Daily Archives: March 23, 2017

WASHINGTONDefense Secretary Jim Mattis said a $30-billion boost in defense funding this fiscal year will produce immediate readiness dividends for the military, but Senate Democrats shrugged off his promises as an unrealistic, incomplete plan.

Lawmakers have until the end of next month to pass a budget for the final five months of fiscal 2017, after operating for months under a continuing resolution at last years funding levels.

President Trump has asked for a sizable jump in military funding right away, part of a multi-phase plan to boost defense spending and rebuild the military to address terrorist and hostile state threats against America today.

Mattis, in his first appearance before Congress as a Cabinet secretary, told members of the Senate Appropriations Committee that 15 years of war and the resulting deferred maintenance and training have left his department in need of immediate help, justifying what he acknowledged is a difficult funding request.

This increase in funding will help address the worsening security situation confronting us around the globe, he said. We must recognize that hesitation now to invest in defense would deepen the strategic mismatch between our future security and the military means to protect our people and freedoms.

He said with the extra money, the Pentagon could double the number of deployment-ready Army brigades this year, as well as get our aircraft back in the air, our ships back to sea. Mattis pushed back on Republican criticism that the $30-billion boost is too low, calling it the number we believe we can execute responsibly given the half-finished fiscal year.

But despite Republican support in the House and Senate for the plan, passage of the budget boost remains problematic given Democratic opposition.

Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Ranking Member Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called the plan an extremely reckless plan and an incomplete budget that does not address problems in a serious way.

He said if the plan were to pass as presented, it would trigger an automatic 5 percent across-the-board budget cut to Defense Department accounts because administration officials opted not to include a formal sequestration repeal in the plan.

I dont know why theyre playing games, he said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., stated that slashing non-defense spending to pay for defense is not a solution." Democrats for the last six years have blocked Republican plans to increase military spending without more fiscal freedom for other domestic priorities.

But he said the defense funding situationmy responsibilityneeds immediate resolution, noting that looming threats have outstripped the level of resources we have been allocating to defense.

House lawmakers have already passed a fiscal 2017 defense appropriations measure, and Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said he hopes to move on the issue soon.

But Democrats have said they wont move ahead with the defense budget until other domestic spending plans are also outlined. And Senate Democratic leaders have threatened to block any fiscal 2017 funding plan if it includes money for a southern border wall, one of Trumps top spending priorities.

Leo Shane III covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He can be reached at lshane@militarytimes.com.

Read the original here:

Mattis: Big defense spending boost needed now to fix readiness woes - Military Times

House Speaker Paul Ryan is trying to push health-care reform and a tax overhaul through Congress.

So, say the Republicans effort to pass their Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill blows up on Thursday, or in the next few weeks. Can that effort and a separate push for tax reform recover?

Technically, the answer is yes, thanks to whats known as reconciliation. Politically, it could be a far different story.

Heres the latest: A vote on the American Health Care Act is still planned for Thursday but no time was set as of the early afternoon, as there were signs negotiations were ongoing. Members of the House Freedom Caucus conservatives who say the bill wont lower premiums, among other criticisms met with President Donald Trump and said theres no deal yet.

Were trying to get to yes, said Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows of North Carolina.

Also read: Republican health-care bill disapproved by 56%-to-17% margin: poll.

The House Republican health-care bill includes the biggest structural overhaul of Medicaid in its 52-year history including work requirements for certain recipients. Why the change? WSJs Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer. Photo: Fox

Republicans are trying to move both their health and tax bills through Congress using the procedure known as reconciliation. The advantage of that process, which is limited to budget-related legislation, is it requires just a simple majority in the Senate. Republicans control 52 seats there, so bills they all agree on would be foolproof.

The complicating factor here is that there are two separate attempts at using reconciliation: one for health care and another for a tax overhaul. The plan was to use the fiscal 2017 process for health care and the fiscal 2018 process for the tax code. The health-care course has been set, with lawmakers approving a budget resolution in January that contained repeal-and-replace instructions.

But Congress hasnt passed a separate resolution with instructions for a tax rewrite using reconciliation.

So a new resolution could be the Republicans ticket to a fresh crack at health care and tax reform. As Ed Lorenzen of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget explains, such resolutions are supposed to pass in the spring before a fiscal year begins. That means now, since fiscal 2018 begins Oct. 1.

The window is closing, in that they cant really even start the process on tax reform until they pass a new budget resolution, Lorenzen said.

Citi analysts wrote in a note on Thursday that Republicans could include their health bill in the fiscal 2018 reconciliation bill, together with tax reform. But they say the strategy is risky given lawmakers limited bandwidth to address the two issues at the same time.

Lorenzen agrees, saying youre combining two sets of potentially controversial issues and its harder to get votes.

Citis analysts, meanwhile, think the health bill will stall and lawmakers will turn their focus to tax reform.

Our base-case is that the AHCA passes the House, with a likely thin majority, but is ultimately voted down by the Senate and/or placed on the back burner by the Republican leadership in order to focus upon tax reform, the analysts wrote.

Read the original here:

Here's how Republicans could get another shot at health care and taxes - MarketWatch

WASHINGTON- The Republican-sponsored health carebill may come to the House floor as early as today the anniversary of thepassageof Obamacare.

The House Rules Committee on Wednesday spent more than 12 hours debating the legislation in lieu of failed Democratic requests that consideration be delayed until the Congressional Budget Office releases its report on the managers amendment which includes proposals to change Medicaid distribution to states.

The Rules Committee has not yet reported the bill for a floor vote, as House GOP leaders are still uncertain if the legislation will pass.

The American Health Care Act has been approved by the House Budget Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.

Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus have expressed concerns over certain provisions contained in the bill such as the inclusion of refundable tax credits to compensate for the phasing-out of federal tax subsidies that under the Affordable Care Act are allocated to those who cannot afford to pay their monthly premiums.

The Freedom Caucus also expressed opposition to a provision of the bill that allowed for a three-year continuance of Medicaid expansion. They want to cap the expansion at the end of the current fiscal year.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday met with GOP Congressional leaders on Capitol Hill and reportedly told lawmakers in attendance that they wouldnot likely be reelected if they did not support the legislation.

Changes have been made to the bill such as a proposal to allow states more flexibility in how they use Medicaid grants. The proposal also would allow states to require Medicaid recipients to work for their benefits.

Other compromises include expanding the tax credit provision so as to allow more generous benefits for seniors.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) has stated that he will not support the legislation and it has been reported that 20 other Republican lawmakers also have stated that will not support the bill.

President Trump is scheduled to meet with Freedom Caucus leaders this morning.

Several moderate Republicans have also expressed opposition to the bill.

The legislation needs 218 votes to pass the House.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and fellow GOP Congressional leaders have stated that they worked hard to address Freedom Caucus concerns but thatthe legislation cannot please every Republican lawmaker because it must conform with the budget reconciliation process to avoid a potential Senate filibuster.

Senate reconciliation ruleswould allow the replacement component of the bill to bypass the 60-vote threshold and instead pass with a simple majority.

The legislation is expected to come to the House floor no later than Monday.

Originally posted here:

House expected to vote on health care bill as early as today - Talk Media News

Nevada students would be mandated to start school by age 5 and could start as young as 4 in pre-kindergarten programs under a bill introduced in the Assembly on Wednesday.

Assembly Bill 186 was introduced by Assemblywoman Olivia Diaz, D-North Las Vegas, during an Assembly Education Committee meeting. The committee took no action on the bill.

We know from an abundant amount of studies that, the earlier we make this investment, the greater the return, Diaz said. Theres many of our students who are not privileged to attend a preschool program. A lot of them lag behind when they finally come through our school gates.

School districts would be required to establish pre-kindergarten programs. Some schools have programs now, funded through federal and state grants. The state estimates less than 15 percent of 4-year-olds are served in a pre-kindergarten program.

The bill would also move the compulsory school attendance age from 7 to 5, forcing more students into kindergarten. Districts are mandated to offer kindergarten programs already, but families do not have to enroll their children.

The Department of Education projected that doing both would cost $176 million for fiscal 2017-18 and $178 million in fiscal 2018-19. Gov. Brian Sandovals proposed budget does not include the funding for this bill.

Representatives from the Clark and Washoe county school districts spoke in support of the bill.

Lowering the compulsory age drew the most criticism, including from the Nevada Homeschool Network.

Our basic premise is that parents need to be the one who decides when their children enter school, said Elissa Wahl, the organizations chairwoman. The biggest sticking point is that this is not voluntary.

Assemblyman Chris Edwards, R-Las Vegas, also cautioned against too much of a good thing.

We have to be careful of pushing kids too early because of maturity level. My concern is that we dont get to the point where were pushing kids to get into pre-K when theyre simply not mature enough, he said.

Nevada Families for Freedom focused on the cost of the program, saying more taxpayer dollars would be used to institutionalize little children.

Government preschool programs dont work and are costly for taxpayers. The schools are already having difficulty accomplishing what they are supposed to do, the organization wrote in a letter to the committee.

Contact Meghin Delaney at 702-383-0281 or mdelaney@reviewjournal.com. Follow @MeghinDelaney on Twitter.

View post:

Nevada students may be mandated to start school at age 5 - Las Vegas Review-Journal