Well here I go, I'm slogging in to break down the biggest piece of legislation I've tackled so far. It's passed the House but the Senate is still questionable. This bill is thankfully going viral right now over some of the heavier hitting items but, as with any large legislation, there is a lot more packed in here than first meets the eye. Here is a point by point breakdown of HR 1628:
Title I- Energy and Commerce
Subtitle A—Patient Access To Public Health Programs
- Sec 101- Ends funding of the Prevention and Public Health Fund beginning fiscal year 2019
- Sec 102- Gives an additional $422 million to Community Health Centers for fiscal year 2017
- Sec 103- States may not use Federal funding for payments to "prohibited entities"- defined as tax exempt organizations that provide abortions for reasons other than rape, incest, and health of the mother AND received more than a total of $350 million from Federal and State Medicaid in fiscal year 2014
Subtitle B—Medicaid Program Enhancement
- Sec 111- Ends certain Medicaid provisions as of December 31, 2019
- Sec 112- Ends the Medicaid expansion effective December 31, 2019, caps Federal reimbursement at 80%, and ends the Essential Health Benefit requirement
- Sec 113- Eliminates DSH (payments to hospitals who treat indigent patients) cuts for states that did not adopt the Medicaid expansion
- Sec 114- Reducing Medicaid costs by:
1) Disenrolling those who receive a large lump sum of money either from lottery or inheritance
2) Repeals retroactive enrollment which allows individuals to be covered up to three months prior to their date of their application to prevent gaps in coverage
3) Allowing states to withhold payment for medical assistance until "the presentation of satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality"
4) Removes a provision that allowed states to set a higher benchmark for ineligibility of coverage for nursing facility and long term care based on the individual's home value
- Sec 115- Providing additional funding to non-expansion states to balance funding that was penalized under the ACA
- Sec 116- Increases frequency of Eligibility Redeterminations to at least once every 6 months
Subtitle C—Per Capita Allotment For Medical Assistance
- Sec 121- This section is extraordinarily hefty and adds an entire new section (1903A) to the code for calculating Federal payments to States. These payments are designated per capita with breakdowns for different types of enrollees and how much will be allocated. It also breaks down penalties for States for failing to report the breakdown of enrollees and if a State has "excess aggregate medical assistance expenditures"
Subtitle D—Patient Relief And Health Insurance Market Stability
- Sec 131- Repeals the cost sharing subsidy effective December 31, 2019
- Sec 132- Adds Title XXII to the Social Security Act effecting the following:
1) Establishes a "Patient and State Stability Fund" to be effective from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2026
2) Funds to be used by States for:
a) helping high-risk individuals with no employer health care enroll in the individual market
b) provide incentives to "entities" to stabilize premiums on the individual market
c) reducing the cost of providing health insurance to people with a high rate of health service utilization on the individual and small group markets
d) promoting participation and insurance options on the individual and small group markets
e) promoting access to preventative, dental, vision, addiction, and mental health services
f) providing payments to health care providers for services specified by the Administrator
g) providing assistance to reduce out-of-pocket costs
3) States must apply for funding with a stated plan of what the funding will be used for which will be considered a "state health care program"
4) Allocates $15 billion in 2018 and 2019 and $10 billion from 2020-2026 from the Treasury, it also sets out how the funds will be divided among states and a minimum requirement for state contributions to above programs
- Sec 133- Establishes a penalty of 30% of the premium rate to be assessed to individuals with a lapse of coverage greater than 63 days during the previous 12 month period. This penalty will be added the the individual's monthly premium rate for the first 12 months under a new plan.
- Sec 134- Ends the Essential Health Benefit Package beginning December 31, 2019
- Sec 135- Increases the allowable age variance in premiums from the current level of 3 to 1 up to 5 to 1
Title II—Committee on Ways and Means
Subtitle A—Repeal And Replace Of Health-Related Tax Policy
- Sec 201- From December 31, 2017 to January 1, 2020 there will be no limit to the increase in Excess Advance Payments
- Sec 202- Conforming amendments:
1) Changes the definition of "qualified health plan" to exclude plans that were grandfathered or grandmothered (transitional plans offered as of January 1, 2014) in and those that provide for abortion in cases other than rape, incest, or health of the mother
2) Allows abortion coverage to be purchased separately
3) Credits may not be given for plans that were not purchased on an exchange
4) Modifies the applicable percentage to tax credits, giving a sliding scale base on income and age
- Sec 203- Repeals the premium tax credit
- Sec 204- Small Business Tax Credit to end on December 31, 2019 and disallows abortion with the usual caveat
- Sec 205- Zeros out the individual mandate
- Sec 206- Zeros out the employer mandate
- Sec 207- Excise tax on high cost employer health care will not apply from December 31, 2019 to January 1, 2025
- Sec 208- Allows the use of Health Flexible Spending Accounts for over the counter drugs
- Sec 209- Reduces penalty on Health Flexible Spending Account funds used for non-medical purposes
- Sec 210- Repeals cap on contributions to Flexible Spending Accounts
- Sec 211- Repeals tax on medical devices
- Sec 212- Repeals elimination of deduction for Medicare Part D Subsidy
- Sec 213- Returns income threshold for medical deductions to 7.5%
- Sec 214- Repeal of Medicare tax increase (current documents do not appear to be different from proposed changes)
- Sec 215- sets out a tax credit for those with health care coverage not provided by an employer with the following provisions:
1) Tax credit will be in the amount of $166/month for those under 30, twice that for those over 60, and graduated in between
2) Social Security benefits received will be added to Adjusted Gross Income for the purpose of determining the amount of the credit
3) Yearly tax credit not to exceed $14,000 and only to be totaled based on the 5 oldest individuals
4) Health insurance that qualifies for the tax credit must not allow for abortion except for the previously stated exceptions
5) Married couples required to file jointly in order to receive credit
6) Tax credit may be applied directly and in advance for health insurance costs
7) Tax credit will be reduced by the value of any advance payments made on the individual's behalf
8) Credit may be payed into a health savings account
9) Credit will be withheld from those with "seriously delinquent tax debt"
10) Strikes reference to the Basic Health Program from the tax code
- Sec 216- Increases allowable contributions to Health Savings Accounts to the total of the yearly deductible and out of pocket limitations
- Sec 217- Allows both spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same Health Savings Account
- Sec 218- Health Savings Accounts established within 60 days of opening a high deductible health plan shall be considered to be opened at the same time as the health plan
Subtitle B—Repeal Of Certain Consumer Taxes
- Sec 221- Repeals tax on branded prescription drug providers and importers
- Sec 222- Repeals tax on health insurance providers
Subtitle C—Repeal Of Tanning Tax
- Sec 231- Repeals tax on indoor tanning services
Subtitle D—Remuneration From Certain Insurers
- Sec 241- Repeals tax on luxury health insurance plans
Subtitle E—Repeal Of Net Investment Income Tax
- Sec 251- Repeals 3.8% tax on individuals making more than $200,000 ($250,000 if married) and on certain investment income
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Valuing Families
I've been fighting political burn out badly these last couple weeks as things continue to trudge on with too many political gaffes and policy blunders to fully account for. I've turned to my safe haven of books for solace. First with "The Next America" which I reviewed just a few days ago and now with Hillary Clinton's infamous "It Takes a Village." I plan to post a full review once I've finished it with the intent of either verifying or debunking much of the propaganda surrounding the book but so far I've only made it through chapter one. There is a particular quote in this early chapter that has inspired today's post:
To start I want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing when we say families. By families I am referring to people who are bound together by love, blood, and obligation. This includes those with and without children, all ages, races, religions, and genders. A family should be counted regardless of marital status, incorporating single parents, step family, married couples, and cohabiting partners. A family can be as little as two people but has no upper limit as it may come to include extended family and branch through three and even four generations. Even roommates with no romantic entanglement may be considered a family when they rely on each other for support in their daily lives. I would define family in the broadest of terms as two or more people who directly rely on one another for mental, emotional, and physical (including financial) support.
Now, on a governmental level, how should we value families? This can be accomplished by removing barriers and ensuring that every family has equal access to being healthy, safe, and financially secure. Seems simple doesn't it? Most things do when considered in their most general form. The difficulty comes in the details but hopefully this has given us a good starting position to examine what real actions our government should be taking to make this a reality for all Americans.
Health- I've treated the issue of health care in America in a previous post so here I will just attempt to sum things up. The greatest barrier to quality health care in America is financial. To remove this barrier necessitates a complete overhaul of our current system to make sure that any time a citizen needs to go to the doctor, get medication, or have a procedure done they are able to do so without undue financial burden. The government should also be pursuing scientific research to expand our knowledge of the human body, develop new treatments/medications for illnesses, better understand nutrition, and investigate environmental factors that influence human health. Policies and regulations should be written to improve and protect human health to the greatest extent possible.
Safety- This topic has two key elements, prevention and protection. It also has two scopes, domestic and international. International prevention is obtained through building allies, intelligence gathering, and supporting at risk nations to harbor good relationships abroad. International protection comes through direct military action. Domestic prevention takes the form of community building, education, and economic development. Domestic protection takes the form of police/fire services as well as the jail/prison system. Smart domestic policies start by recognizing that prevention is a form of supporting families which leads to a decreased need for protection services. Policies must be formed and action taken to remove the substantial bias, particularly in regards to race, that permeates our criminal justice system. Sentencing must be appropriate to the crime and applied equally to all perpetrators. Action must also be taken to reduce recidivism through education and community support to ensure offenders are given the opportunity to create/reunite their families and become productive members of society.
Financial Security- This topic is related to the two above but also stands on its own. I am not advocating a "welfare for all" system but rather a system that makes sure the basic needs, such as food and shelter, of every American are being met while providing every citizen the ability to achieve financial success and the American dream. A large part of this can be taken as a "teach a man to fish" style philosophy. When we provide citizens of this country with the highest quality of education, from kindergarten all the way through higher education, we are giving the greatest number of individuals the opportunity to succeed. I would also advocate funding not just Universities and Community Colleges but also quality trade schools and apprenticeship programs to make sure the workers of the future are diversified across all sectors of the economy. Actions to stabilize and grow the economy should be a perennial item on Congress' to do list. We must also learn to be adaptable in the face of a changing economic landscape. As some industries grow and others decay the government must be prepared to transition the nation's workforce instead of clinging to outdated industries until communities collapse under their own weight.
Talking about family values can sometimes be a picture of The Simpson's Helen Lovejoy shouting "Think of the children" but it doesn't have to be. Smart governmental policies protect individuals and families of all types without getting into unnecessary moral quandaries. If politicians were to set their minds solely on valuing families we would come a long way towards improving the everyday lives of Americans across the board.
"A nation that doesn't just espouse family values but values families and children."This quote has struck home with me as, more than 20 years after the first printing, it seems our government does more and more of the former and far too little of the latter. This is clearly evidenced in the sorry state of our education system and Congress seeking health care reforms that would cause millions to lose their health insurance. We hear plenty about family values, often with "traditional" leading the statement, but let's take the time to flip the coin and ask the question just how do we value families?
To start I want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing when we say families. By families I am referring to people who are bound together by love, blood, and obligation. This includes those with and without children, all ages, races, religions, and genders. A family should be counted regardless of marital status, incorporating single parents, step family, married couples, and cohabiting partners. A family can be as little as two people but has no upper limit as it may come to include extended family and branch through three and even four generations. Even roommates with no romantic entanglement may be considered a family when they rely on each other for support in their daily lives. I would define family in the broadest of terms as two or more people who directly rely on one another for mental, emotional, and physical (including financial) support.
Now, on a governmental level, how should we value families? This can be accomplished by removing barriers and ensuring that every family has equal access to being healthy, safe, and financially secure. Seems simple doesn't it? Most things do when considered in their most general form. The difficulty comes in the details but hopefully this has given us a good starting position to examine what real actions our government should be taking to make this a reality for all Americans.
Health- I've treated the issue of health care in America in a previous post so here I will just attempt to sum things up. The greatest barrier to quality health care in America is financial. To remove this barrier necessitates a complete overhaul of our current system to make sure that any time a citizen needs to go to the doctor, get medication, or have a procedure done they are able to do so without undue financial burden. The government should also be pursuing scientific research to expand our knowledge of the human body, develop new treatments/medications for illnesses, better understand nutrition, and investigate environmental factors that influence human health. Policies and regulations should be written to improve and protect human health to the greatest extent possible.
Safety- This topic has two key elements, prevention and protection. It also has two scopes, domestic and international. International prevention is obtained through building allies, intelligence gathering, and supporting at risk nations to harbor good relationships abroad. International protection comes through direct military action. Domestic prevention takes the form of community building, education, and economic development. Domestic protection takes the form of police/fire services as well as the jail/prison system. Smart domestic policies start by recognizing that prevention is a form of supporting families which leads to a decreased need for protection services. Policies must be formed and action taken to remove the substantial bias, particularly in regards to race, that permeates our criminal justice system. Sentencing must be appropriate to the crime and applied equally to all perpetrators. Action must also be taken to reduce recidivism through education and community support to ensure offenders are given the opportunity to create/reunite their families and become productive members of society.
Financial Security- This topic is related to the two above but also stands on its own. I am not advocating a "welfare for all" system but rather a system that makes sure the basic needs, such as food and shelter, of every American are being met while providing every citizen the ability to achieve financial success and the American dream. A large part of this can be taken as a "teach a man to fish" style philosophy. When we provide citizens of this country with the highest quality of education, from kindergarten all the way through higher education, we are giving the greatest number of individuals the opportunity to succeed. I would also advocate funding not just Universities and Community Colleges but also quality trade schools and apprenticeship programs to make sure the workers of the future are diversified across all sectors of the economy. Actions to stabilize and grow the economy should be a perennial item on Congress' to do list. We must also learn to be adaptable in the face of a changing economic landscape. As some industries grow and others decay the government must be prepared to transition the nation's workforce instead of clinging to outdated industries until communities collapse under their own weight.
Talking about family values can sometimes be a picture of The Simpson's Helen Lovejoy shouting "Think of the children" but it doesn't have to be. Smart governmental policies protect individuals and families of all types without getting into unnecessary moral quandaries. If politicians were to set their minds solely on valuing families we would come a long way towards improving the everyday lives of Americans across the board.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Review: The Next America
Title: The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown
By: Paul Taylor and the Pew Research Center
Dense in statistics and broad in scope I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a closer look at what makes America, culturally speaking, and a glimpse at what the future may hold for entitlement programs. This book is, at its heart, concerned with the the imminent problems of Social Security and Medicare in a nation with an aging population where the financial math is quickly reaching a crisis point.
To understand the problems and potential solutions this text looks at America's changing demographics broken down into the primary 4 generations currently living. The first is the Silents (born 1928-1945) who are currently the most senior generation at age 72+ and are currently benefiting from our entitlement programs. Next, and largest, is the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) who have just started leaving the work force en mass and drawing off of Social Security making the financial woes of the system all the more apparent. The smallest generation is the Gen Xers (born 1965-1980) who bridge the gap to the next generational powerhouse. The Millennials (born 1981-?) rival the Baby Boomers in size and are significantly different politically and socially from the generations who have come before. The author spends the most time contrasting the Boomers and Millennials as these two generations hold the greatest sway from sheer size alone.
Within this generational framework the text examines multiple aspects of America. In addition to general political leanings the author spends a chapter each on the financial circumstances, race/ethnic composition, views on marriage, religion, and technological adaptability of the various generations. The author also takes the time to compare America as a whole to several of our international neighbors, showing how some countries are fairing better than others but how all seem to be making their way towards much more senior populations and the consequences of this demographic shift.
All of this is brought around to conclusion with the question "how best to honor our commitments to the old without bankrupting the young and starving the future?" (pg. 194) The author provides only a general outline of how this should be done as the details of policy reform would no doubt take twice as many pages as it took to outline the problem to begin with.
Written in 2014 this book is a bit dated but the heart of the research and conclusions it draws still ring true. President Obama, despite effort, was unable to make significant headway towards resolving the problems. Now, with Donald Trump sitting in the White House, it seems even less likely for the nation to make progress towards resolving our looming Social Security and Medicare budget issues in the next few years. Hopefully the next president will be up for taking on the task. And hopefully by then it won't be too late to save these essential programs.
By: Paul Taylor and the Pew Research Center
Dense in statistics and broad in scope I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a closer look at what makes America, culturally speaking, and a glimpse at what the future may hold for entitlement programs. This book is, at its heart, concerned with the the imminent problems of Social Security and Medicare in a nation with an aging population where the financial math is quickly reaching a crisis point.
To understand the problems and potential solutions this text looks at America's changing demographics broken down into the primary 4 generations currently living. The first is the Silents (born 1928-1945) who are currently the most senior generation at age 72+ and are currently benefiting from our entitlement programs. Next, and largest, is the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) who have just started leaving the work force en mass and drawing off of Social Security making the financial woes of the system all the more apparent. The smallest generation is the Gen Xers (born 1965-1980) who bridge the gap to the next generational powerhouse. The Millennials (born 1981-?) rival the Baby Boomers in size and are significantly different politically and socially from the generations who have come before. The author spends the most time contrasting the Boomers and Millennials as these two generations hold the greatest sway from sheer size alone.
Within this generational framework the text examines multiple aspects of America. In addition to general political leanings the author spends a chapter each on the financial circumstances, race/ethnic composition, views on marriage, religion, and technological adaptability of the various generations. The author also takes the time to compare America as a whole to several of our international neighbors, showing how some countries are fairing better than others but how all seem to be making their way towards much more senior populations and the consequences of this demographic shift.
All of this is brought around to conclusion with the question "how best to honor our commitments to the old without bankrupting the young and starving the future?" (pg. 194) The author provides only a general outline of how this should be done as the details of policy reform would no doubt take twice as many pages as it took to outline the problem to begin with.
Written in 2014 this book is a bit dated but the heart of the research and conclusions it draws still ring true. President Obama, despite effort, was unable to make significant headway towards resolving the problems. Now, with Donald Trump sitting in the White House, it seems even less likely for the nation to make progress towards resolving our looming Social Security and Medicare budget issues in the next few years. Hopefully the next president will be up for taking on the task. And hopefully by then it won't be too late to save these essential programs.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
H.R.1275 - World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017
The name of this bill is certainly full of itself but do the contents live up to the name?
The bill is extensive. Due to its complexity and multiple references to large portion of US Code I will base my analysis on the summary provided for the bill about its intent and actions.
1) Stated: "This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the requirements for individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage and for large employers to offer affordable coverage to full time employees."
Meaning: Individuals will once again be able to gamble with their health by sacrificing health insurance to pay for other things. It also allows large employers to deny health benefits to their employees. Considering employers often obtain better deals on insurance by enrolling in group health care plans this will likely result in greater costs to their employees wishing to maintain their health benefits.
2) Stated: "Health insurance is no longer required to cover preventive care at no cost or include the essential health benefits."
Meaning: A greater number of people will postpone preventative care for financial reasons resulting in increased long term medical complications and costs. Also, insurers will be allowed to cut costs by offering plans that do not provide for the whole body care of an individual. This includes removing provisions for things such as prenatal, labs, pediatrics, etc.
3) Stated: "Individuals enrolling in health insurance who have not maintained continuous coverage over the previous 12 months are charged an extra 20% on premiums for each consecutive year without coverage, unless the individual is subject to similar state incentives to maintain coverage."
Meaning: This measure appears counterproductive as those who have already suffered a lapse of coverage will now face a significant financial burden when they are ready to regain health insurance. Instead of encouraging people to maintain coverage from the start this will only discourage people from re-enrolling once they are in a financial position to do so.
4) Stated: "States may enroll uninsured residents in high deductible health plans. Individuals must be permitted to opt-out of this coverage."
Meaning: States may offer residents emergency only health plans which provides no incentive for individuals to maintain regular preventative care and are likely to result in increased long term medical complications due to the postponement of treatment for financial reasons.
5) Stated: "The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must develop a risk adjustment mechanism for health insurance in the individual market."
Meaning: Helps offset costs to insurers providing coverage for high risk individuals
6) Stated: "For residents of a state to qualify for premium subsidies or the health insurance tax credit in this bill, the state must permit health insurance with an annual limit on benefits to be sold on its exchange."
Meaning: Allows insurers to put an annual cap on benefits which negatively effects those with severe or chronic illnesses requiring expensive treatments or medication. States are forced to allow this if they wish for their residents to receive federal subsidies and tax credits.
7) Stated: "The bill establishes an advanceable, refundable health insurance tax credit for taxpayers enrolled in coverage that does not cover abortion except in certain circumstances."
Meaning: Gives a monetary incentive for taxpayers to enroll in plans that do not cover abortion.
8) Stated: "States may: (1) apply to HHS to use unclaimed health insurance tax credits for indigent health care; and (2) enroll Medicaid-eligible individuals in health insurance that qualifies for the tax credit instead of in Medicaid, at the individual's option."
Meaning: Part one is absurd in that, if all the credits are claimed, there will be no funds for states to provide indigent care. Part two gives residents an option between Medicaid and traditional health insurance but may fail based on the quality of coverage provided
9) Stated: "The tax on excess health benefits (commonly called the Cadillac tax) is repealed."
Meaning: Removes the additional tax on most expensive health plans.
10) Stated: "The bill establishes Roth HSAs (health savings accounts) for paying certain medical expenses and health insurance premiums."
Meaning: Health Savings Accounts are commonly encouraged as a way to offset the costs of insufficient insurance however for low income individuals who do not have the capability of putting funds aside in advance this is an impractical measure.
11) Stated: "The tax deduction for medical expenses is eliminated."
Meaning: Those who spend a large amount of money out of pocket for medical expenses will no longer be able to recoup some of those costs at tax time. This, once again, will negatively impact low income individuals with little or no insurance who suffer a medical hardship.
12) Stated: "This bill amends title XIX (Medicaid) and title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act, including to turn federal Medicaid payments into block grants."
Meaning: Turning Medicaid into block grants will mean the disbursement and administration of said funds will be entirely in the hand of the States. This reduces the consistency and accountability of the Medicaid program.
Taken as a whole, there are a few good things found in this bill but overall it will disadvantage low income and chronically ill individuals while providing greater profits to insurance companies. I rank this bill better than Trump's proposal but definitely not what America needs.
The bill is extensive. Due to its complexity and multiple references to large portion of US Code I will base my analysis on the summary provided for the bill about its intent and actions.
1) Stated: "This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the requirements for individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage and for large employers to offer affordable coverage to full time employees."
Meaning: Individuals will once again be able to gamble with their health by sacrificing health insurance to pay for other things. It also allows large employers to deny health benefits to their employees. Considering employers often obtain better deals on insurance by enrolling in group health care plans this will likely result in greater costs to their employees wishing to maintain their health benefits.
2) Stated: "Health insurance is no longer required to cover preventive care at no cost or include the essential health benefits."
Meaning: A greater number of people will postpone preventative care for financial reasons resulting in increased long term medical complications and costs. Also, insurers will be allowed to cut costs by offering plans that do not provide for the whole body care of an individual. This includes removing provisions for things such as prenatal, labs, pediatrics, etc.
3) Stated: "Individuals enrolling in health insurance who have not maintained continuous coverage over the previous 12 months are charged an extra 20% on premiums for each consecutive year without coverage, unless the individual is subject to similar state incentives to maintain coverage."
Meaning: This measure appears counterproductive as those who have already suffered a lapse of coverage will now face a significant financial burden when they are ready to regain health insurance. Instead of encouraging people to maintain coverage from the start this will only discourage people from re-enrolling once they are in a financial position to do so.
4) Stated: "States may enroll uninsured residents in high deductible health plans. Individuals must be permitted to opt-out of this coverage."
Meaning: States may offer residents emergency only health plans which provides no incentive for individuals to maintain regular preventative care and are likely to result in increased long term medical complications due to the postponement of treatment for financial reasons.
5) Stated: "The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must develop a risk adjustment mechanism for health insurance in the individual market."
Meaning: Helps offset costs to insurers providing coverage for high risk individuals
6) Stated: "For residents of a state to qualify for premium subsidies or the health insurance tax credit in this bill, the state must permit health insurance with an annual limit on benefits to be sold on its exchange."
Meaning: Allows insurers to put an annual cap on benefits which negatively effects those with severe or chronic illnesses requiring expensive treatments or medication. States are forced to allow this if they wish for their residents to receive federal subsidies and tax credits.
7) Stated: "The bill establishes an advanceable, refundable health insurance tax credit for taxpayers enrolled in coverage that does not cover abortion except in certain circumstances."
Meaning: Gives a monetary incentive for taxpayers to enroll in plans that do not cover abortion.
8) Stated: "States may: (1) apply to HHS to use unclaimed health insurance tax credits for indigent health care; and (2) enroll Medicaid-eligible individuals in health insurance that qualifies for the tax credit instead of in Medicaid, at the individual's option."
Meaning: Part one is absurd in that, if all the credits are claimed, there will be no funds for states to provide indigent care. Part two gives residents an option between Medicaid and traditional health insurance but may fail based on the quality of coverage provided
9) Stated: "The tax on excess health benefits (commonly called the Cadillac tax) is repealed."
Meaning: Removes the additional tax on most expensive health plans.
10) Stated: "The bill establishes Roth HSAs (health savings accounts) for paying certain medical expenses and health insurance premiums."
Meaning: Health Savings Accounts are commonly encouraged as a way to offset the costs of insufficient insurance however for low income individuals who do not have the capability of putting funds aside in advance this is an impractical measure.
11) Stated: "The tax deduction for medical expenses is eliminated."
Meaning: Those who spend a large amount of money out of pocket for medical expenses will no longer be able to recoup some of those costs at tax time. This, once again, will negatively impact low income individuals with little or no insurance who suffer a medical hardship.
12) Stated: "This bill amends title XIX (Medicaid) and title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act, including to turn federal Medicaid payments into block grants."
Meaning: Turning Medicaid into block grants will mean the disbursement and administration of said funds will be entirely in the hand of the States. This reduces the consistency and accountability of the Medicaid program.
Taken as a whole, there are a few good things found in this bill but overall it will disadvantage low income and chronically ill individuals while providing greater profits to insurance companies. I rank this bill better than Trump's proposal but definitely not what America needs.
Friday, March 24, 2017
Live Long and Prosper
Without a doubt healthcare in America is a shameful thing. We come in last among developed nations when it comes to cost, efficiency, equity, and healthy living. We have a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than comparable countries. The US has even seen an increase in maternal mortality rate while world wide the rate has declined.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as Obamacare, was the first major effort in recent history to counteract these trends. It made inroads into the problem by improving access to health insurance for large portions of the population that had previously been ineligible or unable to afford it. Increased subsidies provided financial assistance to poor and middle class individuals. Parental coverage was extended to the age of 26. And preexisting conditions could no longer be grounds for denial or increased premium rates. This legislation also mandated minimum coverage, meaning that insurers could no longer offer plans that lacked basic provisions for care.
Trump may not have realized until recently but healthcare in America is, and has been for years, a very complicated issue. There are employer plans, private insurance, VA programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, in addition to state run programs that don't always work together and sometimes even compete with each other. There is also the discrepancy in Federal and State standards which can be more or less restrictive. Environmental and social factors should also be taken into account when considering the state of health, and healthcare, in our nation.
It should also be taken into account that the vast majority of our healthcare system is a for profit industry. What this means at the most basic level is that insurers are primarily concerned with the generation of profits, not the well being of those they cover. Their desire is to create the greatest amount of revenue with the least amount of expenditure. Since revenue, on some level, is limited by the laws of supply and demand reducing expenditure is the easiest way to increase profits. While streamlining office procedures can reduce some expenditures that greatest portion of insurer expenses are for covered services which leads to the logical conclusion that, to increase profits, there will be a decrease in services. In fact, generally speaking, insurance will seek to cover the least amount of claims possible. This is evidenced by the pre-ACA practice of denying coverage or only offering extraordinarily high premium rates to those with preexisting conditions (i.e. those who would necessarily require more than the bare minimum of services).
Trump's solution, which appears to have failed at this time, would have reset much of our system to pre-ACA levels. However, instead of rehashing the few pros and many cons of his plan, I would like to instead take some time and envision a brighter future for American healthcare.
In its ideal form a healthcare system should be one that's primary goal is the short and long term full body health of all covered individuals. Whether it is a minor stomach bug or a chronic, debilitating illness every individual should have access to the appropriate doctors, medicine, testing, and treatments for their condition. By full body I mean not just physical care but also care for the mental and emotional well being of a person. This access should be regardless of the age of the individual or cost of care. All of this boils down to creating a plan that has the goal of patient health, the scope of full body care, and equitable access for all.
Of these three areas the goal is the easiest to solve. Our current system, as mentioned above, is concerned primarily with profits rather than patient health so it fails the first test. Next is the debate of private sector nonprofit or government run. The problem with private sector nonprofit is an issue of stable funding and ideological differences. Many nonprofits receive government funds already or must rely on private donors. Should a nonprofit's funding fail it is those they cover who will suffer. Member contributions can provide some stability but income differences can make this inaccessible to those without funds to contribute. Ideological differences, on the other hand, can take many forms. As a few examples, a Scientologist run network could exclude all mental health services, a Catholic run program may offer no forms of contraceptive (even pills and condoms), a new age philanthropist could start a service that insists all illness must be cured by targeted meditation and offer no other services. These are extreme examples, but patients should not be limited to one philosophy of care, and should especially not be influenced by religious ideals (I will discuss this more when I talk about access). The government, on the other hand, should provide neutral ground for medical philosophies and should also have a stable funding base. As for the question of State vs. Federal I would argue that the Federal government is in the best position to institute minimum standards while the States would be allowed (from their own tax revenues) to institute and provide greater coverage if, where and how they choose.
A trickier subject is scope of care. There are obvious things that should be covered such as preventative care, cancer treatment, etc. And there are things that obviously should not such as cosmetic surgeries not prompted by an injury or other elective treatments. But then come the gray zones. How crooked do your teeth need to be before braces are covered? If you need glasses how much of the frame cost should be covered? And what about alternative treatments? Acupuncture? Massage? Chiropractic? In general I would allow physicians the flexibility to prescribe the treatments they feel are best for their patients and to make the call on whether a procedure is purely cosmetic or medically necessary. For the most difficult of decisions, such as cases for treatments that are alternative or still in testing, I would suggest a review panel but only if said review panel was able to give decisions without requiring patients to suffer through excessive waiting periods. The problems that have been discovered with the VA serve as an excellent cautionary tale on this front. In general I would insist upon basic coverage for medical, dental, vision, and psychiatric care. This would include prescription coverage, emergency services, lab work, maternity and pediatric care, rehabilitation services, etc.
Finally we come to equitable access for all. What I mean by all is every American regardless of age, race, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, familial status, you get the picture. Now obviously every person's health status is different. Not just for the obvious differences I've stated above but also due to environmental circumstances, unique genetic traits, socio-economic conditions, and the list could go on. When I talk about equitable care what I mean is that every individual's experience with the health care system should be the same. The poor black family living in a rural, economically depressed region should be able to get the same care and individual attention as a rich white family living in New York. If someone wants to pay additional money out of their own pocket for elective procedures that is their choice, but no American should ever have to choose between filling a prescription and putting food on the table. On the flip side, just because certain treatments are offered does not require an individual to take advantage of them. There are millions of Catholics who choose not to use birth control even though surely many of their medical plans cover it. A Scientologist is not obligated, unless they are seen as a danger to themselves or others, to seek psychiatric care. And if someone believes that meditation will heal all ills that doesn't negate their access to traditional medicine. However, this must also mean that health care professionals can not use religious or moral exemptions to get out of discussing, let alone providing, medicine that would be considered a normal part of their professional activity. If too many providers in a particular area exempted themselves from certain treatments it could cause an undue burden on patients and limit their access to the health care they deserve. Also, as a professional, patients expect to be able to trust them to give the best medical opinion, which should be the case even when that opinion conflicts with a personal view.
When we talk about healthcare too often we obsess about the dollars and cents. The reality is that much of the developed world provides universal healthcare to their citizens. Some of these systems work better than others but we can not deny the fact that they work and that their citizens are better off, as a whole, because of it. I will paraphrase a quote I saw once from a Canadian about their health care system:
Too bad we can't all have this outlook on life.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as Obamacare, was the first major effort in recent history to counteract these trends. It made inroads into the problem by improving access to health insurance for large portions of the population that had previously been ineligible or unable to afford it. Increased subsidies provided financial assistance to poor and middle class individuals. Parental coverage was extended to the age of 26. And preexisting conditions could no longer be grounds for denial or increased premium rates. This legislation also mandated minimum coverage, meaning that insurers could no longer offer plans that lacked basic provisions for care.
Trump may not have realized until recently but healthcare in America is, and has been for years, a very complicated issue. There are employer plans, private insurance, VA programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, in addition to state run programs that don't always work together and sometimes even compete with each other. There is also the discrepancy in Federal and State standards which can be more or less restrictive. Environmental and social factors should also be taken into account when considering the state of health, and healthcare, in our nation.
It should also be taken into account that the vast majority of our healthcare system is a for profit industry. What this means at the most basic level is that insurers are primarily concerned with the generation of profits, not the well being of those they cover. Their desire is to create the greatest amount of revenue with the least amount of expenditure. Since revenue, on some level, is limited by the laws of supply and demand reducing expenditure is the easiest way to increase profits. While streamlining office procedures can reduce some expenditures that greatest portion of insurer expenses are for covered services which leads to the logical conclusion that, to increase profits, there will be a decrease in services. In fact, generally speaking, insurance will seek to cover the least amount of claims possible. This is evidenced by the pre-ACA practice of denying coverage or only offering extraordinarily high premium rates to those with preexisting conditions (i.e. those who would necessarily require more than the bare minimum of services).
Trump's solution, which appears to have failed at this time, would have reset much of our system to pre-ACA levels. However, instead of rehashing the few pros and many cons of his plan, I would like to instead take some time and envision a brighter future for American healthcare.
In its ideal form a healthcare system should be one that's primary goal is the short and long term full body health of all covered individuals. Whether it is a minor stomach bug or a chronic, debilitating illness every individual should have access to the appropriate doctors, medicine, testing, and treatments for their condition. By full body I mean not just physical care but also care for the mental and emotional well being of a person. This access should be regardless of the age of the individual or cost of care. All of this boils down to creating a plan that has the goal of patient health, the scope of full body care, and equitable access for all.
Of these three areas the goal is the easiest to solve. Our current system, as mentioned above, is concerned primarily with profits rather than patient health so it fails the first test. Next is the debate of private sector nonprofit or government run. The problem with private sector nonprofit is an issue of stable funding and ideological differences. Many nonprofits receive government funds already or must rely on private donors. Should a nonprofit's funding fail it is those they cover who will suffer. Member contributions can provide some stability but income differences can make this inaccessible to those without funds to contribute. Ideological differences, on the other hand, can take many forms. As a few examples, a Scientologist run network could exclude all mental health services, a Catholic run program may offer no forms of contraceptive (even pills and condoms), a new age philanthropist could start a service that insists all illness must be cured by targeted meditation and offer no other services. These are extreme examples, but patients should not be limited to one philosophy of care, and should especially not be influenced by religious ideals (I will discuss this more when I talk about access). The government, on the other hand, should provide neutral ground for medical philosophies and should also have a stable funding base. As for the question of State vs. Federal I would argue that the Federal government is in the best position to institute minimum standards while the States would be allowed (from their own tax revenues) to institute and provide greater coverage if, where and how they choose.
A trickier subject is scope of care. There are obvious things that should be covered such as preventative care, cancer treatment, etc. And there are things that obviously should not such as cosmetic surgeries not prompted by an injury or other elective treatments. But then come the gray zones. How crooked do your teeth need to be before braces are covered? If you need glasses how much of the frame cost should be covered? And what about alternative treatments? Acupuncture? Massage? Chiropractic? In general I would allow physicians the flexibility to prescribe the treatments they feel are best for their patients and to make the call on whether a procedure is purely cosmetic or medically necessary. For the most difficult of decisions, such as cases for treatments that are alternative or still in testing, I would suggest a review panel but only if said review panel was able to give decisions without requiring patients to suffer through excessive waiting periods. The problems that have been discovered with the VA serve as an excellent cautionary tale on this front. In general I would insist upon basic coverage for medical, dental, vision, and psychiatric care. This would include prescription coverage, emergency services, lab work, maternity and pediatric care, rehabilitation services, etc.
Finally we come to equitable access for all. What I mean by all is every American regardless of age, race, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, familial status, you get the picture. Now obviously every person's health status is different. Not just for the obvious differences I've stated above but also due to environmental circumstances, unique genetic traits, socio-economic conditions, and the list could go on. When I talk about equitable care what I mean is that every individual's experience with the health care system should be the same. The poor black family living in a rural, economically depressed region should be able to get the same care and individual attention as a rich white family living in New York. If someone wants to pay additional money out of their own pocket for elective procedures that is their choice, but no American should ever have to choose between filling a prescription and putting food on the table. On the flip side, just because certain treatments are offered does not require an individual to take advantage of them. There are millions of Catholics who choose not to use birth control even though surely many of their medical plans cover it. A Scientologist is not obligated, unless they are seen as a danger to themselves or others, to seek psychiatric care. And if someone believes that meditation will heal all ills that doesn't negate their access to traditional medicine. However, this must also mean that health care professionals can not use religious or moral exemptions to get out of discussing, let alone providing, medicine that would be considered a normal part of their professional activity. If too many providers in a particular area exempted themselves from certain treatments it could cause an undue burden on patients and limit their access to the health care they deserve. Also, as a professional, patients expect to be able to trust them to give the best medical opinion, which should be the case even when that opinion conflicts with a personal view.
When we talk about healthcare too often we obsess about the dollars and cents. The reality is that much of the developed world provides universal healthcare to their citizens. Some of these systems work better than others but we can not deny the fact that they work and that their citizens are better off, as a whole, because of it. I will paraphrase a quote I saw once from a Canadian about their health care system:
I don't see anything wrong with paying a few extra dollars so that an 8-year-old across the country can have heart surgery
Too bad we can't all have this outlook on life.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Fiscal Year 2017
The President has just released a partial budget proposal for the 2018 fiscal year and I have taken the last few days to examine just what it entails. The President's message at the beginning of this proposal states the following:
Because of it's length I have included my full synopsis of the budget proposal at the end of this post. For my actual analysis I would like to highlight my top 5 concerns with this budget:
1) Fear tactic defense spending
2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities
3) Reckless environmental actions
4) Dissolution of public education
5) Disintegration of arts and sciences
Here is my analysis:
1) Fear tactic defense spending
One of the most basic and agreed upon responsibilities of the Federal government is to provide for a national defense. That being said, the US already has the greatest military spending in the world by a substantial margin. In fact, we spend more to fund our military than the next 7 countries combined, 34% of the world's military spending. While every other area on the budget has significant emphasis on efficiency and reducing redundancy this seemingly does not apply to defense spending.
I have no issues with the comparatively moderate increases to the Department of Veteran's Affairs, but the Department of Defense already has nearly 10 times the budget of the next largest department and is set to receive an additional 10% boost to funding. If there was any area where efficiency and redundancy should be looked at for cost saving measures it should be here. However, that is apparently not the President's plan. The President's obsession with winning has resulted in him stating:
He keeps pressing this idea of how insecure our nation is but, I don't know about you, but I don't feel unsafe or in imminent threat from foreigners. Granted, I don't have access to top secret threat analysis data, but we will never be 100% secure and, while prevention is important, strength at home can mean a lot more than military might. Investments in education, infrastructure, and health care can go a lot farther towards improving the daily quality of life for Americans than stockpiling weapons for some vague possibility of threat. The President's proposed increase in military spending to the detriment of other fundamental programs does not speak of a man wishing to "make America great" it says to me that he wants to keep America in fear.
People living in fear find it harder to make rational decisions and are more easily provoked. Teaching the American people to live in fear, which seems to be the President's plan, puts us at risk of turning against each other. It is essential for communities to band together for their own betterment and be constantly critical of the real reason the President wants such a large military power under his control.
2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities
The President's plan calls for substantial cuts to programs that assist the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities. Just a partial list includes the following:
Eliminates:
-Economic Development Administration- encourages economic development in depressed regions
-Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant- grants to college students with financial need
-Low Income Home Energy Assistance- assists families with energy costs
-Community Services Block Grant- funds programs for low-income individuals
-Community Development Block Grant- for the development of viable urban communities
-Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing- assists communities in developing affordable housing
-HOME Investment Partnerships Program- low-income housing assistance
-Choice Neighborhoods- assisting struggling neighborhoods
-Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program- grants to non profits who build low-income housing
-Senior Community Service Employment Program- job training for low-income, unemployed seniors
Reduces:
WIC
Work study
Department of Health and Human Services
Job training grants
Office of Disability Employment Policy
Job Corp
Also, while the budget protects funding to IDEA, which is an agency to protect disabled students under the Department of Education, the institution of vouchers, also outlined in the budget, will put disabled students at risk (see my previous post on education vouchers here). There is also the proposed health care bill, which I have not yet covered but seems to be implied in the substantial cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services, which may result in millions of Americans losing their coverage.
The justification for much of these cuts seems to fall into one of two categories: reducing overlap or that a program is better provided by the states. The former excuse fails on two fronts as many grant programs have specific requirements with slight variations that mean organizations qualify for some but not others though at first look the grants may appear to overlap each other in purpose. It also fails in that it reduces overlap but fails to supplement the remaining programs to ensure continued coverage. The secondary excuse fails because states will be required to make up for the loss of Federal funding which will result in an increase in American taxes on the state level or cuts to programs. In any case these cuts will most likely have a direct impact on some of America's most vulnerable citizens
3) Reckless environmental actions
Not much needs to be said on this front. The President has made it clear that he plans to take no action to prevent climate change and has outlined said goals in his budget. He has also set forth in his budget to strip much of the EPA and give authority instead to the states. Considering there are several bills currently pending in Congress to allow states to permit things like fracking this is a dangerous trend. The actions of one state on the environment can have an effect on the entire nation and so it is important that as a nation we stand together on environmental issues.
4) Dissolution of education system
I have already posted at length about the dangers of voucher programs and much of the threat in the current budget comes from stripping the Department of Education and putting funds instead into so called school choice programs. The budget goes further however in reducing grants and work study programs for college students and doing away with other training programs that insure the public receives quality education to be productive members of society.
5) Disintegration of arts and sciences
Related to education but serving a separate roll, the President seems intent on removing all arts and sciences from the national scene. Between reducing or completely eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, public libraries, national heritage areas, and wildlife refuges among other programs he is dismantling much of the vibrancy of our nation. Some, possibly many, of these programs will survive, but the cost will be an additional financial burden at the state and local level with no reduction of Federal obligations.
My final thoughts as I turn you over to my lengthy synopsis are these:
If the President's goal is to make America great his budget is misguided at best, dangerous at worst. National defense is important but without real justification to increase spending the precious dollars in the hands of our government should be going to grow our economy and infrastructure and protect the most vulnerable among us. We need to tell Congress and the President that they can, and in fact must, do better.
Department of Agriculture
- $4.7 billion reduction (21%)
- Fully funds Food Safety and Inspection Service
- $6.2 billion to WIC (reduction of $400 million)
- $2.4 wildland fire preparedness and suppression- fully funded
- Reduces funding for National Forest System "lower priority activities"
- $350 million for farmer-focused research
- Reduces funding for statistical capabilities while maintaining funding for the Census for Agriculture
- Eliminates duplicate water and wastewater loan and grant program ($498 million) stating that rural communities can be serviced by the private sector or other funds such as the EPA's State Revolving Funds
- Reduce staffing to the USDA Service Center Agencies to reflect reduced workload and encourage private sector conservation
- Eliminate discretionary activities of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service ($95 million)
- Eliminate McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
Department of Commerce
- $1.5 billion reduction (16%)
- Strengthen International Trade Administration enforcement and compliance functions while reducing export promotion and trade analysis
- Increase of $100 million to Census Bureau to prepare for the 2020 Census
- Consolidates parts of the Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, and Department of Commerce's Office of the Secretary
- Eliminate Economic Development Administration ($221 million)
- Eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency
- Discontinue Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program ($124 million)
- Eliminates certain National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants and programs ($250 million)
- Maintains polar orbiting and geostationary satellites for weather forecasting
- Savings from the Polar Follow On program by utilizing commercial data
- Maintains National Weather Service forecasting with $1 billion in investments
- Maintains National Telecommunication and Information Administration
Department of Defense
- $52 billion increase (10%)
- Repeal of defense sequestration plus an additional $2 billion in funding
- Providing resources to "accelerate the defeat of ISIS"
- Use funds for war fighting readiness
- Increase/improve training, equipment, and infrastructure
- "Lays the groundwork for a larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force"
- Reduce cost of military programs wherever "feasible"
- Rebuild readiness of US Army
- Increase number of Navy ships- "This budget reflects a down payment on the President's commitment to expanding the fleet"
- Ensure a ready and fully equipped Marine Corps
- Invest in Air Force maintenance, training, and additional F-35 Joint Strike Firghters
Department of Education
- $9 billion reduction (13%)
- Increase funding for school choice such as private and charter schools ($1.4 billion)
- Maintains current IDEA funding for students with disabilities
- Eliminates Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program ($2.4 billion)
- Eliminates 21st Century Community Learning Centers program ($1.2 billion)
- Eliminates Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant ($732 million)
- Maintains the Pell Grant while cancelling $3.9 billion in unobligated carryover funding
- Maintains funding for programs that serve high percentage minority students
- Significant reduction to Federal Work Study
- Reduce Federal TRIO Programs and GEAR UP (reduction of $193 million)
- Reduce or eliminate over 20 additional programs including Striving Readers, Teacher Quality Partnership, Impact Aid Support Payments for Federal Property, and International Education programs
Department of Energy
- $1.7 billion reduction (5.6%) however a $1.4 billion increase to the National Nuclear Security Administration (11%)
- Restart Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository ($120 million)
- Eliminate defense sequestration for the National Nuclear Security Administration
- $6.5 billion to the Environmental Management program to clean up nuclear waste
- Eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program
- Prioritization of projects within the Office of Science (reduction of $900 million)
- Limits scope of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Fossil Energy Research and Development program as well as eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program (reduction of $2 billion)
- Support cyber security and grid resiliency within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
- Continues and enhances research, development, and construction of expanded Navy fleet
Department of Health and Human Services
- $15.1 billion reduction (17.9%)
- Maintain direct health care services such as community health centers
- Increase Health Care Fraud and Abuse Program funding by $70 million
- Support "efficient operations" of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program
- Increase opioid misuse prevention efforts and access to treatment and recovery services ($500 million)
- Increase the FDA medical product user fees (revenue increase of $1 billion)
- Reduce National Institute of Health ($5.8 billion) including eliminating the Fogarty International Center and consolidating the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Creates a new Federal Emergency Response Fund and a new $500 million block grant within the CDC
- Invest in "high-performing entities" to focus on "high priority" mental health activities
- Eliminate some health and nurse training programs ($403 million)
- Eliminate discretionary programs in the Office of Community Service including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant ($4.2 billion)
Department of Homeland Security
- $2.8 billion increase (6.8%)
- $2.6 billion for border security technology including planning of a border wall
- $324 million to recruit, hire, and train Border Patrol, ICE Agents, and support staff
- Increase funding for detention, transport, and removal of illegal immigrants ($1.5 billion)
- Mandatory implementation of nationwide E-Verify usage for employers ($15 million)
- Safeguard cyber space ($1.5 billion)
- Increase Passenger Security Fee to recover 75% of TSA operation costs and eliminate NFIP's Flood Hazard Mapping Program ($190 million)
- Eliminate or reduce FEMA state and local grant funding and require a 25% non-Federal cost match for preparedness grants ($667 million)
- Eliminate or reduce certain TSA programs ($80 million)
Department of Housing and Urban Development
- $6.2 billion reduction (13.2%)
- Provides $35 billion for HUD rental assistance programs
- Eliminates the Community Development Block Grant ($3 billion)
- Eliminate "low priority" programs such as HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Choice Neighborhoods, and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program ($1.1 billion)
- Increase funding to promote lead-safe homes ($20 million)
- Eliminate Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing ($35 million)
- Support FHA mortgage insurance programs
Department of the Interior
- $1.5 billion reduction (12%)
- Increase funding to develop energy on public land and streamline permitting
- Maintains Office of Natural Resources Revenue
- Eliminates "lower priority" programs including Abandoned Mine Land grants, National Heritage Areas, and National Wildlife Refuge payments
- Maintains "stewardship capacity" operations for National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management
- Maintains tribal sovereignty and self-determination but reduces funds for "more recent" projects and initiatives that only serve a few tribes
- Reduces funds for land acquisition ($120 million)
- Increases funding for deferred maintenance but overall reduces funds for construction and major maintenance programs in National Park Service
- Provides $900 million for US Geological Survey
- Public/private matching plan for wildlife conservation, historic preservation, and recreation grants
- Maintain wildland fire suppression funding
- $1 billion for water resource management in western US
- Minor reduction to Payments in Lieu of Taxes program
Department of Justice
- $1.1 billion reduction (3.8%)
- Increase FBI funding ($249 million)
- Increase law enforcement component funding ($175 million)
- Link prosecutors and intelligence attorneys with investigations and the intelligence community
- Increase number of immigration judges ($80 million)
- Increase number of border enforcement prosecutors and deputy US Marshals
- Increase number of attorneys for immigration legislation and for obtaining land for border wall
- Increases detention space ($171 million)
- Maintain grants to protect state, local, and tribal law enforcement as well as grants for victims of crime
- Eliminates outdated programs ($700 million)
- Reduce prison construction spending (estimated almost $1 billion) however, provides $80 million for prison activation and $113 million for repair and modernization (Net reduction estimate of $800 million)
- Increase bankruptcy-filing fees ($150 million in increased revenue)
Department of Labor
- $2.5 billion reduction (21%)
- Expands Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments
- Reduce certain job training grants including elimination of the Senior Community Service Employment Program ($434 million)
- Eliminates Bureau of International Labor Affairs grant funding ($60 million)
- Closes low performing Job Corps locations
- Decreases funding for job training and employment services
- Fund states to expand apprenticeships
- Refocus the Office of Disability Employment Policy with less funding for technical assistance grants and more funding for early intervention projects
- Eliminates OSHA training grants ($11 million)
Department of State, USAID, and Treasury International Programs
- $10.1 billion reduction (28%) for Department of State and USAID, $12 billion to fund Overseas Contingency Operations, and $803 million reduction (35%) for Treasury International Programs
- Maintains embassy security and core diplomatic functions with $2.2 billion towards embassy construction and maintenance
- Increases funding to $3.1 billion for Israel security assistance
- Eliminates Global Climate Change Initiative and ends all funding to UN climate change programs
- Maintains funds to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
- Maintains funding for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria programs
- Turn some foreign assistance from grants to loans
- Reduce funding for international peacekeeping operations, cap contributions to UN at 25% of peacekeeping costs
- Adjust economic and development assistance to countries that are of greater strategic importance to the US
- Eliminates Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
- Reduces funding to Educational and Cultural Exchange programs and focuses remaining funds on the Fulbright Program
- Eliminates certain peacekeeping and security building efforts including the Complex Crisis Fund and small organizations that also have non Federal funds such as the East-West Center
- Consolidates and Reorganizes the DOS and USAID
- Reduces funding of development banks such as the World Bank ($650 million over 3 years)
Department of Transportation
- $2.4 billion reduction (13%)
- Privatize air traffic control
- Reduce Amtrak subsidies, particularly those associated with long distance service
- Only allocate funds for currently approved grants under the Capital Investment Program (New Starts)
- Eliminates Essential Air Service funding ($175 million)
- Eliminates TIGER grant program ($499 million)
Department of the Treasury
- $519 million reduction (4.1%)
- Preserve IRS funding but reduce paper based review ($239 million)
- Enhance cyber security capabilities
- Prioritize funds for economic enforcement tools
- Eliminate Community Development Financial Institutions Fund grants ($210 million)
- End taxpayer bailouts and advance financial regulatory reform
- Reduce federal workforce
Department of Veterans Affairs
- $4.4 billion increase (6%)
- Increase $4.6 billion to improve VA health care
- Extend and fund Veterans Choice Program- set to expire in August 2017
- Fund programs to aid homeless and at-risk veterans
- Fund programs to assist veterans transitioning to civilian life
- Continue funding efforts to optimize the VA claims process
- Fund IT systems to improve quality of services
Environmental Protection Agency
- $2.6 billion reduction (31%) including the elimination of 3,200 jobs
- Marginal increase to funding for drinking and wastewater infrastructure including the State Revolving Funds and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ($4 million)
- Defunds the Clean Power Plan and climate change initiatives ($100 million)
- Reduce Hazardous Substance Superfund Account ($330 million)
- Reduce EPA enforcement budget to focus on programs not delegated to the States ($419 million)
- Reduce Office of Research and Development activities by half ($233 million)
- Reduce Categorical Grants ($482 million)
- Eliminate region specific efforts such as Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Chesapeake Bay ($427 million)
- Eliminates more than 50 additional programs deemed low priority or poorly performing including Energy Star and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native Villages and the Mexico Border ($347 million)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Funded at $19.1 billion (0.8% decrease)
- Increase use of public-private partnerships
- Allocates $624 million for aeronautics research
- Allocates $1.9 billion for the Planetary Science Program but no funding for a mission to land on Europa
- Allocates $3.7 billion to send astronauts into deep space but cancels the Asteroid Redirect Mission
- Allocates $1.8 billion for Earth science portfolio, eliminates PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR, and CLARREO missions as well as reducing Earth science grants ($102 million)
- Eliminates Office of Education ($115)
- Restructures robotic satellite refueling demonstration mission ($88 million)
- Strengthen cyber security capabilities
Small Business Administration
- $43.2 million reduction (5%)
- Maintain loan guarantees
- Reduce duplication and coordinate best practices for outreach center programs
- Maintain disaster relief lending
- Eliminate grant programs covered by the private sector ($12 million)
- Provide training and support for transitioning veterans towards business ownership
- Maintain funding for microloan financing
- Ensure SBA can advocate and assist small businesses in accessing government contracts and research opportunities
Our aim is to meet the simple, but crucial demand of our citizens- a Government that puts the needs of it's own people first. When we do that, we will set free the dreams of every American, and we will begin a new chapter of American greatness.Today I will endeavor to show just what the President means by our "own people" and how he thinks he can "set free the dreams of every American." You be the judge...
Because of it's length I have included my full synopsis of the budget proposal at the end of this post. For my actual analysis I would like to highlight my top 5 concerns with this budget:
1) Fear tactic defense spending
2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities
3) Reckless environmental actions
4) Dissolution of public education
5) Disintegration of arts and sciences
Here is my analysis:
1) Fear tactic defense spending
One of the most basic and agreed upon responsibilities of the Federal government is to provide for a national defense. That being said, the US already has the greatest military spending in the world by a substantial margin. In fact, we spend more to fund our military than the next 7 countries combined, 34% of the world's military spending. While every other area on the budget has significant emphasis on efficiency and reducing redundancy this seemingly does not apply to defense spending.
I have no issues with the comparatively moderate increases to the Department of Veteran's Affairs, but the Department of Defense already has nearly 10 times the budget of the next largest department and is set to receive an additional 10% boost to funding. If there was any area where efficiency and redundancy should be looked at for cost saving measures it should be here. However, that is apparently not the President's plan. The President's obsession with winning has resulted in him stating:
Lays the groundwork for a larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force, driven by... the need for American superiority not only on land, at sea, in the air, and in space, but also in cyberspace.This choice of words is chilling to me. Even in military operations more death should never be the objective. He states further on that the investment of more Navy ships is only a "down payment" suggesting that there is much more to come.
He keeps pressing this idea of how insecure our nation is but, I don't know about you, but I don't feel unsafe or in imminent threat from foreigners. Granted, I don't have access to top secret threat analysis data, but we will never be 100% secure and, while prevention is important, strength at home can mean a lot more than military might. Investments in education, infrastructure, and health care can go a lot farther towards improving the daily quality of life for Americans than stockpiling weapons for some vague possibility of threat. The President's proposed increase in military spending to the detriment of other fundamental programs does not speak of a man wishing to "make America great" it says to me that he wants to keep America in fear.
People living in fear find it harder to make rational decisions and are more easily provoked. Teaching the American people to live in fear, which seems to be the President's plan, puts us at risk of turning against each other. It is essential for communities to band together for their own betterment and be constantly critical of the real reason the President wants such a large military power under his control.
2) Threats to the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities
The President's plan calls for substantial cuts to programs that assist the poor, seniors, and people with disabilities. Just a partial list includes the following:
Eliminates:
-Economic Development Administration- encourages economic development in depressed regions
-Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant- grants to college students with financial need
-Low Income Home Energy Assistance- assists families with energy costs
-Community Services Block Grant- funds programs for low-income individuals
-Community Development Block Grant- for the development of viable urban communities
-Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing- assists communities in developing affordable housing
-HOME Investment Partnerships Program- low-income housing assistance
-Choice Neighborhoods- assisting struggling neighborhoods
-Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program- grants to non profits who build low-income housing
-Senior Community Service Employment Program- job training for low-income, unemployed seniors
Reduces:
WIC
Work study
Department of Health and Human Services
Job training grants
Office of Disability Employment Policy
Job Corp
Also, while the budget protects funding to IDEA, which is an agency to protect disabled students under the Department of Education, the institution of vouchers, also outlined in the budget, will put disabled students at risk (see my previous post on education vouchers here). There is also the proposed health care bill, which I have not yet covered but seems to be implied in the substantial cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services, which may result in millions of Americans losing their coverage.
The justification for much of these cuts seems to fall into one of two categories: reducing overlap or that a program is better provided by the states. The former excuse fails on two fronts as many grant programs have specific requirements with slight variations that mean organizations qualify for some but not others though at first look the grants may appear to overlap each other in purpose. It also fails in that it reduces overlap but fails to supplement the remaining programs to ensure continued coverage. The secondary excuse fails because states will be required to make up for the loss of Federal funding which will result in an increase in American taxes on the state level or cuts to programs. In any case these cuts will most likely have a direct impact on some of America's most vulnerable citizens
3) Reckless environmental actions
Not much needs to be said on this front. The President has made it clear that he plans to take no action to prevent climate change and has outlined said goals in his budget. He has also set forth in his budget to strip much of the EPA and give authority instead to the states. Considering there are several bills currently pending in Congress to allow states to permit things like fracking this is a dangerous trend. The actions of one state on the environment can have an effect on the entire nation and so it is important that as a nation we stand together on environmental issues.
4) Dissolution of education system
I have already posted at length about the dangers of voucher programs and much of the threat in the current budget comes from stripping the Department of Education and putting funds instead into so called school choice programs. The budget goes further however in reducing grants and work study programs for college students and doing away with other training programs that insure the public receives quality education to be productive members of society.
5) Disintegration of arts and sciences
Related to education but serving a separate roll, the President seems intent on removing all arts and sciences from the national scene. Between reducing or completely eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, public libraries, national heritage areas, and wildlife refuges among other programs he is dismantling much of the vibrancy of our nation. Some, possibly many, of these programs will survive, but the cost will be an additional financial burden at the state and local level with no reduction of Federal obligations.
My final thoughts as I turn you over to my lengthy synopsis are these:
If the President's goal is to make America great his budget is misguided at best, dangerous at worst. National defense is important but without real justification to increase spending the precious dollars in the hands of our government should be going to grow our economy and infrastructure and protect the most vulnerable among us. We need to tell Congress and the President that they can, and in fact must, do better.
Proposed Budget Synopsis
Department of Agriculture
- $4.7 billion reduction (21%)
- Fully funds Food Safety and Inspection Service
- $6.2 billion to WIC (reduction of $400 million)
- $2.4 wildland fire preparedness and suppression- fully funded
- Reduces funding for National Forest System "lower priority activities"
- $350 million for farmer-focused research
- Reduces funding for statistical capabilities while maintaining funding for the Census for Agriculture
- Eliminates duplicate water and wastewater loan and grant program ($498 million) stating that rural communities can be serviced by the private sector or other funds such as the EPA's State Revolving Funds
- Reduce staffing to the USDA Service Center Agencies to reflect reduced workload and encourage private sector conservation
- Eliminate discretionary activities of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service ($95 million)
- Eliminate McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
Department of Commerce
- $1.5 billion reduction (16%)
- Strengthen International Trade Administration enforcement and compliance functions while reducing export promotion and trade analysis
- Increase of $100 million to Census Bureau to prepare for the 2020 Census
- Consolidates parts of the Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, and Department of Commerce's Office of the Secretary
- Eliminate Economic Development Administration ($221 million)
- Eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency
- Discontinue Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program ($124 million)
- Eliminates certain National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants and programs ($250 million)
- Maintains polar orbiting and geostationary satellites for weather forecasting
- Savings from the Polar Follow On program by utilizing commercial data
- Maintains National Weather Service forecasting with $1 billion in investments
- Maintains National Telecommunication and Information Administration
Department of Defense
- $52 billion increase (10%)
- Repeal of defense sequestration plus an additional $2 billion in funding
- Providing resources to "accelerate the defeat of ISIS"
- Use funds for war fighting readiness
- Increase/improve training, equipment, and infrastructure
- "Lays the groundwork for a larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force"
- Reduce cost of military programs wherever "feasible"
- Rebuild readiness of US Army
- Increase number of Navy ships- "This budget reflects a down payment on the President's commitment to expanding the fleet"
- Ensure a ready and fully equipped Marine Corps
- Invest in Air Force maintenance, training, and additional F-35 Joint Strike Firghters
Department of Education
- $9 billion reduction (13%)
- Increase funding for school choice such as private and charter schools ($1.4 billion)
- Maintains current IDEA funding for students with disabilities
- Eliminates Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program ($2.4 billion)
- Eliminates 21st Century Community Learning Centers program ($1.2 billion)
- Eliminates Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant ($732 million)
- Maintains the Pell Grant while cancelling $3.9 billion in unobligated carryover funding
- Maintains funding for programs that serve high percentage minority students
- Significant reduction to Federal Work Study
- Reduce Federal TRIO Programs and GEAR UP (reduction of $193 million)
- Reduce or eliminate over 20 additional programs including Striving Readers, Teacher Quality Partnership, Impact Aid Support Payments for Federal Property, and International Education programs
Department of Energy
- $1.7 billion reduction (5.6%) however a $1.4 billion increase to the National Nuclear Security Administration (11%)
- Restart Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository ($120 million)
- Eliminate defense sequestration for the National Nuclear Security Administration
- $6.5 billion to the Environmental Management program to clean up nuclear waste
- Eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program
- Prioritization of projects within the Office of Science (reduction of $900 million)
- Limits scope of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Fossil Energy Research and Development program as well as eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program (reduction of $2 billion)
- Support cyber security and grid resiliency within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
- Continues and enhances research, development, and construction of expanded Navy fleet
Department of Health and Human Services
- $15.1 billion reduction (17.9%)
- Maintain direct health care services such as community health centers
- Increase Health Care Fraud and Abuse Program funding by $70 million
- Support "efficient operations" of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program
- Increase opioid misuse prevention efforts and access to treatment and recovery services ($500 million)
- Increase the FDA medical product user fees (revenue increase of $1 billion)
- Reduce National Institute of Health ($5.8 billion) including eliminating the Fogarty International Center and consolidating the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Creates a new Federal Emergency Response Fund and a new $500 million block grant within the CDC
- Invest in "high-performing entities" to focus on "high priority" mental health activities
- Eliminate some health and nurse training programs ($403 million)
- Eliminate discretionary programs in the Office of Community Service including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant ($4.2 billion)
Department of Homeland Security
- $2.8 billion increase (6.8%)
- $2.6 billion for border security technology including planning of a border wall
- $324 million to recruit, hire, and train Border Patrol, ICE Agents, and support staff
- Increase funding for detention, transport, and removal of illegal immigrants ($1.5 billion)
- Mandatory implementation of nationwide E-Verify usage for employers ($15 million)
- Safeguard cyber space ($1.5 billion)
- Increase Passenger Security Fee to recover 75% of TSA operation costs and eliminate NFIP's Flood Hazard Mapping Program ($190 million)
- Eliminate or reduce FEMA state and local grant funding and require a 25% non-Federal cost match for preparedness grants ($667 million)
- Eliminate or reduce certain TSA programs ($80 million)
Department of Housing and Urban Development
- $6.2 billion reduction (13.2%)
- Provides $35 billion for HUD rental assistance programs
- Eliminates the Community Development Block Grant ($3 billion)
- Eliminate "low priority" programs such as HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Choice Neighborhoods, and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program ($1.1 billion)
- Increase funding to promote lead-safe homes ($20 million)
- Eliminate Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing ($35 million)
- Support FHA mortgage insurance programs
Department of the Interior
- $1.5 billion reduction (12%)
- Increase funding to develop energy on public land and streamline permitting
- Maintains Office of Natural Resources Revenue
- Eliminates "lower priority" programs including Abandoned Mine Land grants, National Heritage Areas, and National Wildlife Refuge payments
- Maintains "stewardship capacity" operations for National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management
- Maintains tribal sovereignty and self-determination but reduces funds for "more recent" projects and initiatives that only serve a few tribes
- Reduces funds for land acquisition ($120 million)
- Increases funding for deferred maintenance but overall reduces funds for construction and major maintenance programs in National Park Service
- Provides $900 million for US Geological Survey
- Public/private matching plan for wildlife conservation, historic preservation, and recreation grants
- Maintain wildland fire suppression funding
- $1 billion for water resource management in western US
- Minor reduction to Payments in Lieu of Taxes program
Department of Justice
- $1.1 billion reduction (3.8%)
- Increase FBI funding ($249 million)
- Increase law enforcement component funding ($175 million)
- Link prosecutors and intelligence attorneys with investigations and the intelligence community
- Increase number of immigration judges ($80 million)
- Increase number of border enforcement prosecutors and deputy US Marshals
- Increase number of attorneys for immigration legislation and for obtaining land for border wall
- Increases detention space ($171 million)
- Maintain grants to protect state, local, and tribal law enforcement as well as grants for victims of crime
- Eliminates outdated programs ($700 million)
- Reduce prison construction spending (estimated almost $1 billion) however, provides $80 million for prison activation and $113 million for repair and modernization (Net reduction estimate of $800 million)
- Increase bankruptcy-filing fees ($150 million in increased revenue)
Department of Labor
- $2.5 billion reduction (21%)
- Expands Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments
- Reduce certain job training grants including elimination of the Senior Community Service Employment Program ($434 million)
- Eliminates Bureau of International Labor Affairs grant funding ($60 million)
- Closes low performing Job Corps locations
- Decreases funding for job training and employment services
- Fund states to expand apprenticeships
- Refocus the Office of Disability Employment Policy with less funding for technical assistance grants and more funding for early intervention projects
- Eliminates OSHA training grants ($11 million)
Department of State, USAID, and Treasury International Programs
- $10.1 billion reduction (28%) for Department of State and USAID, $12 billion to fund Overseas Contingency Operations, and $803 million reduction (35%) for Treasury International Programs
- Maintains embassy security and core diplomatic functions with $2.2 billion towards embassy construction and maintenance
- Increases funding to $3.1 billion for Israel security assistance
- Eliminates Global Climate Change Initiative and ends all funding to UN climate change programs
- Maintains funds to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
- Maintains funding for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria programs
- Turn some foreign assistance from grants to loans
- Reduce funding for international peacekeeping operations, cap contributions to UN at 25% of peacekeeping costs
- Adjust economic and development assistance to countries that are of greater strategic importance to the US
- Eliminates Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
- Reduces funding to Educational and Cultural Exchange programs and focuses remaining funds on the Fulbright Program
- Eliminates certain peacekeeping and security building efforts including the Complex Crisis Fund and small organizations that also have non Federal funds such as the East-West Center
- Consolidates and Reorganizes the DOS and USAID
- Reduces funding of development banks such as the World Bank ($650 million over 3 years)
Department of Transportation
- $2.4 billion reduction (13%)
- Privatize air traffic control
- Reduce Amtrak subsidies, particularly those associated with long distance service
- Only allocate funds for currently approved grants under the Capital Investment Program (New Starts)
- Eliminates Essential Air Service funding ($175 million)
- Eliminates TIGER grant program ($499 million)
Department of the Treasury
- $519 million reduction (4.1%)
- Preserve IRS funding but reduce paper based review ($239 million)
- Enhance cyber security capabilities
- Prioritize funds for economic enforcement tools
- Eliminate Community Development Financial Institutions Fund grants ($210 million)
- End taxpayer bailouts and advance financial regulatory reform
- Reduce federal workforce
Department of Veterans Affairs
- $4.4 billion increase (6%)
- Increase $4.6 billion to improve VA health care
- Extend and fund Veterans Choice Program- set to expire in August 2017
- Fund programs to aid homeless and at-risk veterans
- Fund programs to assist veterans transitioning to civilian life
- Continue funding efforts to optimize the VA claims process
- Fund IT systems to improve quality of services
Environmental Protection Agency
- $2.6 billion reduction (31%) including the elimination of 3,200 jobs
- Marginal increase to funding for drinking and wastewater infrastructure including the State Revolving Funds and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ($4 million)
- Defunds the Clean Power Plan and climate change initiatives ($100 million)
- Reduce Hazardous Substance Superfund Account ($330 million)
- Reduce EPA enforcement budget to focus on programs not delegated to the States ($419 million)
- Reduce Office of Research and Development activities by half ($233 million)
- Reduce Categorical Grants ($482 million)
- Eliminate region specific efforts such as Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Chesapeake Bay ($427 million)
- Eliminates more than 50 additional programs deemed low priority or poorly performing including Energy Star and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native Villages and the Mexico Border ($347 million)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Funded at $19.1 billion (0.8% decrease)
- Increase use of public-private partnerships
- Allocates $624 million for aeronautics research
- Allocates $1.9 billion for the Planetary Science Program but no funding for a mission to land on Europa
- Allocates $3.7 billion to send astronauts into deep space but cancels the Asteroid Redirect Mission
- Allocates $1.8 billion for Earth science portfolio, eliminates PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR, and CLARREO missions as well as reducing Earth science grants ($102 million)
- Eliminates Office of Education ($115)
- Restructures robotic satellite refueling demonstration mission ($88 million)
- Strengthen cyber security capabilities
Small Business Administration
- $43.2 million reduction (5%)
- Maintain loan guarantees
- Reduce duplication and coordinate best practices for outreach center programs
- Maintain disaster relief lending
- Eliminate grant programs covered by the private sector ($12 million)
- Provide training and support for transitioning veterans towards business ownership
- Maintain funding for microloan financing
- Ensure SBA can advocate and assist small businesses in accessing government contracts and research opportunities
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Top 10 Hit List
Now that I've finally caught up on bills that have been submitted to the House of Representatives I've decided to create a top 10 list of bills to watch. None of these bills are subtle in their intent and many, I'm sure, will fail spectacularly. Nevertheless, knowledge is power and these are real bills that have been submitted by our elected officials. I will also be including here a list of those congressmen who submitted and co-sponsored these terrible acts of legislation so we can see just which Representatives are fighting against our nation's best interests.
H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2017
This bill calls for a Federal sales tax (starting at 23%) be implemented to replace the current tax system. It also calls to defund the IRS by 2021. The summary for this bill also states that "family members who are lawful U.S. residents receive a monthly sales tax rebate (Family Consumption Allowance) based upon criteria related to family size and poverty guidelines" however this will do little to relieve the burden such a sales tax will put on low income families. This bill is very extensive so I will just touch on a few of the scarier points. For example, it calls for an "annual registration" of your family each year including proof of citizenship and residence in order to receive the monthly rebate. Next, said sales tax will be in addition to any import duties. It claims that this will be mostly implemented by the States however it will still require a sizable amount of Federal oversight for collection and disbursement to Federal programs. Furthermore, instead of a yearly reckoning of taxes as we have now the government will have to issue checks monthly to a substantial portion of the population. There is also no guarantee that assistance will be provided to help families navigate the rebate program and insure they are getting their proper benefits. Overall this bill clear disadvantages the poor while substantially benefiting the wealthy and putting a burden on economic freedom.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Conaway, K. Michael [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sanford, Mark [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hensarling, Jeb [R-TX]- Cosponsor
H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017
At the founding of our nation it was established that, quite simply, being born on US soil qualified you to be a US citizen. This act "clarifies" that statement by putting limits upon said citizenship. The intent of this bill seems to be to get rid of the so called "anchor babies" i.e. children born on US soil to parents who are not legal residents. This bill absolutely fulfills that intent (and then some) but what it also does is fundamentally shift a value that has been held by Americans since our nation's founding that anyone can come here, work hard, and build a good life for themselves and their posterity. Being an American should not be determined by where our parents came from but rather the values we hold in our heart.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
H.R.193 - American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017
This calls for the US to exit the United Nations. I've already had my say on why this is a bad idea in a more extensive previous post and will not go into my reasoning again here.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL]- Sponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Cosponsor
H.R.352 - State Health Flexibility Act of 2017
This bill repeals not only the Affordable Care Act but also the Health Care and Educational Reconciliation Act of 2010, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. In the place of, essentially, our entire Federal health care system, it calls for block grants to the states to provide health care to their residents. The only provisions provided to direct the states as far as what to cover is that the funds may not be used for illegal aliens or abortions except in certain emergency circumstances. In certain states where programs already exist to protect the poor this implementation will probably improve services. However, in states that already take little effort to care for the poor this will be disastrous.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Sponsor
Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Trott, David A. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
H.R.586 - Sanctity of Human Life Act & H.R.681 - Life at Conception Act
Since these bills cover essentially the same material I will be lumping them together for my synopsis. Both bills take the stance that life begins at fertilization/conception, a statement that has no scientific evidence to back it up. Both are clearly anti-abortion bills though neither bill has the word abortion anywhere in the text. What both of these bills do say is that from fertilization an embryo is given full status as a human being with rights and protections under the law as such. No qualifiers are made for the safety of the life of the mother or cases of rape and incest which are common mitigating factors even by anti-abortion lobbyists. H.R. 681 is only marginally better by adding the line: "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child" which does nothing to say that the priority will be given to the life of the mother in the case of medical emergency.
Those Responsible:
H.R. 586:
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ferguson, A. Drew, IV [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Russell, Steve [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
H.R. 681:
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Sponsor
Rep. Jordan, Jim [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Harper, Gregg [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Noem, Kristi L. [R-SD]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Abraham, Ralph Lee [R-LA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Murphy, Tim [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jenkins, Evan H. [R-WV]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rooney, Thomas J. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Marino, Tom [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bucshon, Larry [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mitchell, Paul [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rothfus, Keith J. [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hultgren, Randy [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brady, Kevin [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Peterson, Collin C. [D-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA]- Cosponsor
H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
The text on this bill is almost comically short. As the title says it calls for the termination of the EPA. It gives a termination date of 12/31/18. That is it. Say goodbye to air quality, clean water, and protections from harmful substances if this passes. And that is without giving any concern for global climate change.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Sponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education
Another comically short bill. This one calls for the termination of the Department of Education by 12/31/18 with no provisions for what, if anything, will replace it. I've posted previously about the importance of the DOE so I'll just leave it at that.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Sponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
H.R.997 - To declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress' powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution
The title on this bill is a bit of a mouthful but will probably be given a catchy name in the coming weeks. No text or summary are yet available for this bill but the title makes the intent fairly clear. While there is a common misconception that English is the official language of the US the reality is that no official language is listed in our constitution. English is the language of common use but various states encourage/support the use of other languages based on their constituency. The push to make English the official language has been around for years and has yet to pass, in fact I have little fear of it passing now, but as a nation founded by immigrants it is important to recognize our heritage which includes languages as varied as our origins.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
H.R.1021 - To amend section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deem specified activities in support of terrorism as renunciation of United States nationality, and for other purposes
This bill does not yet have a text available for reference so I will be working off of the title. To state the obvious, terrorism is bad. However, the actions of individuals should not make them magically no longer part of the US. I would like to point out the very pointed use of the word "nationality" and not "citizenship". What exactly does "United States nationality" mean as far as the actions that can/will be taken under this bill? My fear, which will not be justified until a full text is posted, is that this bill will revoke certain rights and protections from individuals and will allow the government to take action against citizens that they would not otherwise be allowed under our Constitution.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
H.R.1031 - To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
The title seems self explanatory and, once again, a text has yet to be posted with full details. Since this post has gone on long enough already I'll just say "Wall Street take over" and be done with it.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Sponsor
Rep. Walker, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rice, Tom [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hurd, Will [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor
H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2017
This bill calls for a Federal sales tax (starting at 23%) be implemented to replace the current tax system. It also calls to defund the IRS by 2021. The summary for this bill also states that "family members who are lawful U.S. residents receive a monthly sales tax rebate (Family Consumption Allowance) based upon criteria related to family size and poverty guidelines" however this will do little to relieve the burden such a sales tax will put on low income families. This bill is very extensive so I will just touch on a few of the scarier points. For example, it calls for an "annual registration" of your family each year including proof of citizenship and residence in order to receive the monthly rebate. Next, said sales tax will be in addition to any import duties. It claims that this will be mostly implemented by the States however it will still require a sizable amount of Federal oversight for collection and disbursement to Federal programs. Furthermore, instead of a yearly reckoning of taxes as we have now the government will have to issue checks monthly to a substantial portion of the population. There is also no guarantee that assistance will be provided to help families navigate the rebate program and insure they are getting their proper benefits. Overall this bill clear disadvantages the poor while substantially benefiting the wealthy and putting a burden on economic freedom.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Conaway, K. Michael [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sanford, Mark [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Emmer, Tom [R-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hensarling, Jeb [R-TX]- Cosponsor
H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017
At the founding of our nation it was established that, quite simply, being born on US soil qualified you to be a US citizen. This act "clarifies" that statement by putting limits upon said citizenship. The intent of this bill seems to be to get rid of the so called "anchor babies" i.e. children born on US soil to parents who are not legal residents. This bill absolutely fulfills that intent (and then some) but what it also does is fundamentally shift a value that has been held by Americans since our nation's founding that anyone can come here, work hard, and build a good life for themselves and their posterity. Being an American should not be determined by where our parents came from but rather the values we hold in our heart.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Womack, Steve [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
H.R.193 - American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017
This calls for the US to exit the United Nations. I've already had my say on why this is a bad idea in a more extensive previous post and will not go into my reasoning again here.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL]- Sponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Cosponsor
H.R.352 - State Health Flexibility Act of 2017
This bill repeals not only the Affordable Care Act but also the Health Care and Educational Reconciliation Act of 2010, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. In the place of, essentially, our entire Federal health care system, it calls for block grants to the states to provide health care to their residents. The only provisions provided to direct the states as far as what to cover is that the funds may not be used for illegal aliens or abortions except in certain emergency circumstances. In certain states where programs already exist to protect the poor this implementation will probably improve services. However, in states that already take little effort to care for the poor this will be disastrous.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Sponsor
Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM]- Cosponsor
Rep. Trott, David A. [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
H.R.586 - Sanctity of Human Life Act & H.R.681 - Life at Conception Act
Since these bills cover essentially the same material I will be lumping them together for my synopsis. Both bills take the stance that life begins at fertilization/conception, a statement that has no scientific evidence to back it up. Both are clearly anti-abortion bills though neither bill has the word abortion anywhere in the text. What both of these bills do say is that from fertilization an embryo is given full status as a human being with rights and protections under the law as such. No qualifiers are made for the safety of the life of the mother or cases of rape and incest which are common mitigating factors even by anti-abortion lobbyists. H.R. 681 is only marginally better by adding the line: "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child" which does nothing to say that the priority will be given to the life of the mother in the case of medical emergency.
Those Responsible:
H.R. 586:
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Sponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Ferguson, A. Drew, IV [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Russell, Steve [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rokita, Todd [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN]- Cosponsor
H.R. 681:
Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV]- Sponsor
Rep. Jordan, Jim [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Harper, Gregg [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Noem, Kristi L. [R-SD]- Cosponsor
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Abraham, Ralph Lee [R-LA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Long, Billy [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Murphy, Tim [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jenkins, Evan H. [R-WV]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rooney, Thomas J. [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Marino, Tom [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Bucshon, Larry [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Mitchell, Paul [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE]- Cosponsor
Rep. Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rothfus, Keith J. [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hultgren, Randy [R-IL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Brady, Kevin [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Peterson, Collin C. [D-MN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA]- Cosponsor
H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
The text on this bill is almost comically short. As the title says it calls for the termination of the EPA. It gives a termination date of 12/31/18. That is it. Say goodbye to air quality, clean water, and protections from harmful substances if this passes. And that is without giving any concern for global climate change.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Sponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education
Another comically short bill. This one calls for the termination of the Department of Education by 12/31/18 with no provisions for what, if anything, will replace it. I've posted previously about the importance of the DOE so I'll just leave it at that.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Sponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID]- Cosponsor
H.R.997 - To declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress' powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution
The title on this bill is a bit of a mouthful but will probably be given a catchy name in the coming weeks. No text or summary are yet available for this bill but the title makes the intent fairly clear. While there is a common misconception that English is the official language of the US the reality is that no official language is listed in our constitution. English is the language of common use but various states encourage/support the use of other languages based on their constituency. The push to make English the official language has been around for years and has yet to pass, in fact I have little fear of it passing now, but as a nation founded by immigrants it is important to recognize our heritage which includes languages as varied as our origins.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY]- Cosponsor
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS]- Cosponsor
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH]- Cosponsor
H.R.1021 - To amend section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deem specified activities in support of terrorism as renunciation of United States nationality, and for other purposes
This bill does not yet have a text available for reference so I will be working off of the title. To state the obvious, terrorism is bad. However, the actions of individuals should not make them magically no longer part of the US. I would like to point out the very pointed use of the word "nationality" and not "citizenship". What exactly does "United States nationality" mean as far as the actions that can/will be taken under this bill? My fear, which will not be justified until a full text is posted, is that this bill will revoke certain rights and protections from individuals and will allow the government to take action against citizens that they would not otherwise be allowed under our Constitution.
Those Responsible:
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Sponsor
Rep. Brat, Dave [R-VA]- Cosponsor
H.R.1031 - To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
The title seems self explanatory and, once again, a text has yet to be posted with full details. Since this post has gone on long enough already I'll just say "Wall Street take over" and be done with it.
Those Responsible:
Rep. Ratcliffe, John [R-TX]- Sponsor
Rep. Walker, Mark [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Rice, Tom [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL]- Cosponsor
Rep. Amash, Justin [R-MI]- Cosponsor
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ]- Cosponsor
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hurd, Will [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN]- Cosponsor
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC]- Cosponsor
Rep. King, Steve [R-IA]- Cosponsor
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK]- Cosponsor
Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC]- Cosponsor
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO]- Cosponsor
Rep. Culberson, John Abney [R-TX]- Cosponsor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)