Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Statement from OMB Director Mick Mulvaney:

Budgetary Impact Analysis for Executive Order Entitled Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty

This executive order directs Federal departments and agencies to take certain steps to ensure that the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech is respected and protected. Implementing this executive order would have a de minimis impact on costs and revenues to the Federal Government. The benefits of this executive order include reorienting executive branch policy towards vigorously protecting religious freedom. Implementing this executive order would have a de minimis impact on mandatory and discretionary obligations and outlays, as well as on revenues to the Federal Government, in the 5-fiscal year period beginning in fiscal year 2017. The agencies anticipated to be impacted by this executive order include the Departments of Treasury, Justice, Labor, and Health and Human Services.

Read the original here:

Budgetary Impact Analysis for Executive Order Entitled Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty - The White House (blog)

By Robert Ringer

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 whom 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, the same avaricious politicians who have been stealing will run it 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 health care 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 health care for those already living here, why in the world should we add to the problem by bringing in even more people?

The rest is here:

GUEST COLUMN: Are you ready for single-payer health care? - St. Augustine Record

When asked to smile recently for a photograph, Flo Stahl didn't use the standard "cheese" retort.

"Zero tax increase," she said through a smile.

The words were more characteristic of Stahl, a local activist who has fought for fiscal restraint in local government on behalf of taxpayers for more than two decades in this town of 19,000.

But her battles with Avon's leaders are about to end.

Stahl, 86, is moving to Massachusetts to be closer to her family. She's looking to pass the torch to the next leader of the Avon Taxpayers Association, which Stahl founded and led since 1996. But so far, there are no takers so she said she's planning to disband the group.

Stahl, a Democrat, moved to Avon in 1967. In 1971, she was elected to the town council and served two terms before becoming a member of the town's finance board. She also served on the water pollution control agency.

Starting the taxpayers association stemmed from a contentious plan to expand and renovate Avon High School that was proposed in 1995. Stahl said she attended an informational meeting on the plan and walked away concerned about the $22 million price tag. Stahl said she helped start the association after talking to other residents who were worried that the project cost more than the town could afford.

Through the years, Stahl worked closely with more than a dozen people on the association. Together, they questioned town leaders about such big-ticket spending items as a proposed synthetic turf playing field at Avon High School, and pushed for transparency, publishing since 2003 a list of every municipal and school employee with their salary along with the value of their town-funded retirement benefits.

Stahl said she never saw the association as having a confrontational role and thinks Avon is generally a well-run community. She said things like publishing town employees' salaries was intended not to put an unwelcome spotlight on them but to educate local taxpayers about the town's single biggest expense. She said that is more important than ever since, in her view, salaries and benefits have become unsustainable for a town like Avon.

"We did not want people in government to think we were on a mission to get them," Stahl said. "Our mission was to get information to people so they could vote intelligently."

In 21 years, Stahl said the association campaigned against seven town budget proposals, including this year's spending package. Voters approved in a referendum Wednesday the $90.9 million budget, which will result in a 3.62 percent tax increase, an amount Stahl said is too high.

"Now, more than ever, you must become a 'vote no' advocate and campaigner or the budget will pass automatically on May 10," Stahl said in a notice she distributed before Wednesday's vote.

In a move to continue the association's work in some way, Stahl said she donated the $504 that remained in the association's bank account to the Avon Free Public Libary.

Tina Panik, the library's director of reference and adult services, said the money will pay for a program this fall on the four freedoms outlined in a series of paintings by Norman Rockwell, which are the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear.

"We thought this represents the idea behind the association, of advocacy and knowing about government," Panik said. "I always saw Flo as courageous. It takes guts to stand up in front of a group of people and ask questions."

See the rest here:

Avon Taxpayers Association Disbands As Leader Moves To Massachusetts - Hartford Courant

House Republicans just voted to slash hundreds of billions of dollars in health care for the poor as part of their Obamacare replacement. Now, theyre weighing a plan to take the scalpel to programs that provide meals to needy kids and housing and education assistance for low-income families.

President Donald Trumps refusal to overhaul Social Security and Medicare and his pricey wish-list for infrastructure, a border wall and tax cuts is sending House budget writers scouring for pennies in politically sensitive places: safety-net programs for the most vulnerable.

Story Continued Below

Under enormous internal pressure to quickly balance the budget, Republicans are considering slashing more than $400 billion in spending through a process to evade Democratic filibusters in the Senate, multiple sources told POLITICO.

The proposal, which would be part of the House Budget Committee's fiscal 2018 budget, won't specify which programs would get the ax; instead it will instruct committees to figure out what to cut to reach the savings. But among the programs most likely on the chopping block, the sources say, are food stamps, welfare, income assistance for the disabled and perhaps even veterans benefits.

If enacted, such a plan to curb safety-net programs all while juicing the Pentagons budget and slicing corporate tax rates would amount to the biggest shift in federal spending priorities in decades.

Atop that, GOP budget writers will also likely include Speaker Paul Ryans (R-Wis.) proposal to essentially privatize Medicare in their fiscal 2018 budget, despite Trumps unwavering rejection of the idea. While that proposal is more symbolic and wont become law under this budget, its just another thorny issue that will have Democrats again accusing Republicans of pushing Granny off the cliff.

The Budget Committee is trying to force the entire conference and committees of jurisdiction to focus on ways to bring down this deficit, said senior budget panel member Rep. Tom Cole. Republicans have long sought to tackle the nearly $20 trillion debt, but Trump has tied their hands by ruling out cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

The Oklahoma Republican, however, acknowledged that mandatory spending reductions could become very tough issues though he declined to name which programs would see major cuts: These are hard for anybody, no matter where youre at on the political spectrum.

While budget writers are well aware of the sensitive nature of their proposal, they feel they have no choice if they want to balance the budget in a decade, which theyve proposed for years, and give Trump what he wants.

Enraged by Democrats claiming victory after last months government funding agreement, White House officials in recent weeks have pressed Hill Republicans to include more Trump priorities in the fiscal 2018 blueprint.

House Budget Republicans hope to incorporate those wishes and are expected, for example, to budget for Trumps infrastructure plan. Tax reform instructions will also be included in the budget, paving the way for both chambers to use the powerful budget reconciliation process to push a partisan tax bill through Congress on simple majority votes, as well as the $400 billion in mandatory cuts.

The critique last time was that we didnt embed enough Trump agenda items into our budget, said Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), a budget panel member. Trump has "made it clear it will be embedded in this budget. And so people will see a process much more aligned with President Trumps agenda in this forthcoming budget.

New spending, however, makes already tough math even trickier for a party whose mantra is balance the budget in 10 years. Lawmakers need to cut roughly $8 trillion to meet that goal, budget experts say. And while a quarter of their savings in previous budgets came from repealing Obamacare and slicing $1 trillion from Medicaid, Republicans cannot count on those savings anymore because their health care bill sucked up all but $150 billion of that stash relatively speaking, mere pocket change to play with.

Republicans first reflex would be to turn to entitlement reform to find savings. Medicare and Social Security, after all, account for the lions share of government spending and more than 70 percent of all mandatory spending.

But while former Freedom Caucus conservative-turned-White House budget director Mick Mulvaney has tried to convince the president of the merits of such reforms, Trump has refused to back down on his campaign pledge to leave Medicare and Social Security alone. (Hes reversed himself on a vow not to touch Medicaid, which would see $880 billion in cuts under the Obamacare repeal bill passed by the House.)

Mulvaney, sources say, has been huddling on a weekly basis with House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) and Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) to plot a path forward. There appears to be some common ground to consider cuts to other smaller entitlement programs: While the Office of Management and Budget would not respond to a request for comment, CQ reported Tuesday that the White House was also considering hundreds of billions in cuts to the same programs being eyed by House budget writers.

Ive already started to socialize the discussion around here in the West Wing about how important the mandatory spending is to the drivers of our debt, Mulvaney told radio host Hugh Hewitt in March. There are ways that we cannot only allow the president to keep his promise, but to help him keep his promise by fixing some of these mandatory programs.

Final details of the GOPs budget plan arent expected until June, and specific language mandating the mandatory cuts still hasnt been written, according to one aide familiar with the process. Committees would then have several months to put together the department-by-department details on what exactly to cut, proposals that probably wont land until the fall at the earliest, given the legislative calendar.

The idea could run into problems: It is unclear whether such cuts would be acceptable in the more moderate Senate. In order for the proposal to actually move, Senate Republicans would need to include the same instructions in their own budget.

In the House, Republican leaders hope the moves toward deficit reduction will buy them some good will with conservatives going into September, when the partys right flank will have to swallow difficult votes to raise the debt ceiling and fund the government.

Cole argued the deficit-trimming push will appeal to the House Freedom Caucus, which blocked the House GOPs budget on the floor last year in protest of spending levels its members considered too high.

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.

But pleasing conservatives this time around will fuel anxiety on the other end of the conference. Endorsing cuts to programs for the poor will certainly make centrist House Republicans many of whom were uncomfortable voting to slice Medicaid just weeks ago in the Obamacare repeal bill very uncomfortable.

Rep. Charlie Dent, a centrist and senior Appropriations Committee member, said budget reconciliation instructions should center solely on tax reform, which is complex enough on its own, he said.

All I can say is: Tax reform by itself is very complex and controversial, Dent (R-Pa.) said. Adding some of these other changes will only make the tax reform more difficult.

Asked about mandatory programs that might be cut, he added: This will create challenges, no question about it. When so many of the entitlement programs are taken off the table for discussion that limits our ability to fund the nondefense discretionary programs and other mandatory programs that affect a lot of people.

GOP backers of the idea will argue in the coming weeks and months that moderates have voted for GOP budgets that included similar cuts in the past so they should be able to support them again.

But if House GOP leadership has learned anything from the Obamacare repeal debacle, it should be that voting for something that has no chance of becoming law and makes for great campaign fodder is much easier than backing a bill that could be enacted.

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

Read more from the original source:

Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor - Politico

The S.C. State Legislature took little action of a number of bills the Aiken County Board of Education followed through the session, including a bill that would have amended the State Constitution to allow the governor to appoint the state superintendent of education.

Member Keith Liner updated the board on the progress of the bills Tuesday at its regular meeting. The regular legislative session of the S.C. General Assembly ended Thursday.

Bills to appoint the state superintendent of education would have sought voter approval to amend the Constitution of South Carolina to delete the state superintendent of education from the list of elected state officers and allow the governor to appoint the superintendent.

Neither the House nor the Senate took action on the bills beyond committees. House Bill 3036 was referred back to the House Committee on Judiciary on Feb. 22. Senate Bill 0027 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary on Feb. 7. Senate Bill 0137 reported out favorably by the Senate Committee on Judiciary on Jan. 24.

The Tax Credit for Workforce Scholarship, House bill 3311, would have developed and implemented a career pathways initiative to establish a first careers program, a pathways to new opportunities program and a tax credit for businesses that hire an apprentice.

The House passed the bill March 30 and sent it to the Senate, where it was referred to the Senate Committee on Education on April 4.

Liner reminded board members that this year was the first of a two-year legislative session.

Even though it didnt make it through this time, its still in the Senate Committee on Education and could be picked back up next year, he said.

The Education Oversite Committee Bill, House bill 3969, would have developed and piloted district accountability models; amended the profile of the South Carolina graduate; and revised the Comprehensive Annual Report Card for Schools, deleting the current grading scale and replacing it with an A-F scale.

The House passed the bill on April 6 and sent it to the Senate. The bill was amended and recalled from the Senate Committee on Education on May 5.

The S.C. Education School Facilities Act, House Bill 3343, would have provided financial assistance to school districts to acquire school facilities by using general obligation bonds and other forms of assistance. The State Board of Education would have determined and selected projects on priority to receive financial assistance from the state.

The bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate on March 29. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance on March 30. No further action was taken.

House Bill 3352 would have created the Office of Freedom of Information Act Review within the Administrative Law Court. The act would have established provisions to collect reasonable fees and reduce the time requirement for fulfilling requests. The court would have had final jurisdiction.

The bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate on March 22. It received a favorable report out of the Senate Committee on Judiciary on May 3. It was amended and reread on May 10.

It was waiting to be debated on the Senate floor and, if it doesnt make it through, probably will be carried over into the next session, Liner said.

The House and Senate ratified the S.D. Department of Education Fiscal Management of Districts bill, House bill 3221, on May 4.

To find the status of any action taken Thursday or late for any of these bills, visit http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php and type in the bill number.

Larry Wood covers education for the Aiken Standard.

Here is the original post:

Aiken School Board hears legislative update - Aiken Standard

Internal migration has always been a part of America. The ability to move for a better job has promoted economic growth. AIER studies have shown that a better match between workers and employers helps productivity and wages.

A new article from the Mises Institute shows that Americans are also moving for favorable tax environments. For example, retirees move to Florida because it lacks a state income tax. People leave New York State because of high property taxes. Businesses leave California for Texas because of lower income taxes.

New York, California, and Illinois saw the largest number of people leave in 2015. New York State saw 191,000 residents move to other states in 2015, while California lost 129,000 and Illinois lost 128,000. According to the Tax Foundation, New York has the highest state and local tax burden as a share of personal income at 12.7 percent. California and Illinois are not far behind. Both California and Illinois have a state and local tax burden of 11 percent of income.

Where are these people moving? People from New York, California, and Illinois are headed to places such as Colorado and North Carolina. In 2015, Californians made up the largest share of new arrivals to Colorado at 12.8 percent. People from Illinois made up 5 percent of new arrivals to Colorado. Colorado has the 35th-lowest state and local tax burden as a share of personal income. New Yorkers are headed to North Carolina. In 2015, New Yorkers made up the largest share of new arrivals to North Carolina: 7.5 percent. North Carolina has the 20th-lowest state and local income tax burden.

Burdensome regulatory policy and a lack of personal freedom also push people out of states such as New York, California, and Illinois. Each year, the Cato Institute creates the Freedom in the 50 States Index. The index includes state regulatory policies, personal freedom, and fiscal policies. Included regulatory policies concern such issue areas as health insurance, occupational restrictions, and land use. Personal freedom concerns marriage, education, and the criminal justice system. Last year, New York State was ranked 50th, or dead last, on the Freedom in the 50 States Index. California was right behind New York State at 49th. Illinois fared slightly better at 44th.

What does this mean for high-tax states with burdensome regulations? High-tax states are losing human capital and financial wealth to low-tax states with more personal and regulatory freedom. When people leave high-tax states, it tends to reduce business formation, job creation, and consumption in those states. This means a smaller tax base to support high government spending. High-tax states need to cut spending, lower taxes, and foster a friendly regulatory environment if they want to keep their residents. California and Illinois also need to address their unfunded state-pension liabilities. AIER pointed out in a recent post that unfunded state pension liabilities mean even higher taxes on the horizon.

Here is the original post:

Americans Are Leaving States with Burdensome Governments - American Institute for Economic Research (blog)

ASHEVILLE, N.C. Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucusare considering a push for broader reconciliation authority in the upcoming fiscal 2018 budget resolution that would allow Republicans to pursue policies beyond a tax code overhaul.

We believe that writing the instructions more broadly will give us greater flexibility not only to get tax reform but also to address other areas simultaneously, Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows said in an interview here Friday.

One idea floated is including language in the reconciliation instructions that would allow committees of jurisdiction to look at policies for overhauling the welfare system, which, like a tax code rewrite, is one of the six planks of House Republicans A Better Way agenda.

So farthe push for a broader reconciliation instructions is just something individual Freedom Caucus members have discussed, Meadows said. The groups nine-member board is expected to debate the idea more formally next week and come up with ideas they can present to the full caucusfor discussion soon thereafter.

The budget reconciliation process is not essential to passing legislation in the House, but it allows Republicans in the Senate to advance policy on a simple-majority vote without threat of a Democratic filibuster. Many of Republicans policy priorities are not ones Democrats share.

In addition to welfare policy, members have also raisedpotentially providing reconciliation authority for otherentitlement changes, although there hasnt really been a groundswell of support or focus on that to date, Meadows said.

The crux of the matter, though, isensuring that Republicans dont hamstring themselves in writing the fiscal 2018 budget reconciliation instructions the way they did in writing the fiscal 2017 instructions for health care, Meadows said.

The Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees were the only two House panels given authority to draft legislation under the fiscal 2017 instructions, but some health care policies Republicans wanted to look at fell under the Judiciary and Commerce committees. For example, Commerce has the jurisdiction to allow insurers to sell across state lines an idea many Republicans wanted to see in the health care bill, but one GOP leaders said was not allowed under the reconciliation rules.

Overhauls of the tax code and welfare system primarily fall under the jurisdiction of Ways and Means, but there are some policies Republicans may want to explore that fall under panels. For example, the Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps,and Judiciary has jurisdiction over online sales tax issues.

But before Republicans can move onto their fiscal 2018 budget reconciliation measure, they need to finish work on the health care bill, which is moving under the fiscal 2017 instructions.

Meadows said he is extremely optimistic that Republicans will get the health care bill to the presidents desk, but that there has been talkabout rewriting the fiscal 2017 reconciliation instructions if needed.

If we get bogged down on the health care debate, there has been some discussions about rewriting the instructions to allow for tax reform to go ahead and move forward either simultaneously with health care or instead of health care, he said.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Original post:

Freedom Caucus May Push for More Than Tax Overhaul in Next Budget - Roll Call

Kerala tops, Bihar last in public affairs index The Hindu Telangana is the best performer in fiscal management while its neighbour Andhra Pradesh is the poor performer and secured last rank. In the category of economic freedom, BJP-ruled Gujarat secured top rank while Nitish Kumar-ruled Bihar secured the last ... and more »

Read more:

Kerala tops, Bihar last in public affairs index - The Hindu

PHOENIX Gov. Doug Ducey inked his approval Friday to a nearly $9.82 billion spending plan for the new budget year that begins July 1.

Overall pending for the coming year will be about $208 million more than in the current state budget.

The largest change is in K-12 education.

Most of that is $127.9 million just to keep schools where they are now. The figure includes required increases to compensate schools for higher enrollment as well as the legally obligated additional funds for inflation.

Theres also $34 million for a 1.06 percent state-funded teacher pay raise, above and beyond whatever raise local school districts can provide.

Lawmakers have promised an identical increase for the next school year, subject to approval by the 2018 Legislature.

Another $37.6 million is set aside for results-based funding. These are additional dollars that go to high-performing schools.

And theres $8 million to provide state-funded full-day kindergarten with a promise of $12 million next year for a handful of schools that serve the most needy.

Legislative budget analysts are still computing how much the new education dollars mean in per-student funding for the new school year and whether this may reverse a decade-long slide.

Another big increase in spending this year comes in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, where a growing number of people eligible for care translates to an additional $44.1 million in state dollars.

The three state universities are getting an additional $15 million in one-time funding above basic state aid formulas. This, however, is actually a reduction in revenues, as lawmakers provided a one-time $19 million infusion for the current fiscal year.

The $15 million has strings attached, with the University of Arizona having to use $1 million of its $4.2 million allocation to fund a so-called economic freedom school, which was started with seed money from foundations run by the Koch brothers. Theres an identical $1 million earmark out of the $7.6 million for Arizona State University; Northern Arizona University gets $3.2 million in one-time dollars.

Ducey has a separate bill on his desk to authorize the states three universities to borrow $1 billion for needed construction and repairs. That is not part of the budget, as the first funding wont come until the first payment of $27 million is due the following fiscal year.

The budget also includes an additional $33 million specifically to increase what the state pays to private firms that provide services to the developmentally disabled.

These companies negotiated contracts based on being able to pay their workers as little as the minimum wage, which was $8.05 last year. But that was before voters mandated an immediate increase in the minimum wage to $10, going to $12 by 2020.

There is $30 million in the budget for local road construction and repair. But that simply offsets the money the budget takes from gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees to fund the Department of Public Safety.

Go here to see the original:

Ducey signs $9.8 billion state budget - Arizona Daily Star

A coalition of conservative groups have laid out a wish list for what they want in President Trumps $1 trillion infrastructure package and it could spell trouble for the key White House policy effort.

In a letter sent to the administration and key members of Congress on Thursday, the organizations fired their opening salvo in the upcoming debate, urging policy makers to prioritize fiscal responsibility as they work on Trumps yet-to-be unveiled infrastructure proposal.

The wish list is divided into six priorities: reform the environmental review process, repeal labor regulations, focus on core infrastructure projects, empower the states, fully pay for projects and reform spending instead of creating new funding streams.

The goal of this letter is to really prevent [what happened to the initial effort on health care] from happening on this transportation and infrastructure package. We want to begin this conversation early so we can come up with a package that balances conservative principles.

Over 50 other national and local groups, including Heritage Action, Americans for Tax Reform, Club for Growth and Freedom Partners, signed the statement.

One of Trumps chief campaign promises was to upgrade U.S. roads, bridges, airports and other public works.

Some Democrats may be on board with ramped up infrastructure investment. Still, Trump will have to sell the idea to at least some lawmakers in his own party, even though massive federal spending on transportation has long given fiscal conservatives heartburn.

The conservative groups warned lawmakers to reject any legislation that resembles former President Obamas economic stimulus package, which they said was chock-full of waste and pet projects and made the nation's fiscal problems worse.

Some of their transportation priorities directly clash with those of Democrats, who Trump needs the support of in order to get his plan over the finish line in Congress.

Democrats have demanded that certain wage protections are included in Trumps infrastructure proposal, but the conservative organizations are calling for Davis-Bacon law requirements to be left out of the measure.

The coalition also wants to see construction permits streamlined, including removing greenhouse gas emissions from the review process and limiting the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, which could meet fierce resistance from Democrats.

And the infrastructure proposal is likely to run into roadblocks when it comes to the bills massive price tag and how to pay for it.

The conservative groups strongly oppose the idea of using new revenues from repatriation taxing corporate earnings currently oversees at a lower rate when they return to the U.S. That funding tool was seen as one of the more appealing and potentially bipartisan funding offsets on Capitol Hill.

Congress should be cautious, the letter says. [Repatriation] has little to do with transportation issues and instead is a symptom of our broken federal tax code that should be addressed in the context of comprehensive tax reform.

Continued here:

Conservatives lay out wish list for Trump infrastructure plan - The Hill