatments they might later regret as adults, citing research that says adolescents’ brains aren’t fully developed.

Omaha Sen. Megan Hunt called out that argument as hypocritical, noting that Kauth supports an abortion ban bill introduced this session that would also affect adolescents.

‘In a couple of weeks, she’s going to turn around and vote for a bill that would force 12-year-olds to have a baby,’ Hunt said. ‘She thinks they’re mature enough for that.’

Cavanaugh called the trans treatment bill ‘an assault on individuals that members of this body love,’ and appealed to Republican members of the body to get back to their core principles of getting government out of people’s lives.

‘So many of you have talked to me about government overreach time and time again,’ she said. ‘This bill stands in opposition to the tenets that many of you have expressed to me are the foundation of why you are here.’

The Nebraska bill, along with another that would ban trans people from using bathrooms and locker rooms or playing on sports teams that don’t align with the gender listed on their birth certificates, are among roughly 150 bills targeting transgender people that have been introduced in state legislatures this year.

Bans on gender-affirming care for minors have already been enacted this year in some Republican-led states, including South Dakota, Utah and Mississippi. Arkansas and Alabama have bans that were temporarily blocked by federal judges. Other states legislatures have given final approval to measures similar to the Nebraska bill, with Georgia sending to the governor Tuesday a bill that would ban most gender-affirming surgeries and hormone replacement therapies for transgender minors.