Latest news with #federal spending
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Health
- Wall Street Journal
Medicare and Medicaid Fail a Basic Scientific Test
Critics of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act claim that, because it would slow the growth of federal Medicaid spending from 4.5% to 2.7% annually, thousands will die. Yet evidence for this is wanting. If Medicaid were a drug, the federal government wouldn't approve it—and could penalize its salesmen with prison time for claiming it saves lives. When President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965, he announced that one of the goals was 'to improve the health of all Americans.' Around the same time, Congress barred pharmaceutical companies from introducing or making health claims about new drugs absent 'substantial evidence' that 'the drug will have the effect it purports,' which the Food and Drug Administration defined as at least one, but usually two, successful randomized, controlled trials.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge Orders Trump to 'Stop Violating the Law!' Already
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on Monday issued an opinion for our times, ordering the Trump administration 'to stop violating the law!' Specifically, the Clinton-appointed judge ruled that Trump's Office of Management and Budget broke the law by taking down the public apportionment website where, under a 2022 law that Congress made permanent in 2023, it's mandated to report executive decisions on federal spending within two business days. The administration removed the website in March, and, soon after, OMB Director Russell Vought sent a letter to lawmakers saying the office decided to flout Congress and scrap the database due to the purportedly 'sensitive,' 'pre-decisional,' and 'deliberative' nature of the information it is required to reveal. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy—watchdog organizations that rely on the OMB database—challenged the move, and Sullivan on Monday issued a partial summary judgment ordering that the administration comply with the law and bring back the website. According to Sullivan, Trump and Vought relied on 'an extravagant and unsupported theory of presidential power' to 'claim that their apportionment decisions—which are legally binding and result in the actual spending of public funds—cannot be publicly disclosed because they are not final decisions about how to administer the spending of public funds.' While the Trump administration argued that the 2022 law encroaches on the executive branch's authority, its objections amount to 'a policy disagreement' with no 'constitutional foundation,' Sullivan wrote. 'Defendants are complaining about the extra work the 2022 and 2023 Acts require. This is a management issue; not a constitutional one,' he wrote. And the fact that the office had previously maintained the database for nearly three years 'further diminish[es] any argument that complying with the disclosure requirement is overly cumbersome or places an impossible burden.' 'The law is clear,' said Sullivan: 'Congress has sweeping authority to require public disclosure of how the Executive Branch is apportioning the funds appropriated by Congress,' and 'there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public's money. Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!'
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
A Test Case for Future Funding Cuts
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Editor's Note: Washington Week With The Atlantic is a partnership between NewsHour Productions, WETA, and The Atlantic airing every Friday on PBS stations nationwide. Check your local listings, watch full episodes here, or listen to the weekly podcast here. This week, Congress passed Donald Trump's request to claw back $9 billion in approved federal spending, including funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Panelists on Washington Week With The Atlantic joined last night to discuss the president's rescissions request—and what its approval may signal about future appropriations. 'What I think will be remembered of this vote is it was a test case in whether' Republicans in Congress 'could change the way the government appropriates money,' Michael Scherer, a staff writer at The Atlantic, said last night. Historically, Scherer explained, even when one party controls both chambers of Congress, 60 votes are still required to pass a budget through the Senate. 'That means you need a bipartisan process,' he continued. But this differs from a rescissions request, which can pass with only 51 votes. The Trump administration's goal, Scherer argued, is to break away from a bipartisan budgeting process 'by making it a purely partisan' one. This, Scherer said, could 'change dramatically the whole way the federal government's been budgeted for years.' Joining the editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, to discuss this and more: Leigh Ann Caldwell, the chief Washington correspondent at Puck; Stephen Hayes, the editor of The Dispatch, Meridith McGraw, a White House reporter at The Wall Street Journal; and Michael Scherer, a staff writer at The Atlantic. Watch the full episode here. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Will Canada's double whammy of tax cuts and defence spending hurt its AAA credit rating?
Canada's top-tier credit rating remains intact despite a post-election surge in federal spending and tax cuts, according to a new Desjardins report — but growing debt and a costly NATO defence commitment could threaten that standing in the years ahead. Canada currently holds some of the highest possible credit ratings among advanced economies — AAA from S&P, Aaa from Moody's and AA+ from Fitch — making it one of the best-rated bond issuers in the G7. Desjardins' report says that standing appears safe for now, despite growing fiscal pressures. 'The likely substantial increase in borrowing ahead probably doesn't mean much for the government of Canada's top-notch credit rating, at least in the near term,' it said. A sovereign credit rating is both an absolute and a relative assessment. On an absolute basis, it reflects a sovereign country's outstanding debt and its capacity to manage it, while also taking into account the relative credit developments of other sovereign countries. At NATO meetings at the end of June, member countries agreed to increase defence spending up to five per cent of their GDP by 2035. The spending is to be divided into core defence expenditures of 3.5 per cent and 1.5 per cent in defence-adjacent spending, according to Desjardins. For Canada, which lags behind its fellow NATO members in spending, this is a significant increase from its current defence outlay of 1.4 per cent of GDP. It has now committed to raising that number to two per cent by the end of the 2025-26 fiscal year. Randall Bartlett, chief economist at Desjardins, said that the spending could impact Canada's AAA credit rating. 'Canada has a lot of things going for it on the fiscal front. But over time, if our fiscal situation erodes, particularly if we can't find those savings, that does put Canada in a precarious position of potentially putting our AAA credit rating at risk,' he said. Bartlett noted that Canada has a long way to go to close the gap with its NATO partners, and a much further way to go than most other members to meet the new requirements. 'For the amount of spending that requires, the share of GDP is going to be a lot higher in Canada than it is in other countries, and that's certainly going to increase the debt burden of the federal government,' he said. According to IMF forecasts cited in the report, Canada's gross general government debt as a share of GDP would need to be about seven per cent higher if defence expenditure is to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2030. This is assuming no new spending and/or revenue cuts are introduced in other sectors to offset military spending. Bartlett reiterated that, in the near-term, Canada's rating is safe due to its strong fiscal positioning. However, he emphasized that the debt to GDP ratio will move higher. The new NATO defence spending framework could prove to be an issue for countries like Canada who have committed to meeting the targets and might find it hard to live up to that commitment, Bartlett said. He also raised concerns regarding Canada's fiscal path moving forward, citing the lack of information from the government. 'I think the fiscal path in Canada is certainly headed in the wrong direction at this point. Not only is spending higher, but the federal government has decided to cut taxes at the same time. That could put us in a very challenging situation in the future, which would potentially require deeper savings through spending cuts and lead to some very difficult choices,' Bartlett said. Michael Wernick: Canada needs a Defence and Security Tax to meet its new NATO commitments head on Expect higher deficits to meet Canada's 5% NATO defence spending target He further emphasized that the lack of a fiscal plan is a major concern, especially considering the dynamics of the global economy. 'I think it is deeply concerning, because not only does our forecast and those of others show that the GDP ratio is rising consistently over time, but it speaks to a lack of transparency in financial reporting (from the government)' he said.
Fox News
6 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
Trump's modest spending cuts package survives narrow Senate vote as some Republicans break ranks
What can you get for $9.4 billion? 3G Capital recently purchased footwear giant Skechers for $9.4 billion. $9.4 billion could cover your rent for a pretty nice apartment in New York City for more than 40,000 years. Yes, it will just be you and the cockroaches by then. Or, you could pay the cost of every major disaster in the past four decades – ranging from Chernobyl to Fukushima to Hurricane Sandy. But $9.4 billion isn't a lot when cast against nearly $7 trillion in annual spending by the federal government. And it's really not much money when you consider that the U.S. is about slip into the red to the tune of $37 trillion. Which brings us to the Congressional plan to cancel spending. That is, a measure from Republicans and the Trump Administration to rescind spending lawmakers already appropriated in March. The House and Senate are now clawing back money lawmakers shoved out the door for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and foreign aid programs under USAID. The original proposal cut $9.4 billion. But that figure dwindled to $9 billion – after the Senate restored money for "PEPFAR," a President George W. Bush era program to combat AIDS worldwide. In other words, you may have a couple thousand years lopped off from your rent-controlled apartment in New York City. Of course that hinges on what Democratic mayoral nominee Zorhan Mamdani decides to do, should he win election this fall. Anyway, back to Congressional spending. Or "un-spending." The House passed the original version of the bill in June, 216-214. Flip one vote and the bill would have failed on a 215-215 tie. Then it was on to the Senate. Republicans had to summon Vice President Vance to Capitol Hill to break a logjam on two procedural votes to send the spending cancellation bill to the floor and actually launch debate. Republicans have a 53-47 advantage in the Senate. But former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., along with Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska and Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted nay – producing a 50-50 tie. Fox is told some Senate Republicans are tiring of McConnell opposing the GOP – and President Trump – on various issues. That includes the nay votes to start debate on the spending cancellation bill as well as his vote against the confirmation of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in January. "He used to be the Leader. He was always telling us we need to stick together," said one GOP senator who requested anonymity. "Now he's off voting however he wants? How time flies." Note that McConnell led Senate Republicans as recently as early January. But McConnell ultimately voted for the legislation when the Senate approved it 51-48 at 2:28 am ET Thursday morning. Murkowski and Collins were the only noes. The services of Vice President Vance weren't needed due to McConnell's aye vote and the absence of Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn. She fell ill and was admitted to George Washington Hospital for exhaustion. As for the senior senator from Alaska, one GOP senator characterized it as "Murkowski fatigue." "She always asking. She's always wanting more," groused a Senate Republican. Murkowski secured an agreement on rural hospitals in exchange for her vote in favor of the Big, Beautiful Bill earlier this month. However, Murkowski did not secure more specificity on the DOGE cuts or help with rural, public radio stations in Alaska on the spending cut plan. "My vote is guided by the imperative of coming from Alaskans. I have a vote that I am free to cast, with or without the support of the President. My obligation is to my constituents and to the Constitution," said Murkowski. "I don't disagree that NPR over the years has tilted more partisan. That can be addressed. But you don't need to gut the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting." In a statement, Collins blasted the Trump administration for a lack of specificity about the precision of the rescissions request. Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee in charge of the federal purse strings, also criticized the administration a few months ago for a paucity of detail in the President's budget. "The rescissions package has a big problem – nobody really knows what program reductions are in it. That isn't because we haven't had time to review the bill," said Collins in a statement. "Instead, the problem is that OMB (the Office of Management and Budget) has never provided the details that would normally be part of this process." Collins wasn't the only Republican senator who worried about how the administration presented the spending cut package to Congress. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., fretted about Congress ceding the power of the purse to the administration. But unlike Collins, Wicker supported the package. "If we do this again, please give us specific information about where the cuts will come. Let's not make a habit of this," said Wicker. "If you come back to us again from the executive branch, give us the specific amounts in the specific programs that will be cut." DOGE recommended the cuts. In fact, most of the spending reductions targeted by DOGE don't go into effect unless Congress acts. But even the $9.4 billion proved challenging to cut. "We should be able to do that in our sleep. But there is looking like there's enough opposition," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Fox Business. So to court votes, GOP leaders salvaged $400 million for PEPFAR. "There was a lot of interest among our members in doing something on the PEPFAR issue," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. "You're still talking about a $9 billion rescissions package - even with that small modification." The aim to silence public broadcasting buoyed some Republicans. "North Dakota Public Radio - about 26% of their budget is federal funding. To me, that's more of an indictment than it is a need," said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. But back to the $9 billion. It's a fraction of one-tenth of one percent of all federal funding. And DOGE recommended more than a trillion dollars in cuts. "What does this say for the party if it can't even pass this bill, this piddling amount of money?" yours truly asked Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. "I think we're going to lose a lot of credibility. And we should," replied Kennedy. But the House needed to sync up with the Senate since it changed the bill – stripping the cut for AIDS funding. House conservatives weren't pleased that the Senate was jamming them again – just two weeks after major renovations to the House version of the Big, Beautiful Bill. But they accepted their fate. "It's disappointing that we're $37 trillion in debt. This to me was low-hanging fruit," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo. "At the end of the day, I'll take a base hit, right? It's better than nothing." White House Budget Director Russ Vought is expected to send other spending cancellation requests to Congress in the coming months. The aim is to target deeper spending reductions recommended by DOGE. But it doesn't auger well for future rescissions bills if it's this much of a battle to trim $9 trillion. What can you get for that much money? For Republicans, it's not much. Republicans were swinging for the fences with spending cuts. But in the political box score, this is recorded as just a base hit.
