Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

House SpeakerPaul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) showed up onThis Week on Sunday for what ended up being a testy debate over healthcare. Does the American Health Care Act hurt people with pre-existing conditions? HostGeorge Stephanopoulossuggested it could, but his interjections aggravated the Speaker.

Under this bill, no matter what, you cannot be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, Ryan said. Nor under this bill

But you can charge people more, Stephanopoulos suggested.

Let me finish my point, the Speaker said. You cant charge people more if they keep continuous coverage. The key of having a continuous coverage provision is to make sure that people stay covered and move from one plan to the next if they want to.

He said this would keep costs down, but Stephanopoulos suggested that people can losecoverage through no fault of their own.

Just let me finish my point, George, Ryan said. I was just getting there until you cut me off.

He pointed out the part of the bill concerning waivers for states that want to allow insurers to charge higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions. The fix is the federally-fundedpool for high-risk patients, Ryan said.

The House passed the American Health Care Act on Thursday by a close 217 213 vote. Despite commanding a 238 to 193 majority, GOPers had trouble pushing this long-promised repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act. Fiscal conservatives from the Freedom Caucus said the new AHCA didnt do enough to strip back the Obama-era legislation. Some moderate Republicans ended up supporting the new bill, however, because an amendment added more money to the high-risk pool.

Opponents of the new bill said this pool, currently sitting at $138 billion, wont be enough to protect people with pre-existing conditions in states that obtain waivers.

The AHCA will now make its way to the Senate. Republicans command a 52 to 48 majority over the Democratic caucus. Critics of the Affordable Care Act have pointed to recent events where insurers pulled out of Obamacare exchanges. Iowa, for example, is down to one major provider, and that onemay leave.

Update May 7, 10:34 a.m.:We added context in regard to insurers pulling out of Affordable Care Act exchanges.

[Screengrab via ABC]

Excerpt from:

'Let Me Finish My Point': Ryan Flustered by Stephanopoulos Over Healthcare Bill Questions - LawNewz

A spending package to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year passedthrough the House Wednesday despite a lack of support from a host of Republicans who hold the majority.

Lawmakers voted 309-118in favorof the bill, with 15 Democrats and 103 Republicans opposing.

Just before the vote, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan spoke on the floor to encourage all members tosupport the bill and then return the chamber to regular order by passing individual spending measures.

Lets turn the page on this last year, the Wisconsin Republican said.

The $1.1 trillion omnibus includes the remaining 11 annual appropriation bills that will fund agencies and Congress for rest of fiscal 2017, which ends Sept. 30. The vote came two days before a funding deadline that would have shut down the government if the measure stalled any further.

[Omnibus Agreement Details $1 Trillion in FY 2017 Spending]

The bill sends $593 billion to defense and an additional $1.5 billion for border security but does not fund President Donald Trumps proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Ryan Makes Last Appeal for GOP Votes on Spending Bill

Instead, some of the money will go toward replacing existing structures along the border, such as fencing and new road construction. The funding bill also provides a permanent solution for health care for coal miners and aid for health care needs in Puerto Rico.

[How the Omnibus Became a Democratic Wish List]

Lawmakers reached a bipartisan deal and released text of the 1,665-page bill late Sunday evening with each side, including the White House, proclaiming their own wins in the spending package.

The next day, several members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus said they would vote against funding the government, making Democratic support of the spending measure essential. Conservatives cited concerns the billdid not include enough of Trumps priorities, including the border wall.

[Republicans Claim Their Own Victories in Omnibus Talks]

Rep. Lou Barletta said the agreement reached by lawmakers offered each side wins and losses. He touted money for border security, the military and funds to fight the opioid epidemic.

Theres too many things in there that I like, to vote against the things that arent in it that I would like, the Pennsylvania Republican said.

But House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, and a host of members from his conservative group, said they would vote against the omnibus.

The issue is a lack of conservative priorities, Meadows said.

The measure now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to pass with little fanfare on Thursday. It will then land on the presidents desk for his signature, which White House officials have indicated he will sign.

Bridget Bowman contributed to this report.Contact Rahman atremarahman@cqrollcall.comor follow her on Twitter at@remawriter.

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

Read more here:

House Passes $1 Trillion Spending Bill - Roll Call

PHOENIX -- State lawmakers gave final approval late Thursday to a $9.82 billion spending plan for the coming year.

The budget is fueled with anticipated revenues of $9.68 billion. But that is being supplemented by 171 million that lawmakers hope to have left over when the current fiscal year ends on June 30.

One of the highlights is a 1 percent pay hike for teachers for the coming fiscal year at a cost of $34 million.

The actual increase will be 1.06 percent. Thats because some school districts have enough local revenues so they get no state aid at all and will have to fund the pay hikes out of their own tax collections. So the difference is being redistributed to the other school districts.

An identical 1.06 percent increase will kick in the following school year.

The increase is above the 0.4 percent annual boost for five years proposed by Gov. Doug Ducey. But Democrats, citing the states low teacher wages, were unsuccessful in getting the increase raised to 4 percent.

The budget also includes one-time additional aid to universities of $15 million.

But theres really less here than meets the eye. Thats because the schools got $19 million in one-time dollars last year.

And of that $15 million, $2 million is earmarked to fund "economic freedom schools at the University of Arizona and Arizona State Universities, schools started with seed money from the Koch brothers.

There also is authorization for the universities to borrow $1 billion for needed construction and repairs. But there is no immediate fiscal impact, with the first promised state aid of $27 million to repay those bonds coming in the following budget year.

Other highlights of the state budget include

- Results-based funding bonuses for certain public schools -- $37.6 million, a program some opponents say disproportionately rewards schools in affluent areas

- Additional dollars for health care providers to deal with higher minimum wage -- $33 million plus $10 million one-time spending

- Move dollars from a special ADOT account to instead fund highway construction and repair -- $30 million

- Provides $62.9 million to construct six new schools

- $3 million to expand broadband into rural areas

Go here to read the rest:

$9.8B state budget includes teacher pay hike, school bonuses - Today's News-Herald

BY LINDSEY MCPHERSON AND ERIN MERSHON

House Republicans breathed a sigh of relief Thursday as they finally advanced their health care overhaul out of the chamber in a narrow 217-213 vote. No Democrats voted for the measure. They were joined by 20 Republicans who voted no as well.

Republicans clapped and cheered as they reached the 216 vote threshold needed for passage. The Democrats, convinced the vote would be politically hazardous to the GOPs health, chanted, Nah, nah, nah. Hey, hey, goodbye.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan cast a yes vote for the measure. It is rare for the speaker to vote on legislation.

The relief, however, is likely only temporary as the bill could come back to them in a few weeks or months significantly changed by the Senate.

The GOP is still likely a long ways away from achieving their top campaign promise to repeal and replace the 2010 health care law, as the politics and procedures of the Senate are expected to prove far more dicey than those in the House.

But for now, Republicans in the House are happy to have the health care issue off their plate so they can turn their attention to other matters, such as the fiscal 2018 appropriations process and a rewrite of the tax code.

The House technically cannot act on a tax bill until the health care legislation is signed into law, because they need to dispense with the fiscal 2017 budget reconciliation measure before moving onto a fiscal 2018 reconciliation measure that would be the vehicle for the tax rewrite. But they can begin to hold hearings and vet their policy ideas more thoroughly than they did on the health care bill.

The rush to finalize the health care bill catapulted House Republicans into a chaotic legislative process more characterized by fits and starts than a slow plod toward Thursdays passage. After early promises from President Donald Trump and Republican leaders that they would deliver first on a seven-year promise to repeal and replace the 2010 health law, Republicans have struggled at almost every turn.

Some members worked to disrupt even the initial budget resolution that kicked off the repeal process. The ultimate policies were released in rushed, late-night meetings just days ahead of marathon markup sessions. Ryans first attempt to pass the legislation ended in a spectacular failure for both him and Trump, as he pulled the bill from floor consideration when it became clear it didnt have the votes to pass.

Indeed, it was only late Wednesday, after more than a month of negotiations and various proposals to tweak the bill, that any member of leadership said they had secured the votes.

The proposal that leaders are crediting with pushing the bill across the finish line is an $8 billion infusion of money to help reduce premiums and out-of-pocket costs for some individuals with pre-existing conditions that are widely expected to rise under provisions of the overall bill. MichigansFred Upton offered the amendment, which switched him and MissourisBilly Long from a planned no vote to a yes.

Before the Upton amendment, which sought to bring on more moderates, roughly two dozen conservative House Freedom Caucus members flipped from a no to yes after securing their request to allow states to seek a waiver to opt out of certain insurance regulations Republicans claim have driven up the costs of insurance premiums.

The only Freedom Caucus member to ultimately vote against the bill was Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs. Liberty Caucus members Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Walter Jones of North Carolina, who frequently vote against leadership, also opposed the bill.

The waiver amendment was officially authored by New Jersey Rep. Tom MacArthur, co-chairman of the centrist Tuesday Group. It did not persuade many of his Tuesday colleagues who had opposed the plan. In fact, it moved many moderates who had previously committed to support the bill into the no or undecided categories.

The Upton amendment was designed to change the tide and appeared to do so.

Tuesday Group Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois,Elise Stefanik of New York, Brian Mast of Florida and John Faso of New York all had planned to vote yes before the MacArthur amendment and then, at least publicly, remained on the fence for the last week or so.

They all ultimately voted yes on the final bill, meaning the Upton amendment likely had some influence or they were planning to vote for it all along.

Still, several moderates felt more comfortable opposing the bill, which Democrats have signaled theyll use to attack vulnerable Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections.Already Democratic campaign organizations have started running ads against lawmakers who supported the package in earlier stages.

Tuesday Group co-chairman Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and other group members Leonard Lance of New Jersey,Mike Coffman of Colorado, Dan Donovan of New York, Pat Meehan of Pennsylvania, Barbara Comstock of Virginia, Jaime Herrera Beutlerand Dave Reichert of Washington, John Katko, Ryan Costello of Pennsylvania, Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey,Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania all voted no. Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, Ohios Michael R. Turnerand David Joyce and Texas' Will Hurd voted no as well.

Other members who said they would have voted no on the version of the bill leadership pulled from the floor in the March ultimately voted yes, including Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Rob Wittman of Virginia and Don Young of Alaska.

The package itself is a patchwork of provisions that repeal and replace parts of the 2010 health care law, including the laws current tax credits. New credits in the package would offer less help for most Americans who are not young or relatively wealthy. The bill slashes the Medicaid program by $880 billion over the next 10 years, among other changes. And it would make available some $115 billion for states, aimed at installing so-called high risk pools that Republicans say will help iron out high premiums.

An early analysis of the billfrom the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showed that it would result in 24 million Americans becoming uninsured. CBO has not yet scored any of the later amendments to the package.

The next CBO score, however, looms large. The late changes could have a dramatic impact on the number of individuals insured and the Senate will not be able to take up the package until the CBO has scored it, under the rules of reconciliation.

Kerry Young and Rema Rahman contributed to this story.CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misidentified Christopher H. Smith as a member of the Tuesday Group.

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

View post:

House Sends Health Care Hot Potato to Senate - Roll Call

Advertisement

Geof Koss and George Cahlink, E&E News reporters

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said this week, "Let's put '17 to an end. The discussion about '18 funding begins right now." Photo courtesy of C-SPAN.

Lawmakers said this week that the rejection of deep cuts sought by the Trump administration to federal energy and environmental agencies in this week's spending compromise could set the tone for less partisan fiscal 2018 spending deliberations.

The administration "highlighted what they felt were priorities; we took a look at them, and we made the determinations as we saw fit," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that funds U.S. EPA and the Interior Department. "And I think you will see 2018 approps kind of move forward in the same manner."

New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, Murkowski's Democratic counterpart atop the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, offered a similar assessment. "I think we now have a good baseline," he said yesterday.

"All the things the administration was advocating for, they don't look like they're really flying in this Congress," said Udall. "And I would say that's a bipartisan statement against those kinds of cuts."

President Trump is due to sign into law a $1.017 trillion fiscal 2017 omnibus spending bill that rejects his call for steep cuts to EPA, Department of Energy renewable energy research and various agencies' climate science programs.

Advertisement

But despite talk of bipartisanship now and for the future, Udall said fiscal 2018 appropriations will be a "tougher lift" because of a late start.

"We're way behind," he said. "Normally, we'd be holding appropriations hearings in May and June, and we're only going to start, I think, in June for the very early ones."

Udall said he anticipates that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will appear before the panel after the White House releases its full budget request later this month.

Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, yesterday credited "all these marches" showing public support for EPA and other agencies.

"A lot of voices were heard, and I think those were reflected in the legislation," he told reporters yesterday.

Looking to the next round of spending talks, Carper added: "We're not going to take anything for granted."

"We're just going to continue the drumbeat and make sure members understand the consequences of the deep cuts proposed by President Trump," he said. "They were not thoughtful, and as it turns out, they were not supported by Democrats or Republicans, for the most part."

Democrats cheered fighting to keep out many policy riders from the omnibus. And while there were signs that the bill would include funding to restart the licensing process for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., those dollars were left out.

But a senior House Energy and Commerce Republican is confident the money will be included in the next spending bill. "It's basically really a 2018 issue," said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy. "I'm not concerned."

There are signs that at least some partisan fights are likely to play out in upcoming spending bill talks. Citing concerns over the size of the package, conservatives lined up against the omnibus this week.

Nearly all 30 or so members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus voted against it, as did more half the much larger House Republican Study Committee.

Almost all the 18 votes in the Senate against the deal came from conservatives, among them Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Steve Daines of Montana and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

One of the House's conservative opponents, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), is already looking at options to cut spending in the fiscal 2018 bills using a decades-old provision he helped revive for this Congress.

The provision, known as the Holman Rule, would permit House floor amendments to target federal programs and agencies by cutting employees or eliminating their pay. The practice had been banned since the Reagan administration.

Griffith said he already has told EPA Administrator Pruitt he hopes to use the rule to shift some jobs at the agency. The lawmaker stressed that he is not pursuing "the whole destruction" of EPA but wants to make it more efficient and responsive.

"We need to get some of the people out of the alabaster towers in D.C. and move them into the field in places like Flint, Mich., where they can help people solve problems, not just punish them," said Griffith, an Energy and Commerce member who has been a critic of EPA regulations.

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sounded a partisan tone by telling reporters yesterday that the main lesson learned from the omnibus negotiations is that Republicans need Democrats to pass spending bills.

She said the GOP had only 141 votes in favor of the omnibus bill, requiring it to have Democrats provide the rest needed to get to a 218 majority. Without Democratic support, Pelosi said, government would have faced a shutdown.

"There's a recognition of a strong number of Republicans who have a very easy comfort level in shutting government down. So that just empowers us," she added.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The essential news for energy & environment professionals

1996-2017 Environment & Energy Publishing, LLCPrivacy PolicySite Map

Follow this link:

Some optimism ahead of fiscal 2018 spending talks - E&E News

Advertisement

Geof Koss and George Cahlink, E&E News reporters

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said this week, "Let's put '17 to an end. The discussion about '18 funding begins right now." Photo courtesy of C-SPAN.

Lawmakers said this week that the rejection of deep cuts sought by the Trump administration to federal energy and environmental agencies in this week's spending compromise could set the tone for less partisan fiscal 2018 spending deliberations.

The administration "highlighted what they felt were priorities; we took a look at them, and we made the determinations as we saw fit," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that funds U.S. EPA and the Interior Department. "And I think you will see 2018 approps kind of move forward in the same manner."

New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, Murkowski's Democratic counterpart atop the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, offered a similar assessment. "I think we now have a good baseline," he said yesterday.

"All the things the administration was advocating for, they don't look like they're really flying in this Congress," said Udall. "And I would say that's a bipartisan statement against those kinds of cuts."

President Trump is due to sign into law a $1.017 trillion fiscal 2017 omnibus spending bill that rejects his call for steep cuts to EPA, Department of Energy renewable energy research and various agencies' climate science programs.

Advertisement

But despite talk of bipartisanship now and for the future, Udall said fiscal 2018 appropriations will be a "tougher lift" because of a late start.

"We're way behind," he said. "Normally, we'd be holding appropriations hearings in May and June, and we're only going to start, I think, in June for the very early ones."

Udall said he anticipates that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will appear before the panel after the White House releases its full budget request later this month.

Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, yesterday credited "all these marches" showing public support for EPA and other agencies.

"A lot of voices were heard, and I think those were reflected in the legislation," he told reporters yesterday.

Looking to the next round of spending talks, Carper added: "We're not going to take anything for granted."

"We're just going to continue the drumbeat and make sure members understand the consequences of the deep cuts proposed by President Trump," he said. "They were not thoughtful, and as it turns out, they were not supported by Democrats or Republicans, for the most part."

Democrats cheered fighting to keep out many policy riders from the omnibus. And while there were signs that the bill would include funding to restart the licensing process for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., those dollars were left out.

But a senior House Energy and Commerce Republican is confident the money will be included in the next spending bill. "It's basically really a 2018 issue," said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy. "I'm not concerned."

There are signs that at least some partisan fights are likely to play out in upcoming spending bill talks. Citing concerns over the size of the package, conservatives lined up against the omnibus this week.

Nearly all 30 or so members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus voted against it, as did more half the much larger House Republican Study Committee.

Almost all the 18 votes in the Senate against the deal came from conservatives, among them Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Steve Daines of Montana and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

One of the House's conservative opponents, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), is already looking at options to cut spending in the fiscal 2018 bills using a decades-old provision he helped revive for this Congress.

The provision, known as the Holman Rule, would permit House floor amendments to target federal programs and agencies by cutting employees or eliminating their pay. The practice had been banned since the Reagan administration.

Griffith said he already has told EPA Administrator Pruitt he hopes to use the rule to shift some jobs at the agency. The lawmaker stressed that he is not pursuing "the whole destruction" of EPA but wants to make it more efficient and responsive.

"We need to get some of the people out of the alabaster towers in D.C. and move them into the field in places like Flint, Mich., where they can help people solve problems, not just punish them," said Griffith, an Energy and Commerce member who has been a critic of EPA regulations.

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sounded a partisan tone by telling reporters yesterday that the main lesson learned from the omnibus negotiations is that Republicans need Democrats to pass spending bills.

She said the GOP had only 141 votes in favor of the omnibus bill, requiring it to have Democrats provide the rest needed to get to a 218 majority. Without Democratic support, Pelosi said, government would have faced a shutdown.

"There's a recognition of a strong number of Republicans who have a very easy comfort level in shutting government down. So that just empowers us," she added.

Advertisement

With the addition of New York Reps. Dan Donovan and Peter King, 20 lawmakers have now endorsed the House GOP resolution that calls for action to combat climate change.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The essential news for energy & environment professionals

1996-2017 Environment & Energy Publishing, LLCPrivacy PolicySite Map

See the original post here:

APPROPRIATIONS: Some optimism ahead of fiscal 2018 spending ... - E&E News

Raul Lopez 6:05 a.m. CT May 4, 2017

Raul Lopez(Photo: Submitted)

Politics is a contact sport, but that doesnt mean that it should get ugly.

Unfortunately this is precisely what is happening with the character assassination of state Sen. Mark Green, M.D, a true public servant whohas dedicated much of his professional life to serving others and now President Trumps pick to be the next Secretary of the Army.

His appointment should be a proud moment for the Volunteer State that knows firsthand that Senator Green is a selfless patriot who loves our country and has put on the uniform to fight for our precious freedoms.

But because Mark Green is a man of faith, critics are seizing on a handful of statements that are purposefully drawn out of context to paint himas intolerant of others.

I know that the disingenuous attacks against Senator Green are categorically false.

The real Senator Mark Green is the man that is fighting for the least among us. I have seen this firsthand.

Thats because while our Latino community is making great strides in recent years, there is also another reality of far too many Latinos struggling to get by. That means that many Latinos with children are unable to exercise true school choice.

They would like to have the same opportunity that others have of being to send their children to a private school of their choice or be able to move to a different neighborhood with a high performing school.

The truth is that SenatorGreen did not look the other way as our Latino community asked for more choice in education. He stepped up while others were taking orders from special interest groups thatare more interested protecting their members than truly empowering low-income minority families from being able to exercise school choice. Some progress on this front has been done, but much more work remains.

Mark Green(Photo: Jed DeKalb)

Senator Green has also distinguished himself in the Legislature as a leader on veteran issues.

Thanks to his efforts, our veterans and their families have had a true champion fighting for them to ensure that they receive the benefits they deserve.

As a veteran himself, Senator Green understands the unique challenges our military and our veterans are facing. He is constantly looking to improve the efficiency on ways we can deliver care to our community and its no surprise that President Trump has picked Senator Green to bring this same passion and dedication to the U.S. Army.

Dr. Green has said that he believes that every American has a right to defend their country regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion. I believe every single word and I know that many Latinos in our community are supporting him even in the face of ugly and vicious attacks.

In a democracy like ours, we can disagree on substance and policy. In fact, we should welcome a spirited debate of ideas. But flat out distortions and lies have no place in our democratic government.

The president needs someone to lead the U.S. Army during this critical juncture in our countrys history. Senator Green is the right man for this challenge and we hope that will be confirmed expeditiously so he can get to work right away for the American people.

Raul Lopez is the Executive Director of Latinos for Tennessee, an organization that is committed to protecting and promoting faith, family, freedom and fiscal responsibility. http://latinosfortn.com

Tennessee Sen. Mark Green is President Trump's nominee to become Army secretary. Ayrika Whitney/USA TODAY NETWORK - Tennessee

Read or Share this story: http://tnne.ws/2p92TyV

Read the original:

Critics unfairly attack Sen. Mark Green - The Tennessean

The imprint of the author of The Art of the Deal was conspicuously missing from a new federal budget agreement that ignored the draconian proposals President Donald Trump sought for fiscal year 2018.

The $1.16 trillion deal for the next five months that raised the federal debt ceiling was a temporary victory for centrists, extending a budget approved during the Obama administration. The next federal fiscal year budget begins Oct. 1.

The agreement was reached by a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats, leaving the Freedom Caucus the far-right tea party group that includes Rep. Rod Blum, R-Dubuque outside looking in. According to the Washington Post, the White House was excluded from discussions, its participation deemed as unhelpful by congressional aides.

For his proposed fiscal 2018 skinny budget, Trump wants a 9 percent or $54 billion increase in military spending 3 percent more than envisioned along with a larger increase for Homeland Security and his border wall.

To offset those costs, the White House targeted 62 domestic programs environmental, health and medical research, the arts, after-school programs, community development, aid to low-income families and subsidies for rural airports among them for elimination. Others faced drastic cuts, including agriculture.

They were spared for now, including Planned Parenthood funding, long in conservatives cross hairs, as the domestic budget was increased by $5 billion.

Democrats were quick with self-congratulatory declarations, claiming leverage, particularly in the Senate where Republicans hold a 52-48 majority but require 60 votes to pass most legislation. Many moderate Republicans were wary of the impact of Trumps proposed cuts on their constituencies.

I think its great that the Democrats like the bill, said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney. We thought it was a really good deal for this administration as well.

Mulvaney claimed the administration didnt push for bricks and mortar for the wall but new fixes instead, belying its quest to start 14 miles of construction near San Diego. While the White House contends the wall will be built, it must overcome concerns of many border state and moderate Republicans as well as Democrats concerning its cost and effectiveness.

While Trump didnt get his $1 billion down payment on the wall, $1.5 billion was allocated for increased border protection, including improving the fence dividing California and Arizona from Mexico, while adding sensors and lights.

However, his Executive Order to immediately hire 5,000 new Border Patrol agents was pared to 100.

The congressional negotiators approved $21 billion in higher defense spending $6 billion in budget increases and $15 billion from an off-budget war fund about two-thirds of what Trump wanted.

Among the survivors and those averting substantial cuts were:

The Essential Air Service program for rural airports, providing Waterloo with an annual $945,546 subsidy for 13 American Airlines weekly flights, which emerged intact.

The National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, which got an additional $2 million instead of extinction.

Public broadcasting, which maintained its budgets.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which lost $13 million rather than facing Trump reforms with an unspecified cost, while the Public Health Preparedness and Response Center, which prepares for a bioterrorism attack or pandemic, was fully funded.

The National Institutes of Health, which received a $2 billion increase instead of $5.8 billion in cuts, for research into Alzheimers disease, antibiotic resistance and other treatments and cures.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which retained 99 percent of its funding rather than a 31 percent cut. However, its staffing is at Reagan era levels.

The food stamp program, which took a $2.4 billion hit based on declining enrollment.

Planned Parenthood, which received funding for Medicaid patients (about 40 percent of its budget).

In addition, $130 million was allocated to fight opioid addiction and $30 million for mental health programs.

Some budget items were directed at Trump:

An additional $61 million was approved to pay local law enforcement agencies for the cost of protecting Trump and his family at the Trump tower in New York City and Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla.

All Executive Orders are required to have cost estimates. Trump has issued 30.

While the agreement averted a government shutdown, Trump later tweeted a good shutdown in the fall was needed to force a partisan confrontation over spending, including a reversal of Senate rules effectively requiring a supermajority to pass most major legislation.

Well find out then whether this coalition will hold amid his proposed tax cut forecast to reduce revenues by $5.5 trillion over 10 years and still unannounced $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

Meanwhile Trump and Congress continue to ignore entitlement reforms (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like), which constitute 60 percent of the federal budget.

View post:

Budget deal the work of centrists - Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier

Conservatives are blasting the five-month, fiscal 2017 spending deal written by Republicans and Democrats as nothing short of a "cave in" by the GOP despite its control of both the House, Senate and White House.

The deal, conservatives say, will make the fiscal 2018 spending process even more difficult.

The $1 trillion bill "does little more than kowtow to liberal Democrats and so-called moderate' Republicans," Jason Pye, policy director for the conservative FreedomWorks advocacy group, said Monday.

Republican leaders pointed to the GOP wins in the bill, including a $15 billion increase in defense spending that did not require the typical equal increase in domestic spending.

"We have boosted resources for our defense needs without corresponding increases in non-defense spending, as Democrats had insisted upon for years," House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., touted.

The bill also includes an unprecedented $1.5 billion for border security, although none of it can be used for a wall or to increase deportations of those who have already crossed the border.

But despite those Republican gains, a GOP aide who has spoken to conservative GOP lawmakers said most view the bill "as a complete concession to Democrats and that it is more or less what we have seen in the past that they are making the decision to pass it with Democrats rather than Republicans."

Conservatives had hoped a GOP-controlled Congress and White House would finally result in spending reform and policy changes they were forced to abandon while President Obama was in the White House and Democrats controlled the Senate.

In past years, conservative lawmakers have voted against spending bills because they believe the cuts are not substantial enough or because the legislation does not include key conservative provisions.

The fiscal 2017 spending plan looks a lot like past spending legislation. It leaves out many top conservative priorities as well as President Trump's requests.

As examples, it does not strip out taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, a women's health and abortion provider. The legislation excludes language that would withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, another conservative priority.

It does not include a penny for the southern border wall that was at the center of Trump's campaign agenda, despite a request from Trump to include the funding. The legislation also leaves in place Obama-era financial reform language the GOP has long criticized as burdensome.

Pro-life groups were particularly frustrated, even though House Speaker Paul Ryan signaled earlier this year he would include language defunding Planned Parenthood into the GOP's health care bill.

"The Republican Party is the only party with an anti-abortion platform and whose candidates ran specifically on the promise to defund Planned Parenthood, yet, here we are, watching them pass a bill that funds Planned Parenthood even though they control the House, Senate, and White House," said Kristina Hernandez, president of Students for Life of America, which describes itself as the nation's largest pro-life youth group.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said his group has not taken a formal position on the bill, but he is fielding angry feedback from constituents.

"What I'm hearing from a lot of my constituents is, we gave you the White House, we gave you the Senate, we gave you the House," Meadows said. "Why does this spending package appear to be driven by more of a left-leaning agenda than a conservative-leaning agenda?"

Meadows acknowledged the spending negotiations are "obviously a give and take situation." But for Republicans, there has been more giving in spending negotiations than taking since the 2013 partial government closure.

Over the years, the GOP has become increasingly fearful of spending showdowns and the prospects of a partial government closure. The last time the House and Senate failed to pass a spending bill in 2013, a partial government closure resulted in plummeting GOP poll numbers.

The view among voters was that that the Republicans were to blame for the mess by insisting the spending bill defund Obamacare. Republican poll numbers recovered but in subsequent years, voters signaled they would keep blaming the GOP in spending fights.

Public perception that the GOP is to blame has emboldened Democrats and provided the party real leverage in spending negotiations. The GOP can't pass a spending bill in Congress on its own, as the Senate filibuster rule requires 60 votes, and the GOP controls only 52 votes.

This time around, Senate Democrats threatened to vote against the fiscal 2017 bill if it included the border wall or defunded Planned Parenthood or sanctuary cities.

Republicans, fearful of cable news networks activating their government shutdown clocks, made no real effort to include conservative priorities, such as the border wall, that Democrats pledged to reject. Instead, individual GOP lawmakers were left to tout smaller victories in the bill that serve their constituents.

Republican lawmakers on Monday promoted money to permanently extend health care benefit for coal miners and to provide services to combat the nation's opioid epidemic, for example.

The spending bill is expected to clear Congress this week, leaving Republicans and Democrats to begin sorting through the fiscal 2018 spending legislation, which must be completed by the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year.

Meadows predicted it will be even harder now to find common ground with Democrats, while one GOP aide warned that conservative Republican lawmakers are tired of waiting for wins in spending legislation now that they control both Congress and the White House.

"I think people are pretty dissatisfied and I think there is going to be a pretty big expectation in September that we do something better," the aide said.

See more here:

Conservatives fume over 'complete' spending concession to Democrats - Washington Examiner

Speaker Paul D. Ryanon Tuesday touted what he called "conservative wins"Tuesday in an omnibus package that would fund the government until September, despite members of his own GOP conference who beg to differ.

Several members of the House Freedom Caucus say they will vote against the spending package because it did not include enough of President Donald Trump's priorities even after members of the presidents own team, including his budget director, touted their own victories.

[Republicans Claim Their Own Victories in Omnibus Talks]

Rep. Dave Brat took a long pause when asked what he thought about White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer saying on Monday he had every expectation Trump would sign the funding package.

Thats surprising, the Virginia Republican said. But more importantly is his use of leverage going forward to get that agenda through, right? thats what he ran on, thats what the base wants out of us.

[After Dems Celebrate, Mulvaney Calls Spending Bill a Win for Trump]

Brat, a member of the Freedom Caucus, cited a list of concerns with the spending deal that included no funding for a border wall that Trump promised at virtually every turn on the campaign trail.

Im thinking theres going to be a lot of folks with huge reservations to put it mildly, Brat said.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows said he expected the spending package would pass with mostly Democratic votes and absent conservative support.

He said a no vote by conservatives would still be a show of support for the president, despite the administration citing its own wins.

I dont know that it makes a big political statement one way or another, Meadows said.

[Trump Wants September Shutdown to Kill Legislative Filibuster]

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney on Monday called the omnibus a really solid deal citing a $15 billion increase in defense spending, which he disputed was actually $21 billion, as the top accomplishment.

The former GOP House member and Freedom Caucus member expressed his support for the bipartisan effort to fund the government until the end of the fiscal year.

Hes got a different boss now, Meadows said in response to Mulvaneys comments. It used to be the people of South Carolina, now its the president of the United States. I certainly understand his reasoning even though I may not totally agree with it.

Rep. Tom Cole, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, said GOP members should think twice about voting down a measure supported bya White House of their own political affiliation.

This is voting against funding a Republican administration and the president has asked us to vote for it, Cole said. I would hope that carries some weight with every Republican.

Mulvaney was reaching out to the press again on a hastily arranged conference call Tuesday morning, shortly after Trump tweeted that Republicans should force a "good 'shutdown' of the government in order to do away with the filibuster in the Senate so more of his priorities could be passed with only GOP support.

I think thats a defensible position, Mulvaney said. He added it was one well deal with in September.

He added that, for now, he and his team are focused on the current omnibus spending measure due for floor votes later this week.

"Weve got a lot of things to do between now and September, Mulvaney said.But the truth of the matter, though, is that we averted a government shutdown in a way that allows the president to fund his priorities, and I think thats the story now, not what might happen in September.

Regardless of what waits later this year, the business at hand the House faces this week is still passing the omnibus. Forthat, Ryan and his team shouldnt count on too many conservatives, at least according to its most prominent members.

Were just doing what we told the voters we were going to do, nothing changes, Rep. Jim Jordansaid about his lack of support of the 2017 omnibus package.

The Ohio Republican did not agree that voting against the spending package would lessen leverage for the Freedom Caucus, which he used to chair, given its a bill Trump must sign.

Jordans feelings on the bill were clear: with a thumbs down, he said it stinks.

- John T. Bennett and Kellie Mejdrich contributed to this report.Contact Rahman at remarahman@cqrollcall.com or follow her on Twitter at @remawriter

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

Excerpt from:

House Conservatives on Omnibus: 'It Stinks' - Roll Call