Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

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

Richard Ebeling

Richard Ebeling is a professor of economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan.

President Donald Trump has issued his preliminary federal budget proposal looking to the U.S. governments next 2018 fiscal year. What it shows very clearly is that there will likely be no attempt to reduce the size and cost of most of the American interventionist-welfare state.

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 the White House released, America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again. Listening to the comments and commentaries by some on the political left, you would think that the world was going to come to an end. For many on the political right, the programs placed on the chopping block for reduction or near elimination seemed like a dream come true if the budgetary proposals were to be implemented.

Furthermore, the blueprint claims to offer an insight into the mind of Donald Trump about the role of government in society. When the budget was released, Michael Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that this was Donald Trumps fiscal vision for America. If he said it on the campaign, its in the budget, Mulvaney declared. We wrote it using the presidents own words.

An Unchanged Entitlement State, Only More Money for Defense

In fact, a cursory or a detailed look at President Trumps budgetary proposals reveals that he plans to leave the entitlement programs Social Security, Medicare and related spending untouched while merely reallocating the approximately 30 percent of the federal budgets discretionary expenditures from one set of activities to another. Neither the total amount of government spending nor the likely budget deficit is threatened with meaningful reduction.

In the current 2017 federal fiscal year, Social Security and Medicare and related spending make up almost 64 percent of Uncle Sams expenditures. The net interest on the near $20 trillion national debt comes to another 7 percent of federal spending. Out of the remaining around 30 percent of the budget, defense spending currently absorbs 15 percent of federal outflows.

The budget proposal makes it clear that President Trump is devoted to expanding the military capability for continuing foreign intervention. A foreign policy focused on America First is losing none of its global reach or its capacity to have the military hardware to back it up. Donald Trump reiterated in comments during his brief press conference on Friday, March 17, 2017, with visiting German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that he was not a foreign policy isolationist. Indeed, he emphasized his allegiance to NATO and its role in Europe, at the same time that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was at the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea declaring that nothing was off the table, including a preemptive military attack on North Koreas nuclear capability.

For those conservatives and classical liberals who hoped for a change to a foreign policy placing the United States less in the harms way of regional and related problems and conflicts in other parts of the planet, President Trump and his cabinet members are making it clear that the shift in emphasis remains only on an insistence that Americas political and military allies pick up more of the financial tab for their joint policing of different parts of the world.

Reflecting this, the presidents blueprint proposes to increase Defense Department spending by $54 billion dollars, which would put military expenditures for 2018 to a total of $603 billion. The Department of Homeland Security would gain an additional $2.8 billion dollars for a total in 2018 of around $70 billion.

The eyes and ears of the surveillance state will, also, remain intact and grow. The only wiretapping that President Trump seems to mind was a presumed eavesdropping into his own conversations before he took office. As for the rest of us, well, Big Brother is watching and listening for our own good. After all, its all part of making America great and safe again.

Cuts in Discretionary Spending Make Progressives Whine

To pay for increases in the warfare state, President Trumps budgetary axe has fallen on a variety of discretionary welfare and redistributive programs. To cover the $54 billion increase in defense spending, $54 is to be cut from the other 50 percent of the 30 percent of that discretionary spending. But its worth keeping in mind that the gnashing of teeth by the lefties is about a decrease of less than 1.5 percent of the projected more than $4 trillion Uncle Sam will spend in 2018.

It must be admitted, however, that virtually every cut in this part of the budget can only warm the hearts of most conservatives and classical liberals. Department of Agriculture spending will be reduced by 20.7 percent. But it is worth observing that not set for the chopping block are subsidies paid to farmers, including for not growing crops. Trump does not want to antagonize a crucial part of rural Republican America that lives at the trough of government spending.

On the other hand, the State Department and related foreign aid programs would be slashed by almost 29 percent. Not many tears need be shed here, given that State Department programs and personal are at the heart of Americas misguided global social engineering schemes; and foreign aid is merely a slush fund for foreign political power lusters that, in addition, undermines real market-oriented economic development in other parts of the world.

This list goes on: Housing and Urban Development, down 12 percent; Health and Human Services, cut 16 percent; Commerce Department, reduced 16 percent; Education Department, decreased over 13 percent, but with a shift of some funds to increased funding for falsely named school choice programs; the Interior Department down almost 12 percent; the Labor Department cut nearly 21 percent.

Oh, the Horror! Cuts in the EPA and NPR

The Environmental Protection Agency would be cut by over 31 percent. The climate and land-use social engineers are being driven berserk by this one. That the swarm of regulatory locusts will be reined in or even stopped in some instances who plague the country with their wetland rules, their land-use restrictions, their market-hampering prohibitions and abridgements of private property rights, is being forecasted as meaning the end to an environmental-friendly planet Earth. The heavens will darken, the seas will rise, and the land will be barren. How can humanity survive without environmental central planning by the self-righteous regulatory elite meant to lead mankind into socially sensitive green pastures?

And, oh, no, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute for Museum and Library Services, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are targeted for a virtual 100 percent cut.

Oh, the horror! Those concerned with arts and the humanities may have to put more of their own private charitable money where their culturally sensitive mouths are. The thought that those who enjoy driving to and from work listening to those mushy, moralizing collectivist voices on National Socialist Radio I mean, National Public Radio may have to pay for it completely out of their own pockets with donations or subscriptions, or from interruptions of their leftie listening pleasure from capitalist commercials (please, please, not that!) is just too, too much for their delicate group-think souls to bear.

At the same time, pocket-picking political plunderers are warning that the poor and aged are threatened with starvation due to the planned cut in spending for Meals on Wheels. In fact, 65 percent of the programs funding comes from private donations or local and state governments, with only 35 percent funded by federal dollars. The day after the release of the America First budget blueprint, the media reported that a more than 50 percent increase in the regular rate of private donations had come flooding into Meals on Wheels around the country following the report of the planned cut in the program. Private benevolence amazingly! materialized almost instantaneously to replace the coerced dollars with voluntary dollars for a charity that many, clearly, consider worthwhile to support.

Trumps Vision Leaves the Entitlement State Intact

All of this could warm the heart of the usually despondent and despairing opponent of the overreaching and grasping interventionist and regulatory state. But Donald Trumps budgetary blueprint for American greatness needs to be put into the wider context of where this still leaves the size and scope of government in the United States.

And, alas, it leaves it seemingly untouched. What is feeding the insatiable growth of Americas domestic system of political paternalism are the entitlement programs: the governmental spending surrounding Social Security and Medicare redistribution.

Under current legislation, their cost and intrusiveness will only get worse. The Congressional Budget Office, in its January 2017 long-term federal government budgetary forecast looking to the next ten years, estimates that if legislatively nothing changes the entitlement programs will end up consuming nearly 80 percent of all the taxes collected by the United States government.

Since the remaining 20 percent of projected federal tax revenues will not be sufficient to cover all projected defense and other discretionary spending plus interest on the national debt between 2018 and 2027; the United States government will continue to run large annual budget deficits between now and then, adding $10 trillion more to the total national debt over next decade.

Donald Trump made it clear during the primary and general presidential election campaigns in 2016 that he considers Social Security and Medicare sacrosanct, not subject to the budget cutters chopping block. In addition, ObamaCare may be repealed, but the reform that he and the Republicans leadership in Congress have in mind to replace it will still leave a heavy federal government fiscal footprint. This, too, will maintain and entrench Uncle Sams intrusive presence in the healthcare and medical insurance business, and will, inescapably, cost a lot of government dollars, though the full estimates remain to be made.

Many of the Proposed Cuts Likely Will Not Happen

It also needs to be kept in mind that Trumps budgetary blueprint is merely his administrations recommendation to the Congress, and especially to the House of Representatives where spending legislation is constitutionally supposed to originate. Already the grumbling has begun to be heard not only from the Democratic Party minority in Congress against the proposed discretionary spending cuts, but from members of the Republican Party majority, as well.

Spending cuts in the abstract almost always serve as good campaign rhetoric, especially for Republicans running for elected office. But like their Democratic Party counter-parts, Republicans soon find themselves pressured and dependent upon the financial support of their own special interest groups, each one of which feeds off government spending dollars in the concrete. The resulting resistance to fiscal repeal and retrenchment turns out to be no different than with the groups surrounding the Democrats. Plus, the Republican foreign policy hawks have all the big-spending military contractors to serve in the name of warding off foreign threats to American greatness.

At the end of the day, when the actual 2018 federal fiscal budget gets passed by Congress and signed by the president, it will no doubt contain fewer of the discretionary spending cuts than proposed in Trumps blueprint. And the entitlement portion of the federal governments budget will remain untouched, other than adding to it whatever repeal and reform emerges out of the contest between ObamaCare versus TrumpCare (or RyanCare).

The Premises of the Entitlement State Must be Challenged

The fact is America is continuing to move in the long-run direction of fiscal unsustainability. The supposed untouchability of the entitlement segment of the federal budget will have to be made touchable. Nearly 90 years ago, in 1930, the famous Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, said to an audience of Viennese industrialists during an earlier economic crisis:

Whenever there is talk about decreasing public expenditures, the advocates of this fiscal spending policy voice their objection, saying that most of the existing expenditures, as well as the increasing expenditures, are inevitable . . . What exactly does inevitable mean in this context? That the expenditures are based on various laws that have been passed in the past is not an objection if the argument for eliminating these laws is based on their damaging effects on the economy. The metaphorical use of the term inevitable is nothing but a haven in which to hide in the face of an inability to comprehend the seriousness of our situation. People do not want to accept that fact that the public budget has to be radically reduced.

If there is any chance of stopping, reversing and repealing the welfare state, the entitlement language in political discourse has to be challenged. Entitlement presumes a right to something by some in the society, which in the modern redistributive mindset equally presumes a compulsory obligation by others to provide the means of having it.

The dollars and cents of the fiscal unsustainability of the entitlement society are essential to emphasize and explain. And there are certainly a sufficient number of historical examples to point to for demonstration that the welfare state can go down a road to societal ruin.

But, in addition, the entitlement mindset must be confronted with an articulate and reasoned defense of individual liberty, on the basis of a philosophy of individual rights to life, liberty and honestly acquired property. Plus, the ethics of liberty must be shown to be inseparable from the idea of peaceful and voluntary association among people in all facets of life. And that governments role is to secure and protect such liberty and individual rights, not to abridge and violate them.

If this is not done, and done successfully, the road to fiscal failure and paternalistic serfdom may be impossible from which to exit.

[Originally Published at the Future of Freedom Foundation]

Trumps Budgetary Blueprint Retains Americas Welfare State was last modified: March 20th, 2017 by Richard Ebeling

Read this article:

Trump's Budgetary Blueprint Retains America's Welfare State - Somewhat Reasonable - Heartland Institute (blog)

This piece was created in collaboration with Chatham House.Marianne Schneider-Petsinger is the U.S. geoeconomics fellow at Chatham House's U.S. and the Americas Programme. The views expressed are the author's own.

Raising the federal governments borrowing limit will not cause much drama this time around. But the next battles are already brewing.

The debt ceiling is back. As of March 16, the U.S. Treasury has reached its legal borrowing limit; the most recent suspension of the debt ceiling has expired. Less than two months into Trumps presidency, addressing the debt limit is an early test of his ability to get a fiscal deal with the Republican-controlled Congress. However, unlike in 2011 and 2013, when political brinkmanship between Democrats and Republicans led to fears of default, reaching a debt ceiling agreement will be easier -- at least for now.

Initial signs from the Trump administration show that they are not willing to play with fire on the debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stressed during his confirmation hearing and in a recent letter to Congress that honoring the U.S. debt is a critical commitment and urged lawmakers to raise the debt limit at the first opportunity. Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, holds a different philosophy but has sounded less dogmatic since joining the Trump administration. Though he is considered a fiscal hawk and never voted to raise the debt ceiling when he served in Congress, Mulvaney said during his recent confirmation hearing that he would not recommend President Trump negotiate or govern by crisis.

In addition, although Republicans wont abandon fiscal conservatism, they will be reluctant to prompt a showdown in the first year of Trumps presidency. While in the past Republicans have often only agreed to raise the debt ceiling in return for spending cuts, this time around they might not insist on this. Many trust that Trumps economic policies will lead to economic growth of 3-4 percent, and they see this as the best chance of balancing the budget and bringing the debt trajectory under control.

Extraordinary measures that the treasury secretary can take, such as temporarily suspending payments to federal retirement funds, should buy enough time for policymakers to agree to raise the ceiling before fall -- when default becomes imminent according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But that doesnt mean this issue is going away for Trump -- a battle is looming for the next time the debt ceiling comes around. By then, it will be clear that Trumps unrealistic growth expectations, coupled with plans for tax cuts and more infrastructure and defense spending, will actually balloon the deficit and debt. In that scenario, the fiscal hawks in the Republican Party will not stand by silently. The House Freedom Caucus, a group of about 30-40 fiscally conservative representatives, has enough voting strength to deny a House majority based on party lines for raising the debt limit.

This internal fight might force Trump to cut back on some of his spending initiatives. Also, while he has so far insisted that he does not want to cut Social Security and Medicare, he might have to reform them down the road in order to stave off an intraparty clash. Without addressing the two biggest sources of government spending, another debt ceiling standoff is brewing -- with all the attendant consequences for the U.S. and global economies.

View original post here:

The Debt Ceiling Will Come Back to Bite Trump - RealClearWorld

WRIGHTSVILLE -- Kenneth Janski, after spending about 15 of the past 17 years in Arkansas prisons, said he volunteered to extend his current sentence.

Janski opted to remain in a faith-based program aimed at preventing repeat prison stays. He could have withdrawn to complete a substance-abuse course, which the Arkansas Board of Parole ruled in July 2016 was the last prerequisite for his release.

"I chose to stay here until I graduate," said Janski, who is in his fourth prison stint since early 2000, according to prison records. His most recent conviction was on domestic battery and drug charges in 2013, records show.

Janski is one of about 200 male inmates participating in Pathway to Freedom, an 18-month Christianity-focused rehabilitation program at the Arkansas Department of Correction's Hawkins Unit on its Wrightsville campus.

People who graduate from the program have been shown to be less likely to return to prison, Department of Correction spokesman Solomon Graves said.

A Little Rock-based nonprofit administers the pre-release program, one of several aimed at preparing prisoners to re-enter society and thus reduce the number of them who return to prison after their releases. The state's 51.8 percent recidivism rate, according to Graves, means more than one of two people released from prison returns within three years.

Pathway to Freedom does not have comparable recidivism data from its six-year run. Of 115 program graduates released from prison, about 15 percent were jailed again, which is far lower than the statewide average, program director Scott McLean said. However, McLean noted, not all of those graduates have been out for three years.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette was allowed to observe the program in action, on a day when a group of men from multiple Northwest Arkansas churches traveled to the prison unit for a regular seminar. Officials did not restrict access to the prisoners or their living spaces.

Walter E. Hussman Jr., the newspaper's publisher, serves on the nonprofit's board of directors. When the program was on the cusp of folding last year because of a lack of funding, Hussman led efforts to save it after reading an article in the newspaper, McLean said.

Many inmates, including Janski, spoke before and after a worship leader gave a prisoner-targeted sermon, part of a tightly packed schedule structured around the theme of the day, reconciliation.

Pathway to Freedom, which the state sanctions but does not fund, is one of multiple pre-release programs in Arkansas aimed at curbing recidivism. McLean said he would like to add a stronger workforce-based component to the program to increase its appeal for inmates.

Janski, whose body bears tattoos of swastikas and a White Aryan Resistance pyramid, according to Department of Correction records, said the culture in the Hawkins unit is far more subdued than in general population prisons.

"It's like life on the streets times 100," Janski said of the typical prison experience. "Everybody is trying to get over on one another."

Minutes later, Janski danced while a visiting Christian band performed songs of worship. He stood, smiling, in the front row.

"I wanted more," said Janski, who applied five times for the program before he was accepted. "[There is] not much rehabilitation in ADC except what you take advantage of yourself."

McLean formed the nonprofit in 2011 after the national Prison Fellowship shut down its InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Arkansas and other states as funding declined. McLean had moved to Arkansas from Kansas to run that program.

Formerly a work-release site, the low-security unit includes three barrack-style living areas. Cots and bunk beds are clustered together, away from a bank of toilets that have no privacy dividers.

Two of the 75-member barracks are dedicated to inmates actively participating in the program. The third is for new enrollees, as well as graduates awaiting transfer to other programs or other units. A computer lab, library, cafeteria and health care station are spread throughout the facility.

Pathway to Freedom leases the site at no cost, McLean said.

In the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2015, Pathway to Freedom spent $444,000 to run the program, according to its tax filing. About $280,000 of that was spent on salaries, including the $82,000 McLean received.

The Department of Correction covers the costs to feed, house and provide health care to inmates in the program, just as it does for all state prisoners, at a rate of roughly $60 per day, Graves said.

Costs to run the program -- which includes educational lessons on entrepreneurship, anger management, finances, parenting and other topics -- fall to the nonprofit.

Pathway to Freedom picks its enrollees from volunteer applicants. People from all religious backgrounds can enroll, but classes are taught -- and the broader messaging stems from -- a Christ-focused perspective, McLean said.

Since its inception, 893 inmates have enrolled in Pathway to Freedom -- including those currently in the program -- and 291 have completed all 18 months, McLean said.

"We don't make it easy," he said. "You have to give up a lot."

About one in three program participants drop out or are kicked out shortly after they arrive, McLean said.

Inmates who participate must make sacrifices -- such as losing television-viewing privileges until they graduate -- and all must hold jobs of some sort.

Eligibility is not solely based on an inmate's crime. A medium- or lower-custody classification -- which is based on factors such as disciplinary records, length of stay and escape history -- is one of the primary requirements to join.

"A guy who tried to kill a policeman can be here and be part of this program," said Mark Warner, deputy warden of the Wrightsville prison.

For one year after their release, graduates are connected with churches, program volunteers and mentors who try to help them re-enter society.

Last July, the Parole Board told Janski that he would earn release after finishing a 12-month program focused on drug and alcohol abuse, said John Felts, chairman of the Board.

Janski's decision to remain in Pathway to Freedom delayed him from taking that course. He can request that the Parole Board reconsider its decision after he completes the faith-based program -- which includes substance abuse education in its curriculum -- but there is no guarantee the program will be accepted as a substitute.

If not, when Janski graduates in April, he'll still face having to take that yearlong class.

"The reason that is the case is because it's a religious-based program, and we've been advised by the [attorney general's] office and [Department of Correction] folks that we cannot mandate a program like that," Felts said. "Even though they request it, we cannot mandate that."

Multiple inmates in the program have informed parole officers that they wish to complete Pathway to Freedom before being paroled, McLean said.

Tyrone Hampton, in his eighth prison stay since February 1991, said he recently told a parole officer of his wish to complete the program before he's released. The Parole Board hasn't decided his case yet.

"I don't think the way that I thought," Hampton said of how the program influenced him. "It took me from being a gang-banger to a disciple of Christ."

Hampton is serving a 25-year prison sentence stemming from a 2010 conviction of possessing a controlled substance. He was sentenced as a habitual offender. Hampton said the substance was methamphetamine and that he intended to sell it.

Dating to the early 1990s, Hampton has been convicted on carnal abuse, and several burglary and theft charges, according to his inmate records.

"I wanted things quick and easy," Hampton said.

Northwest Arkansas churchgoers toured the unit during the March 10 seminar and helped lead religion-based sessions. Volunteers facilitate the seminars eight times a year, McLean said.

"We all need a second chance in life" said 56-year-old Steve Sanchez, a first-time volunteer who worships at Harvest Time church in Fort Smith. "I've done a lot of wrong in my life. I just was lucky and didn't get caught."

Grant Nesbit, a part-time worship leader at Harvest Time, led a half-hour sermon. "I'm surprised they let me come back [to speak] because I'm liable to say anything," he said before removing the microphone from its stand and beginning his session.

Nesbit drew from Revelation 3:16, which in the King James Bible says, "So then because thou art lukewarm ... I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Nesbit urged his audience to not be "lukewarm" or "apathetic" and to fully embrace God.

At times, he used humor to connect, such as when he asked members of the group to raise their hands if they cry.

"If you lie, you fry," he said to laughter. "Get your hands up, babies."

Nesbit, who said he was imprisoned at one point in his life, told members of his audience that he wanted to update them on what's going on in the world.

He said he is disgusted by politics, protesters, modern music and the way young people seem to be attached to their cellphones. He then shared his displeasure about teenagers congregating at malls, saying they sometimes bump into him as a form of intimidation.

"I love God, and I will lay hands on you," he said in mock response before joking about striking the teenagers -- whom he called "little punks" -- in their faces with his knee.

Nesbit told the prisoners that he didn't travel from Fort Smith to "patronize" or "baby" them during his session.

"You need me to kick you in the ask, not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country," Nesbit said, adding about his flirtation with profanity: "That scared the leaders."

He later repeated the famous line from President John F. Kennedy's inaugural address with the word "God" in place of "country" before closing the talk with a prayer.

Graves, who said he heard portions of the sermon, said a "greater level of frankness" is required when addressing inmates who don't want to listen to someone they feel is manipulating them.

"That's what makes the program successful," he said.

McLean said jailhouse sermons must strike a balance between being "firm and loving."

"You're not going to come in here and play patty-cake," he said. "They're not going to hear you."

Nesbit's audience laughed, clapped and was responsive throughout the talk. They then moved into smaller groups for a discussion about reconciliation.

An inmate in one of the sessions volunteered that he had recently written a letter to his son, whom he had abandoned, and asked for forgiveness. He said he also sent a letter to his father, asking to know why he was abandoned as a child -- "What was wrong with me?" -- but he did not receive a response.

The church volunteer leading the discussion praised the inmate for reaching out to his son and breaking a multigenerational pattern.

A Section on 03/19/2017

Print Headline: Program sets inmates on new path; 18-month Christianity-based effort aims to reduce recidivism

See the original post here:

Program sets Arkansas inmates on new path; Christianity-based effort aims to reduce recidivism - Arkansas Online

[Ed. Note: To see exactly what this former Reagan insider has to say about Trump and the fiscal threats from politics and the debt ceiling, David Stockman is sending out a copy of his bookTrumped! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Backto any American willing to listen before it is too late. To learn how to get your free copyCLICK HERE.]

Speaker Ryans Obamacare repeal and replace plan, as Ive been predicting, is a complete fiscal disaster.

Not only will it add $1.1 trillion to the Federal deficit over the next decade, but, more importantly, it reforms exactly nothing.

It leaves Obamas big Medicaid expansion virtually in place, swaps one kind of tax credit for another in the individual insurance market and leaves the huge, perverse tax subsidy amounting to upwards of $350 billion per year for employer plans completely untouched.

This latter point exemplifies the Profiles in Cowardice that suffuses the Ryan Plan; and shows that if the legislation ever does make it through the House and Senate, it will cost every penny as much as Obamacare when all the vote getting deals are finally done.

From a fiscal perspective, the Ryan plan starts $1.1 trillion in the hole on a ten-year basis because it repeals, appropriately, the individual and employer mandates and the Obamacare taxes on providers, high cost plans, medical devices and high income taxpayers.

The mandates would have generated nearly $300 billion in fines over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and upwards of $800 billion from the Obama tax grabs.

So the new plan is bleeding $1.1 trillion in red ink before the black ink is dry on the remainder of its 123 pages.

Likewise, an earlier draft of the Ryan plan provoked an outcry from fiscal hawks in the Freedom Caucus and Republican Study group because it established a new entitlement in the guise of reform.

In typical fashion, however, the revised plan puts a fig leaf over Ryans age-based tax credit entitlement by eliminating Bill Gates eligibility for a $4,000 tax credit (hes 61) along with a few million other American households in the super-affluent tier.

I doubt, however, whether anyone who can do 5th grade math will be fooled by Ryans double shuffle. The new provisions still amount to a massive tax credit entitlement that in some ways is for more profligate than Obamas health exchange premium subsidies.

In theory, upwards of 95% of households are eligible to claim some or all of these tax credits which range from $2,000 to $4,000 per person based on age brackets. Thats a multi-trillion entitlement under any other name.

Then again, the tax credit for individual policies is only the tip of the medical entitlement iceberg.

The U.S. has a sweeping medical entitlement system that will cost more than $24 trillion over the next decade, but Ryans new plan simply perpetuates the status quo.

These entitlements amount to almost double the 10-year cost of $13.2 trillion for social security. And 7X the $3.3 trillion cost for benefits like foods stamps and welfare.

Yet the crushing cost inflation and excessive utilization that has ballooned the U.S. health care system to 18% of GDP (compared to 10-12% for virtually all other developed countries) results directly from these massive government subsidies.

They foster a perverse system of socialism for beneficiaries and crony capitalism for the providers and their various cartels.

The heart of the problem is a giant third-party payment system that essentially eliminates market pricing and consumer shopping behavior. The result is overutilization of services, overpricing, and free-riding.

When virtually everything is paid for by third-parties, you do not have price-conscious, shopping-oriented, cost-minimizing consumers who have their own money at risk just several hundred million cost-indifferent patients with various kinds of prepaid cards (e.g. medicare, Medicaid, blue cross, employer plans, etc).

Needless to say, there is no such thing as a true free market when their are no real consumers.

What passes for the health care market today is just a bureaucratic clearing house where provider cartels attempt to maximize their billings while insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs and utilization review and pre-approval agencies seek to minimize what they certify for payment.

As a result, the medical professions and delivery system have morphed into Washingtons greatest crony capitalist lobby.

The consequence, in turn, is high prices, endless hassles over coverage and pre-approvals and a complete loss of consumers sovereignty over their own health care costs and quality. And that is what the public whether it fully recognizes it or not fundamentally objects to about Obamacare.

At the end of the day this is health care socialism and it is what will finally bankrupt America. Yet Speaker Ryans Obamacare Lite plans keeps that system fully in place. After all, the K-Street lobbies which essentially drafted his bill would have it no other way.

Needless to say, if you lay an unreformed Medicaid program and ultra-generous tax credits on the current inefficient and bloated system the only thing that will result is an eventual fiscal hemorrhage.

The Obamacare exchange premium subsidies would have cost about $900 billion over the next decade. But I am more than confident that the new Ryan medical credits will cost every bit of that amount and probably a lot more. How could it be otherwise, when families with a quarter million dollars of annual income are eligible for the largesse?

But the real skunk in the woodpile is Ryans smoke and mirrors on Medicaid. According to CBO, the current law will cost $5.2 trillion over the next decade, and when we add in the state matching share the total taxpayer cost is about $8.5 trillion.

Yet I see no reason to believe that Obamacare Lite will cost any measurable amount less.

In the first place, the new Ryan Plan does not repeal the Obama Medicaid expansion to cover everyone up to 138% of the poverty line. The 11 million recipients Obama added to bring the Medicaid rolls to about 70 million would stay the same.

The only thing the Ryan plan does is that after 2020, anyone eligible for the expansion, but not on the rolls as of December 31, 2019, will be funded at the standard Medicaid matching rate of about 57% on average, not 90%.

But whatever savings that produces will be negated by Ryans sop to the GOP governors. Namely, the new $100 billion innovation grant program to the states for subsidizing high cost populations (pre-existing conditions) and other purposes.

In short, the Federal Medicaid cost would be about $600 billion annually by 2027 compared to CBOs current estimate of $650 billion under current law. And by the time they get done with the vote-count deal making, even that small savings will likely disappear entirely.

Ultimately, the Ryan bill amounts to shuffling the deck chairs on Americas fiscal Titanic.

Neither the GOP Congressional contingents nor Donald Trump explained to the American public that the problem is really too much health insurance and way too much government spending and subsidization of consumer medical costs.

In order to pacify the K-Street medical lobbies and the approximate 35 red state governors and legislators, Ryan has just fuzzed up Medicaid and transformed the Obama premium subsidies into even more generous tax credits.

But it wont work. If the House leadership cannot round up the votes for a deficit neutral repeal and replace bill which is totally out of reach in the current draft they will not bring it to the House floor for a vote before the Easter recess or anytime soon thereafter.

Back in the day, I learned a powerful lesson peddling the Reagan spending cuts as mild as most of them were. Namely, that if the courage-challenged House GOP back-benchers do not see a path to Senate passage they wont walk the plank in the first place.

And they especially dont want to have to explain their wasted vote to angry crowds of Soros and DNC instigated crowds at town meetings from now until the next election.

I have been arguing that the Donald is the Great Disrupter who will bring the nations mutant system of debt-ridden, Bubble Finance crashing down. His nave belief that Obamacare can be fixed with block grants, tax credits and interstate insurance competition (which already exists) is a case in point.

Soon the Congressional GOP will fracture over Obamacare Lite, and I dont know who puts it back together.

Regards,

David Stockman for The Daily Reckoning

Go here to read the rest:

Obamacare Lite: A Fiscal Fraud - Daily Reckoning

The request includes $5.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funds so the department can accelerate the campaign to defeat ISIS and support Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2017 In a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan today, President Donald J. Trump asked for another $30 billion for the Defense Department in this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, to rebuild the armed forces and accelerate the campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jeffery Self, 8th Security Forces Squadron, advances toward opposing forces during a training scenario at Kunsan Air Base, South as part of exercise Beverly Pack 17-2, a no-notice training exercise used to improve responses to base threats, March 7, 2017. President Donald J. Trump is asking Congress for an additional $30 billion in fiscal 2017 Defense Department funding to meet urgent military readiness needs. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Jeff Andrejcik

The fiscal 2017 budget amendment provides $24.9 billion in base funds for urgent warfighting readiness needs and to begin a sustained effort to rebuild the armed forces, according to the presidents letter.

The request seeks to address critical budget shortfalls in personnel, training, maintenance, equipment, munitions, modernization and infrastructure investment. It represents a critical first step in investing in a larger, more ready and more capable military force, Trump wrote.

The request includes $5.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funds so the department can accelerate the campaign to defeat ISIS and support Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Afghanistan, he said, noting that the request would enable DoD to pursue a comprehensive strategy to end the threat ISIS poses to the United States.

Continuing Resolution

At the Pentagon this afternoon, senior defense officials briefed reporters on the on the fiscal 2017 budget amendment. The speakers wereJohn P. Roth, performing the duties of undersecretary of defense-comptroller, andArmy Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Ierardi, director of force structure, resources and assessment on theJoint Staff.

Our request to Congress is that they pass a full-year defense appropriations bill, and that the bill includes the additional $30 billion, Roth said. We are now approaching the end of our sixth month under a continuing resolution, he added, one of the longest periods that we have ever been under a continuing resolution.

Crying Needs

The continuing resolution run for the rest of the fiscal year, Pentagon officials would find that extremely harmful to the defense program, Roth said.

We are essentially kind of muddling along right now in terms of borrowing resources against third- and fourth-quarter kinds of finances in order to keep things going, he said. But that game gets to be increasingly difficult as we go deeper into the fiscal year.

Under a continuing resolution, the department has to operate under a fiscal 2016 mandate, creating a large mismatch between operations funds and procurement funds, Roth explained. The department cant spend procurement dollars because theres a restriction on new starts and on increasing production, he said, but we have crying needs in terms of training, readiness, maintenance ... and in the operation and maintenance account.

The continuing resolution expires April 28, so before then, we would want a full appropriation and, of course, a full appropriation with this additional $30 billion, he said.

The Next Challenge

Roth said much of the money in the fiscal 2017 request is funding for operations and maintenance.

We're asking for additional equipment maintenance funding, additional facilities maintenance, spare parts, additional training events, peacetime flying hours, ship operations, munitions and those kinds of things, said he told reporters. This is the essence of what keeps this department running on a day-to-day basis. It keeps us up and allows us to get ready for whatever the next challenge is.

The officials said full support from Congress is key to improving warfighter readiness, providing the most capable modern force, and increasing the 2011 Budget Control Act funding cap for defense.

(Follow Cheryl Pellerin on Twitter @PellerinDoDNews)

Read the original here:

White House Requests $30 Billion More for US Military - to Rebuild ... - Scout

Because there is a conflict in district court rulings on his temporary travel restriction, President Trump could go ahead and implement it, some constitutional scholars believe.

The Trump administration Friday afternoon filed for an appeal of a Marylandfederal judges ruling that the revised ban violates the First Amendment by disfavoring a particular religion. The case goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

But a federal judge in Boston approved the original order, noted attorney Robert Barnes in an interview with XM Sirius radios Breitbart Daily News.

Barnes, arguing the Constitution and federal law give the president the authorityto restrict entry to the country, said Trumpcould always do a true Andrew Jackson, the last president to challenge a court usurping authority they did not have.

Jacksons response to the Supreme Court, in that instance, was: Well, theyve issued their decision; now, they can enforce it.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, Americas independent news network.

But Barnes noted Trump can argue that because the federal court in Boston approved Trumps Jan. 27 ban in a detailed 21-page order, the president would be in his legal rights to say: Theres a conflict between the courts. Until the Supreme Court addresses this, Im going to do whats appropriate to keep the country safe.'

Barnesacknowledged the media backlash that would ensue, but he noted that Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz made that argument when the Ninth Circuit upheld a block on the original order by a federal judge in Seattle.

A Hawaii judge also put a temporary block on Trumps revised ban, but an appeal of that casewould have gone to the same San Francisco-based appeals court that rejected the originalversion of the ban.

Barnes pointed out that theHawaii judge issued a nationwide injunction against Trumps order.

His basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens, Barnes told Breitbart Daily News.

Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights.

He explained the Constitution doesnt extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time.

The case was brought on behalf of Hawaiis leading Muslim imam, who wants to bring over family and friends fromSyria.

Trumps new order bars issuing visas to travelers from Syria and five other Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspends the entire U.S. refugee program for 120 days. It also caps the total number of refugees admitted this fiscal year at 50,000, instead of 110,000.

Hawaii contends Trumps order treats Muslims in the state as second class citizens, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The states petition cites comments by Trump and his surrogates during the campaign to argue that the temporary ban is motivated by animus toward Muslims, violating constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws.

The Hawaii judge, Barnes noted, ruled the imamhas a First Amendment constitutional right to oppose Trumps banbecause hes Muslim.

It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned, where the issue of terror arises from, that that meant they had a special right to visit the [United States], he said.

Barnes pointed outthat the judge did not cite any prior decision.

Barnesargued the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Din decision last year, implicitly ruledthe right to association does not include a right to bring foreigners into the United States.

When you have law professors like Jonathan Turley or Alan Dershowitz or Jeffrey Toobin saying that the prior Ninth Circuit decision which did not go as far as this case did, as the Hawaii judge did saying it basically is bad law, then you know how bad the law actually is, Barnes said.

Reasonable restrictions

WND reported last week that if the administration continues to be thwarted by federal courts, it could implement an alternative security measure that would be authorized by the statute cited in the presidents executive order,according to a prominent Georgetown University professor.

John Banzhaf noted in an interview with WND that Germanys cabinet last month approved a measure allowing GPS ankle tracking devices for individuals who are suspected of posing a terrorist threat but havent been charged or convicted.

Banzhaf pointed out the U.S. law cited in the Trump order, 8 USC 1182(f), gives the president the authority to impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, Americas independent news network.

If the federal-court block on the travel ban continues or the Trump administration loses the case, Banzhaf said, I think they would do well to consider the second part of that article, which permits the president to put any reasonable restrictions on which he wishes.

Its the first part of the statute, he said, that gives the president the authority to ban certain travelers.

It says that he can make an order based upon class of person. And I think any reasonable reading of that doesnt mean hes going to differentiate based upon tall people or short people or whether they have long noses or short noses, Banzhof explained.

When you say class, youre talking about ethnicity, youre talking about religion, youre talking about country of origin, he said.

The statute reads:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Trump is telling us, the Georgetown professor said, that based upon the very weak governmental structure, bordering on chaos, in many of these countries, it is virtually impossible to reasonably vet them, to be able to say beyond any reasonable suspicion these are not, in his words, bad dudes.'

The rest is here:

Trump could 'do an Andrew Jackson' to save travel ban - WND.com