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.

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.’

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy says the idea that officers will handcuff former President Trump and arrest him after an indictment ‘couldn’t happen,’ and that it will instead be up to the U.S. Secret Service and the New York Police Department to arrange a location for him to surrender.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is weighing possible charges against Trump and could bring an indictment. Those charges stem from the $130,000 hush-money payment that then-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made to 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 payment in 2019, even as Cohen implicated him as part of his plea deal. The Federal Election Commission also tossed its investigation of the matter in 2021.

McCarthy, who was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York and is now a Fox News contributor, told Fox News Digital that the ‘most important people in this equation’ following a Trump indictment are the Secret Service and the NYPD.

‘Trump is a Secret Service protect and the NYPD are in charge of New York City,’ McCarthy said. ‘They have good relations because a lot of Secret Service protects spend time in New York City.’

And despite the speculation, McCarthy said it is unlikely Trump will end up in handcuffs.

‘The idea cops will approach him in Florida or on the street and put cuffs on him will not happen and could not happen,’ McCarthy said. ‘The Secret Service would not let that happen.’

McCarthy said if Trump is indicted, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office would ‘invite him to come in to surrender.’

Typically, a defendant who surrenders in a nonviolent case would go to a central booking location, but McCarthy explained that due to security concerns, there are likely to be special accommodations made for a former president of the United States.

McCarthy said he anticipates the Secret Service and the NYPD would find a secure room in the courthouse in downtown Manhattan, likely at 100 Centre Street.

‘That’s where he would be fingerprinted and photographed,’ McCarthy said, noting that it would have to be a public proceeding.

‘But it should be very quick because this is not a violent case,’ he explained.

Ordinarily in a public proceeding, the defendant would not enter a plea on their first appearance before the judge, and would enter a plea at the second appearance, also known as the arraignment.

‘If I were the DA’s office, I would be pushing to get a plea done in the first appearance,’ McCarthy explained, citing the ‘logistical nightmare’ at hand.

McCarthy explained that pre-trial motions could be significant in this case due to the issue of the statute of limitations surrounding the matter.

‘The big issue is whether this is a crime,’ he said. ‘We won’t know until we see the indictment.’

McCarthy explained that the statute of limitations on the matter, if Bragg were to bring it as a misdemeanor, would be two years. If the last development on the matter took place in 2018, the statute of limitations has expired.

If Bragg chooses to bring felony charges, which McCarthy anticipates due to the fact that a grand jury has been empaneled and used, the statute of limitations extends to five years, giving Bragg until this year to indict.

Meanwhile, McCarthy said he does anticipate charges will be brought, especially because Trump was invited to testify before the grand jury last week.

‘You typically don’t invite the target in to testify unless you are really serious about bringing the case, and they did that last week,’ McCarthy said.

FIRST ON FOX: Republicans tore into President Biden’s first veto that stopped a bipartisan bill removing a new Labor Department rule encouraging retirement fiduciaries to consider environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues in their investments.

Biden’s first veto came against a bipartisan bill striking down the administration’s new rule promoting the woke ESG ideology, with the president saying his decision was due to heavy ‘MAGA Republican’ influence in the bill.

‘I just vetoed my first bill. This bill would risk your retirement savings by making it illegal to consider risk factors MAGA House Republicans don’t like. Your plan manager should be able to protect your hard-earned savings — whether Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene likes it or not,’ Biden announced in a Monday tweet.

Congressional Republicans, understandably, are not happy with the president’s move — especially bill architect Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky.

‘President Biden’s first veto is on a bipartisan, bicameral measure that I championed through Congress to protect retail investors,’ Barr told Fox News Digital. ‘Instead of siding with Americans—who are increasingly unable to afford retirement—Biden’s veto puts the climate activists and special interest groups he is beholden to ahead of middle-class American investors.’

‘It’s a shame, and it further reflects his priorities and who he really represents in office,’ Barr added.

Senator Mike Braun, R-Ind., also slammed the president’s veto, wishing Biden luck on ‘explaining this one’ to the American people.

‘Today President Biden used his first veto to reject bipartisan consensus in the House and Senate that Americans’ retirement savings should be invested to get the best return, not to support woke nonsense,’ Braun said.

‘Good luck explaining this one,’ he added.

GOP Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin joined his Indiana colleague in blasting the president’s move, saying ‘Biden administration’s reckless ESG rule proves nothing is off limits when it comes to Joe Biden’s radical green agenda – even Americans’ hard-earned retirement savings.’

‘During a time of record inflation, Biden wants to make matters worse by allowing climate activists to hijack investment returns,’ Mullin said. ‘It’s a shame.’

‘Despite bipartisan opposition, the president is doubling down on bad policy and leaving hard-working Americans to pay the price,’ he added.

Texas Republican Rep. Jodey Arrington ripped into the veto, saying that people ‘who invest our hard-earned money should be focused on financial value, not virtue signaling.’

‘This week, Congress passed a bipartisan bill to protect pensioners and retirees from activists who want to use their savings to advance a political agenda,’ Arrington said. ‘President Biden’s threat to veto this legislation shows that he’s more interested in placating the Radical Left than listening to the American people — and even Members of his own party in Congress.’

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., torched Biden’s veto, telling Fox News Digital that ‘Biden’s woke ESG agenda is unfair to Americans and does nothing but drive American industry to other countries.’

‘Biden is once again putting his leftist agenda over supporting bipartisan work for Americans in Congress,’ Scott said.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., a former Democrat who became a Republican, demolished Biden’s touting of a ‘bipartisan’ presidential image while he vetoes bipartisan legislation.

‘It’s ironic how President Biden touts about being a ‘bipartisan president’, then turns around and vetoes a bipartisan bill,’ Van Drew said. ‘There is Republican and Democrat opposition to the Labor Department’s harmful changes to the way Americans’ retirement funds are invested, yet this President does not care.’

‘It is abundantly clear, through President Biden issuing over 100 executive orders since taking office, that what Congress and the American people want comes secondary to his enactment of far-left policies,’ Van Drew continued.

‘He is threatening retirement accounts of millions of Americans, but as long as it fits into his ‘woke’ agenda, I guess that’s not important,’ the New Jersey congressman continued. ‘Doesn’t sound too bipartisan to me.’

Biden’s Monday veto came weeks after the president signaled he would strike down the measure that saw Republicans and Democrats join together in opposition to the Labor Department’s new rule.

The bill specifically ended enforcement of a new Labor Department rule urging private retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG in their investment decisions.

Under the rule, fiduciaries who make investment decisions for the retirement plans of more than 150 million people would be explicitly permitted under federal guidelines to consider companies’ approach to climate change and other social issues, instead of focusing on only profitability and return on investment for retirees.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, blasted Biden for the veto on Monday, saying Biden was placing ‘radical’ social agendas over the American people.

‘This Administration continues to prioritize their radical policy agenda over the economic, energy and national security needs of our country, and it is absolutely infuriating,’ Manchin wrote in a statement. ‘West Virginians are under increasing stress as we continue to recover from a once in a generation pandemic, pay the bills amid record inflation, and face the largest land war in Europe since World War II. The Administration’s unrelenting campaign to advance a radical social and environmental agenda is only exacerbating these challenges.’

‘President Biden is choosing to put his Administration’s progressive agenda above the well-being of the American people,’ he added.

It is unlikely Biden’s veto gets overturned by the legislative branch with the split chambers.

Fox News Digital’s Anders Hagstrom contributed reporting.

A California sheriff blasted Gov. Gavin Newsom for leaving the state’s prison system in ‘complete disarray’ and allowing convicted criminals to be released early.

‘He has an agenda to close prisons and there is nothing going to stop him from doing that,’ Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco told Fox News. ‘He’s let thousands and thousands of criminals, hardened criminals, out early.’

California’s prisons held roughly 122,000 inmates in 2019 when Newsom took office. That year, the Democrat told The Fresno Bee he would like to shut down a state prison during his tenure.

So far, he’s closed one prison and three more are scheduled to shutter within the next two years, according to CalMatters. The state’s prison population has plummeted more than 20% to 95,610 inmates due to sentencing reforms and a flood of releases during the pandemic.

Bianco said his office was recently notified that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation plans to release several convicted murderers into Riverside County.

‘Three murderers that are in prison for murder, that are supposed to be there for life, and [Newsom] is going to release them back into our community,’ Bianco said.

Neither the governor’s office nor the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation immediately responded to a request for comment.

WATCH: CALIFORNIA SHERIFF TORCHES GOV. NEWSOM FOR LEAVING PRISON SYSTEM IN ‘DISARRAY’

Bianco said closing prisons is the ‘wrong thing to do’ for the law-abiding public.

‘All you have to do is look out the window and see that we’re being victimized constantly,’ he said.

A recent study comparing suspects who posted bail in California with those released under ‘Zero Bail’ policies found that the latter group reoffended more often and were accused of more violent crimes.

‘The amount of repeat offenders right now is just ridiculous,’ Bianco said. ‘They’re victimizing other people. They’re killing other people. They’re stealing from other people.’

Last month, a released convict allegedly gunned down a 24-year-old officer in California.

Bianco said lawmakers and Newsom refuse to acknowledge the issue, putting police and the community at risk.

‘They are bent, hell-bent on an agenda and nothing will change that agenda,’ he said. ‘And so the jails and the prison systems are suffering for it.’

To hear more about the impacts of California’s criminal justice policies on law enforcement, click here.

A new bill introduced in the Texas legislature aims to hold drug manufacturers and distributors accountable for any terminated pregnancies or deaths stemming from abortion pills.

Under the Wrongful Death Protection Act, individuals — even those out of state — who manufacture, market, mail, distribute, transport, deliver, provision, or possess mifepristone with the intent of facilitating unlawful abortions, are liable for the wrongful deaths of Texas women and children.

‘Companies and smuggling networks are profiting from the barbaric death of children in the womb and neglecting the women who are harmed by taking these pills,’ Rep. Cole Hefner, who introduced the legislation on March 10, said in a statement. ‘They must not be allowed to escape their direct responsibility for the wrongful deaths of Texans simply because they reside outside our state, and this legislation ensures that will not be allowed to happen.’

Mifepristone is the first of two medications prescribed to a woman who plans to abort her unborn baby. Abortion medications are used for 54% of abortions in the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

HERE’S WHY A CONSERVATIVE GROUP IS SUING THE FDA OVER MEDICATION ABORTION:

According to Hefner, his bill was necessary to combat abortion pills illegally trafficked into Texas.

‘We have enacted transformative pro-life laws in Texas, but more must be done,’ the Republican said in his statement. ‘The deadly abortion pill regimen is everywhere, including in our state.’

Under the legislation, anyone who helps facilitate an unlawful death from an abortion could face up to $5 million in civil penalties. The bill considers an aborted fetus as an unlawful death.

‘Abortion pills can be extremely dangerous to women, causing hemorrhaging, the need for surgery and even death,’ Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser told Fox News. ‘The Biden-Harris administration has ignored these health risks as well as the 500% increase in ER visits since the FDA approved Mifepristone.’

‘In response to the federal government’s negligence, states like Texas are creatively taking steps forward to protect unborn children, safeguard the health of women and girls, and hold abortionists accountable,’ she added.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, Texas’ trigger laws took effect, making it illegal in the state to have an abortion except in limited cases where the mother’s life may be at risk. 

Texas’ abortion law is one of the strictest in the country and has led to some Texas women crossing state lines to receive abortions.

Neither Cole nor Planned Parenthood responded to a request for comment.

Indiana lawmakers have endorsed a bill making it illegal for anyone to possess devices for adapting a firearm into a machine gun.

The state Senate voted 45-4 Monday in favor of the proposal expanding state law to include so-called Glock switches that are already illegal under federal law. Police officials say such switches can convert a semi-automatic gun into one that shoots continuously while the trigger is pressed, firing dozens of bullets within a few seconds.

Republican Sen. Aaron Freeman said such switches can be made on 3-D printers, endangering police officers and bystanders with ‘very little expense, with very little effort.’

The House voted last month to endorse a similar version of the bill. Democratic Rep. Mitch Gore, who is a Marion County sheriff’s department captain, said the switches are leaving officers outgunned in some confrontations.

Supporters said the broader state law was needed so local police don’t need to rely on federal prosecutors pressing charges in such cases. If approved, people with such gun switches could face felony charges under the state law making machine gun possession illegal.

The House and Senate still must agree on a final version to send the bill to Gov. Eric Holcomb for his consideration.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) failed to reach an agreement with union negotiators on Monday, prompting district officials to shut down schools in the nation’s second-largest education system on Tuesday.

FOX 11 in Los Angeles reported on Monday evening that LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvahlo said schools would be closed on Tuesday because of a worker strike.

Members of SEIU Local 99, or the Education Workers United, approved a strike for Tuesday, March 21 through Thursday, March 23, by way of a vote after nearly a year of failed negotiations over equitable wage increases, more full-time work, respectful treatment and increased staffing.

Thousands of district employees, from cafeteria workers to bus drivers in the district have made their demands, claiming the LAUSD engaged in ‘unfair practices’ and saying little progress has been made since negotiations began in April 2022.

Union leaders announced in December that talks reached an impasse and a state-appointed mediator would oversee the communications between both parties.

When the union voted to strike in February, 96% of LAUSD workers represented by SEIU Local 99 authorized the measure.

As the strike looms, district officials are continuing to prepare for the ‘unfortunate reality of school closures,’ while remaining available to negotiate a solution to the issues, according to a statement from the district posted to social media on Sunday.

The district said in the statement, contrary to the SEIU’s assertions, the California Public Employee Relations board Office of the General Counsel, or PERB OGC, denied the district’s request for an injunctive relief over claims that the union was acting illegally by engaging in a three-day strike. In the PERB’s decision, it said it did not find the remedy of injunctive relief to be met at this time, but the OGC was directed to expedite the district’s unfair practice charge against the union.

‘Contrary to the SEIU’s assertions, the PERB OGC has not made a decision on Los Angeles Unified’s unfair practice charge regarding the alleged illegality of SEIU’s strike, and the District expects a decision from the PERB OGC as soon as Monday morning, given the expedited processing direction from the PERB Board,’ a statement from the district read.

Carvalho tweeted that he was a believer that good will can carve out common ground and reach an agreement to avoid the strike and keep students in school.

‘We are doing everything we can and I remain optimistic we can reach an agreement,’ Carvalho said. ‘Families should be prepared in the event of a strike.’

He went on to say the district established partnerships to offer Grab and Go meals and supervised activities, should the strike commence.

‘We do not need to debate or litigate the fact that during the pandemic, kids lost a lot of ground,’ the superintendent tweeted, explaining that reading and math proficiency were hit hard, particularly students who are learning English or have disabilities. ‘They cannot afford to be out of school and that is why I am appealing directly to the union leadership to engage and negotiate in good faith and find a solution that addresses the needs of all, including our students.’

Union officials did not immediately respond to inquiries about the strike and current negotiations.

On Twitter, the union posted on Monday that their voices would not be silenced, adding that the school district tried to say the strike was unlawful.

‘But the California Public Employment Relations Board rejected LAUSD’s last-ditch effort to request an injunction to stop the strike,’ union officials tweeted.

In a previous interview with Fox News, SEIU Local 99 Executive Director Max Arias said workers have been living off ‘poverty wages’ and blamed the school district for pushing workers to act. The average salary of workers at LAUSD is $25,000 a year, often working part-time hours.

According to their website, SEIU Local 99 is a union of 50,000 education workers in K-12 schools, early education centers and homes, and community colleges throughout Southern California, including 30,000 cafeteria workers, special education assistants, custodians, bus drivers and others providing essential student services at LAUSD schools.

Nikolas Lanum of Fox News contributed to this report.