Monthly Archives: May 2017

If President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress think theyve been under pressure to produce lately, just wait a few months.

Over the next several months, Republicans will have to figure out how to cut deals with Democrats to avoid a default on the national debt and avert a government shutdown, among several other must-pass items. But the negotiations will unfold against the acrimony of the GOPs Obamacare repeal effort and a bruising fight over tax reform, none of which are likely to inspire trust between the two sides.

Story Continued Below

Though Congress avoided a government closure this month a major bipartisan legislative accomplishment for an institution otherwise devoid of any this year a quintet of critical deadlines in the early fall will force either a furious round of deal-making or brinkmanship that could have dire effects on the economy. It will be a major test of Trump and the all-GOP Congress ability to govern, and the Republicans are bound to be blamed for any problems, given their dominant political position.

By most accounts, Congress is not ready for the impending crunch; Trump even seemed to welcome a crisis with his tweet last week that the country needs a good shutdown in September.

A new government funding bill is due by the end of September, and Republicans are behind schedule on producing a budget that lays out their spending plans. The debt ceiling will likely need to be raised around that time, a vital exercise that an all-GOP Washington hasnt executed for more than a decade. Democrats are eager to extract leverage at every opportunity given their minority status. At least eight Democratic votes in the Senate will be needed to pass a funding bill and, most likely, increase the debt ceiling.

If I were in charge, I would be worried, warned Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

As if avoiding a government shutdown and debt default werent enough, Congress will have to tackle three important programs set to expire at the end of September: Federal Aviation Administration law, federal flood insurance and a childrens health insurance initiative. Congress may have to adopt short-term fixes to keep all three running. A number of smaller provisions are set to expire, too, including Coast Guard laws and some Medicare and Food and Drug Administration programs.

The early prognosis from senior Republicans is that the debt ceiling and government funding will have to be combined in some way to get a deal, possibly with some of the other expiring measures.

Not many orphans get very far, do they? said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Republicans are anxious about the nightmarish calendar ahead. Congress has 12 weeks left before all 12 appropriations bills are due, and not a single one is close to the starting let alone the finish line.

Work on the spending bills is on track to start much later than expected, according to long-time appropriators and observers. Some lawmakers, like Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), are already warning that a stopgap funding bill might be needed to avoid a shutdown after Sept. 30.

Our budget process is totally broken, said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

Republicans are now considering a longer delay to the official kickoff of the 2018 spending cycle. GOP budget-writers may not release their budget blueprint until after the Memorial Day recess, according to a GOP aide familiar with the process. The document sets the amount of money Congress will spend that year.

The initial goal was around May 15, the same week the Trump administration was expected to unveil its full budget blueprint. The White House has since told lawmakers to expect its budget the week of May 22, sources said. New administrations typically release their budgets in February.

Republicans cant officially pass a budget until finishing, or ditching, their health care effort. Thats because their current power to use reconciliation the majority-vote budget tool that allows the Senate to bypass the filibuster will expire when a new budget is approved. Republicans intend to use the next budget to write reconciliation instructions for tax reform; Senate rules preclude using the next budget resolution for health care reform as well.

Still, some lawmakers say they can get around approving an official budget, and start drafting appropriations bills, if GOP leaders can informally agree to spending levels for next year.

However, Trump injects a new dose of uncertainty into the annual fall fiscal fights. The president nearly went all-out this spring to secure funding for his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall before relenting at the last minute; the White House could come to see Septembers convergence of deadlines as a chance to exert more leverage over Congress.

I dont know where the president is on these matters. If hes willing to go to the [mat], I think it will help Republicans, said Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). [Democrats] will do their very best to get whatever they can.

Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus, who mostly opposed a $1.1 trillion spending bill that Trump signed Friday, averting a government shutdown, say theyll also be digging in much more next year. And they expect Trump to do the same.

Its one thing to compromise and have a bipartisan bill, but when you have [Sen. Chuck] Schumer grinning from ear to ear, its like, come on, said Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), referring to the perception that Democrats one-upped Republicans in the recent budget showdown. Now its like, OK, lets get it right. Lets start putting the Trump agenda into effect.

The focus on avoiding economic catastrophe could cause Congress to put off attempts to revamp expiring laws. Historically, Congress has had little problem punting on the FAA bill, while the flood insurance program is a source of Republican infighting, with lawmakers from low-lying areas fighting for lower premiums and fiscal conservatives blasting any rates viewed as too generous.

Democratic senators say they have not decided how to exert their leverage. They could insist on additional spending on domestic programs as a condition for voting to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats will also want an extension of the Childrens Health Insurance Program.

I am concerned because we dont see any long-term planning, said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the No. 3 Democratic leader. There are some things you have to do. And [childrens health insurance] is certainly part of that, in my mind.

Republicans are skeptical that Democrats will provide votes without major concessions. And that means the GOP may be forced to come up with the bulk of the votes for lifting the debt ceiling, after providing minimal support over the past eight years.

Historically, the party in the majority has to raise the debt ceiling. So were going to have to, I assume, combine that with other measures that will make that palatable, said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Budget leaders are already scheming to get conservatives to swallow a tough vote after years of opposing increases to the debt limit. White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney is suggesting that Republicans impose more fiscal discipline in future fiscal deals, while House conservatives have similarly hinted that they want some kind of deficit-slashing package to be included with a debt ceiling vote.

Sign up for POLITICO Huddle. A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

They could get their wish: Earlier this month, the GOP-led House Budget Committee privately floated cutting some entitlement programs later this year.

The crush of deadline-driven items on top of big-ticket efforts on health care and taxes is sowing doubts that Republicans can pull it all off. The party has also promised to raise Obama-era caps on defense spending.

From the beginning, I thought the agenda was too big to be realistic, said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of American Action Forum and a former budget official in the George W. Bush administration. Its just too much.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the article here:

Coming soon: The fiscal cliff to end all fiscal cliffs - Politico

Yesterday, we marked National Military Appreciation Month by welcoming Honor Flight veterans, who fought on the front lines of freedom in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, to the White House.

Our service members served their country in a way and at a time that challenged each one of them to step up the perseveration of our way of life. With Americas armed forces in the vanguard, the United States was able to stand as a beacon for freedom. Our nation marshaled every ounce of our strength to save freedom across the Atlantic, across the Pacific, and across the very world. The sons and daughters of America, and, indeed, all who call themselves free will remember their service for eternity, until the world stops turning.

The old book says, if you owe debts, pay debts. If honor, then honor. If respect, then respect. These men and women are among the best of us. And on behalf of their Commander-in-Chief, we say thanks and salute their service.

But our service members know that they have more than just our thanks. Under President Donald Trump, Americas armed forces have a leader a tireless defender of our American military and our veterans. The President is fighting every single day to keep America safe and keep our promises to those who have served in the uniform of the United States.

The President has said that our veterans deserve the finest care America can provide. Just over a week ago, President Trump signed an executive order to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs is as efficient, effective, and accountable as any great healthcare provider in America. And last month, President Trump signed into law the Veterans Choice Act to give our heroes the choices they deserve for world-class healthcare.

He also signed into law legislation that, in the balance of this fiscal year, will increase defense spending by $21 billion the biggest investment in military readiness in nearly a decade.

Thanks to President Trumps strong leadership, national defense is now coming first. And, we were able to increase defense spending with the largest investment in years without requiring an additional increase in domestic spending, putting an additional burden on taxpayers. That's real progress for taxpayers and our military.

As the proud father of an American service member, its the greatest privilege of my life to serve as Vice President to a President who is committed to the men and women of our armed forces, to their families, and to our veterans.

In this administration, we will not rest and will not relent until we give our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard the resources they need to accomplish their mission, defend our nation, and come home safe.

We're going to see our veterans to make sure that the promises that they earned in uniform are kept by the American people.

And we're never going to hesitate to honor those whove served, and to pay a debt of honor and gratitude to all who in their moment, in their time said, yes, to America. And because they said, yes, freedom prevails to this day.

Read more:

Honoring our Veterans this National Military Appreciation Month - The White House (blog)

Chalk up another victory for the elephants and one more defeat for the donkeys. Yep, the Republicans have finally managed to get a healthcare bill through the House, and depending upon who you listen to, the bill is anything from a complete Republican sellout to a major move in the direction of freedom and fiscal responsibility.

That said, lets take a deep breath and set aside all the B.S. and talking points coming from politicians and the media and look at the healthcare puzzle like rational, grown-up folks. The fact is that weve had government-controlled healthcare from the time progressives first convinced a significant percentage of the population that the government had an obligation to provide medical services to all citizens. Today, of course, that belief has evolved to mean all people living in the United States, citizens or otherwise.

It sounds nice, but as every halfway intelligent, honest adult understands, healthcare is not a right. Every human being is born with only one natural right: the right to freedom. Specifically, that means the right to do whatever he pleases, so long as his actions do not violate the freedom of any other human being.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness contains two redundancies. First, technically speaking, you dont have a right to life. If you did, you could choose to live forever. Good luck to you on your choice, but the reality is that a higher power decides the outcome of that one for you. You do, however, have a right to do anything you please to try to improve your life, which comes under the heading of freedom (or liberty, which is the word used by the Founding Fathers).

Second, the right to happiness is simply one aspect of freedom. You do not have a right to be happy, but you do have a right to pursue happiness (as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The problems start when people come to believe the perverse notion that government (read, taxpayers) has an obligation to do whatever it takes to make them happy. Once a society crosses that line, it begins its death spiral, though it can still survive, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, until you run out of other peoples money.

Now, back to healthcare. In this day and age of ever-increasing lifespans, healthcare is an issue of life-and-death importance. But its important to understand that it has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with compassion.

This may surprise you, but, in theory, I believe in universal, or single-payer, healthcare. Thats right, if I had supernatural powers, Id see to it that everyone, young and old alike, had access to the best healthcare possible, without having to wait weeks, or even months, to see a doctor or have an operation.

The reason I qualified my statement with in theory is because even though I dont want to see any human being suffer unnecessarily or die from a lack of medical care, I also dont want the government to be involved in any way, shape, or form in anything as serious as healthcare.

It baffles me why so many people blind themselves to the truth about government. A government is nothing more than a collection of avaricious, power- and money-hungry men and women whom we refer to as politicians, and we already know, through firsthand experience, that they not only are untrustworthy, theyre incompetent.

The theoretical single-payer system I envision would be run by experienced, private-industry executives and overseen by a board of directors that would consist of the most prominent accomplished, civic-minded people among us, men and women whose reputations would be beyond reproach. They would get no compensation other than reimbursement for travel and other direct expenses, so you would never need to worry about them basing their decisions on their financial well-being.

Now, back to reality: Do I believe this will ever happen? No, I dont. Its just a theoretical fantasy, because, for starters, who could be trusted to pick the perfect people needed to run such a system?

The sad reality is that the United States will get single-payer healthcare in the not-too-distant future, but, unfortunately, it will be run by the same avaricious politicians who have been stealing from us since the inception of our nation. Based on experience, we already know that everything the government touches costs more and delivers less value. Amtrak has always operated in the red. The Post Office has always operated in the red. And politicians dont even make a pretense of wanting to adopt a breakeven budget for the United States.

Isnt it ironic that Medicare and Medicaid are going broke (not to mention the transfer-of-wealth program known as Obamacare), yet the government arrogantly believes it can run healthcare for everyone successfully? Absurd, of course, but nevertheless government-run healthcare is on the horizon.

Obama and the rest of the Dirty Dems were well aware that the only way Obamacare could be pushed through was by telling massive lies to the public. Their strategy was that when the system collapsed, they would then make the case that the only way to save people from suffering and death would be to implement a full-blown, single-payer system run by the government. A deceitful plan, to be sure, but a very clever one.

And it was all moving along right on schedule toward its ultimate goal when Chappaquas most famous liar found a way to blow the presidential election and Obamas third term against an opponent whom her supporters looked upon as nothing more than a bad joke. Whereupon the guy pulling her strings hightailed it out of town to Tahiti and began cashing in on the eight-year scam he had so successfully pulled off.

Id like to be wrong and see the Republicans come up with a miracle and find a way to make healthcare work, but my guess is that Horrible Hillarys gift to Republicans will only prolong the inevitable: government-run, single payer healthcare.

The irony is that the most famous government-run healthcare debacle, the VA, has been such a disaster that theres serious talk of turning it over to the free market. I guess the message is that you have to suffer through years of government incompetency before youre given the freedom to try and better your situation.

P.S. Allow me to close on an obvious note: Given the insoluble healthcare problems in the United States, I believe immigration (not just illegal, but legal) should be cut as close to zero as possible for at least five years.

The fact is that there are simply too many people in this country, which puts a strain on all kinds of services. If we cant afford healthcare for those already living here, why in the world should we add to the problem by bringing in even more people?

All answers to that question are welcomed.

Robert Ringer is a best-selling author and blogger.

Originally posted here:

Robert Ringer: Health care is not a right, it's an impossible dream - Savannah Morning News

Like so much that is served up in the White House mess, the Executive Order on religious liberty signed by the President last week is all sizzle and no ribeye.

Its purported purpose was to allow churches and pastors to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without worrying about the IRS threatening their tax-exempt status. But the order was so wimpy that, as The New York Times said, it angered many Trump supporters and perplexed innocent religious bystanders, while opponents just said: meh!

Related: Trump Vows to End Prohibition on Church Political Activity

Religious conservatives looking for the liberty not to hire or serve members of the LBGTQ community went away disappointed. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, told The Times, In failing to deliver for people of faith, President Trump risks alienating the single constituency most responsible for his election.

Clerical organizations like the 45,000-church National Association of Evangelicals shook their heads: Its president, Leith Anderson, said, I dont actually know anybody who has endorsed or who wants to endorse a politician from the pulpit.

And the American Civil Liberties Union was so not threatened that it declined to sue over what it called an elaborate photo op on National Prayer Day.

The atheists did file suit, arguing that the EO gives religious nonprofits rights not afforded to other groups that are tax-exempt. In a statement, the Freedom from Religion Foundation said in part, Trumps order and statements signal to the Internal Revenue Service that it should not enforce the electioneering restrictions of the tax code against churches and religious organizations while permitting these restrictions to be enforced against secular nonprofits.

Those restrictions were set in 1954 by Johnson Amendment, which encourages the IRS to threaten the tax-exempt status of houses of worship that endorse a political candidate or party. But it has rarely been invoked.

Related: Trump's Religious Freedom Order May Give Opponents an Unintended Boost

Now the IRS, always wary of the amendment, will have even less of an incentive to call out a church for playing politics.

And thats O.K.

If priests, rabbis, imans, pastors, nuns, monks and their religious institutions want to use their use their bully pulpits to bully congregants into voting a certain way, they should be free to do so. After all, no one is forcing folks to sit on a hard bench and listen to them.

However, like every other tax-paying American, those with God on their side should pay to play politics. Liberty isnt a free lunch.

Of course, it is a pipe dream to imagine that deity-hugging politicians might ever remove the tax exemption granted to religious entities: In many parts of the country, that would be tantamount to burning the flag on the Fourth of July or kicking a three-legged puppy.

But there was a reason that tax exemptions for religious groups were blessed by the Founders. In the 1970 case Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, upheld the tax exemptions because it said they reinforced the desired separation of church and state.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: [W]e will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion.

What about religious interference with the government?

Once religions become full-metal-jacket political combatants, it is they who cross the line between God and Caesar.

Related: If Trump's Tax Plan Passes, Here Are the Deductions and Breaks You Could Lose

At a signing in the Rose Garden, Trump said, We are giving churches their voices back.

Fine. Now pay for the megaphone.

Either tax all religious organizations, period. Or tax those that want a full-throated engagement in the political process by endorsing candidates and parties, setting up political-action committees and shuttling the faithful to the polls. And let those that want to retain their exemptions opt out.

By not taxing religious institutions, the government is in effect subsidizing them. A 2012 study figured that federal subsidies amounted to about $71 billion or $75 billion in current dollars.

That would cover about one-third of the interest payments on the national debt.

Read the rest here:

If Pastors Want to Play Politics, Churches Should Pay Taxes - The Fiscal Times

The Eric Frein trial and Peace Officers Memorial Day linger on as tragic reminders of the dangers our state troopers face every day.

Corporal Bryon Dickson II and close to 100 other Pennsylvania troopers have been killed in the line of duty since the force was founded in 1905, in response to the Great Anthracite Strike. The force was created to control mob violence, track down criminals, patrol farms and protect wildlife. It was not until the 1930s, as the roadway network grew, that highway patrol duties were added.

While our gratitude and support for our State Police runs deep, the governors plan to levy a $25 per capita fee in communities without their own local police force sets a troubling new precedent and targets rural Pennsylvania towns who have traditionally relied on the State Police for more than a century.

Predicted to raise $63 million, the fee would strike approximately 1,294 of 2,571 municipalities, eight rural counties and about 2.5 million residents representing about 20 percent of the states population, according to State Police officials. While some larger communities have no local police force, the bulk of communities without their own local police forces are exceedingly small in population, square footage and tax base.

In hearings held in March, testifiers pointed out that this head tax is a first-time-ever move by the state to charge its own municipalities for service.

The state renders many services to local government, from restaurant inspections and agricultural marketing to infectious disease control, emergency response and environmental reviews. Yet, the state has not charged local governments extra for these services, on top of state taxes. This State Police fee would be a breakthrough double tax and may be the inaugural slide down a slippery slope.

The residents of rural municipalities without local police and in fact, all municipalities already pay for the State Police through sales, income and gas taxes, licensing and registration fees, and more. To say that rural residents are getting free police service ignores the many diverse revenue sources that fund our State Police.

All taxpaying Pennsylvanians, in both major cities and small rural communities, pay for the State Police. If communities want police protection that exceeds the level offered by the State Police, that is indeed their prerogative. They have made the choice to pay for protection that is closer, more accessible, and more personalized.

But it is essential to remember, these municipalities still use the State Police as a secondary force.

Yet, the state does not charge these municipalities, nor should it, when they must call in the State Police for back-up for crowd control, DNA testing, helicopter searches, cyber-crime detection, explosives control, terrorism threats, and more. If this head tax becomes a trend, will these municipalities also start to be charged fees each time they call the State Police for support?

Notably, fee supporters have stated their hope that this $25 fee will be a first step charge that will be raised every year. Set arbitrarily at $25, the surcharge is not tied to actual expenditures or cost-control measures meaning there is no limit to how high the tax can go in future years.

For some municipalities in our area, this head tax would generate a sum that exceeds their entire local operating budget. It is reminiscent of the taxing levels proposed by urbanites who push to tax people based on the mileage they drive a clear attack on rural Pennsylvania, where the bulk of our food and energy originate.

Taxpayers have asked me if they will see what their added $25 is buying. But sadly, this fee does not buy them added protection or personnel. As a one-size-fits-all fee, it would also be paid by everyone, from infants to college students living away from home, to retirees and seniors living in nursing homes.

Instead of turning to their own municipalities when the state needs money, it would be wiser for the state to undertake systematic reforms and address the spending problem.

Adding an unprecedented, arbitrarily set new tax on small town rural communities, not based on actual costs or ability to pay, and without cost controls, is not the ticket to a balanced budget for the rural communities I represent.

Id love to hear from you. Please tell me what you think about the governors $25 per capita tax suggestion.

Visit my website at http://www.senatorbrooks.com, and share your feedback with me. And thank you, as always, for the privilege and honor of representing you in the state Senate, where I will continue to protect the freedom, safety and fiscal stability of our families and friends.

REPUBLICAN Sen. Michele Brooks of Jamestown represents the 50th District.

Read the original post:

GUEST VIEW: $25 tax not the ticket for raising police revenue - Sharonherald