thefiscaltimes--2020-12-23--Trump Sows Chaos With New Demands on Covid Relief Bill

President Trump on Tuesday night abruptly threw the $ 900 billion Covid relief package approved by Congress into chaos , calling the bill that his administration helped craft a “ disgrace ” and demanding changes to the hard-fought deal , including an increase in direct payments from $ 600 to $ 2,000 per person .
In a video posted to Twitter , Trump complained that the stimulus checks included in the relief package were “ ridiculously low ” and criticized a litany of other provisions in the massive legislative package passed this week , seeming to confuse the Covid relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending bill it was paired with to ease passage .
“ It ’ s called the Covid relief bill , but it has almost nothing to do with Covid , ” Trump said in his video , complaining about various appropriations he termed wasteful .
“ Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries , lobbyists and special interests , while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it , ” he said .
A last-minute muddle : As The Washington Post noted : “ Virtually all of the complaints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including foreign aid agreements , aid to the Kennedy Center , fish management language and more — are not part of the $ 900 billion covid relief agreement but rather included in other , separately negotiated parts of the legislation , including a $ 1.4 trillion omnibus appropriations bill and a measure authorizing $ 9.9 billion in water projects.
” And CNN reports that many of the items Trump objected to also appeared in his own budget proposal .
The president was largely absent from the congressional negotiations toward a coronavirus relief deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baseless and unsuccessful claims that he lost the election because of widespread fraud .
Trump had reportedly complained to aides last week that the $ 600 checks should be bigger , but was convinced — temporarily , it now seems — to not push the issue for fear of derailing the ongoing talks .
Trump ’ s comments reportedly blindsided some White House and congressional aides and left others in the administration embarrassed .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had represented the administration in talks — and , as The Washington Post points out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea .
“ In a meeting with congressional leaders on Dec. 15 , Mrs. Pelosi repeatedly asked Mr. Mnuchin what Mr. Trump ’ s position was on the direct payments , but he declined to answer , ” The Wall Street Journal reported , citing a person familiar with the meeting .
In a statement released earlier on Tuesday , Mnuchin said he was pleased that the Covid relief package had passed “ an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis ” and thanked Trump and congressional leaders for their work “ to provide critical additional economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and businesses.
” He added : “ We are fully committed to ensuring that hardworking Americans get this vital support as quickly as possible and to further strengthening our economic recovery.
” Making them squirm : As Washington scrambled to make sense of Trump ’ s surprise announcement , some suggested that he was responding to conservative backlash against the bill .
“ Current and former administration officials speculated on Tuesday evening that Mr. Trump did not like the narrative that he had been sidelined from the negotiations and that calling for higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please his base , ” The New York Times reported .
One unnamed aide told The Wall Street Journal that Trump ’ s move was an effort to make Congress squirm .
If so , Republicans are likely to be the ones feeling most uncomfortable .
“ This is what happens with a president who places more trust in conservative fever swamp Twitter than his own Treasury Secretary .
His administration helped negotiate this bill , and he just pulled down the pants of every Republican who voted for it , ” Brendan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan ( R-WI ) told the Post .
Some “ insiders ” reportedly suggested that may have been Trump ’ s goal , with the president intentionally punishing members of his own party because he felt angry and betrayed that GOP leaders had accepted the outcome of the election .
Democrats , on the other hand , eagerly took Trump up on his demand , with party leaders and members voicing support for the larger checks , seizing the opportunity to ratchet up pressure on congressional Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending and sought to limit the size of the aid package to less than $ 1 trillion .
Upping the payments to $ 2,000 per adult would add some $ 370 billion to the cost of the package , according to an estimate by economist Ernie Tedeschi , putting it well above the GOP ’ s ceiling .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) responded to the president ’ s Twitter post with one of her own : “ Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed to $ 2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent .
Let ’ s do it !
” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) criticized Republicans for previously blocking larger stimulus checks and pressed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to go along this time , tweeting : “ I ’ m in .
Whaddya say , Mitch ?
Let ’ s not get bogged down with ideological offsets and unrelated items and just DO THIS !
The American people deserve it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows at this point .
“ No one on either side of Pennsylvania Avenue appears to know what Trump ’ s plan is — or even if there is one , ” Politico reported .
How Trump ’ s challenge plays out in the coming days will determine whether coronavirus relief is delayed and the government shuts down .
Pelosi is set to stage a vote of support for the $ 2,000 payments by unanimous consent Thursday , but any Democratic effort to amend the relief package or approve payments isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to colleagues on Wednesday , the speaker said that bringing up a standalone bill to increase the direct payments would require the agreement of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) .
“ If the President truly wants to join us in $ 2,000 payments , he should call upon Leader McCarthy to agree to our Unanimous Consent request , ” she wrote .
Any House member could also block the bill from advancing by denying unanimous consent .
It ’ s not clear that the Senate would take up the measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to approve the larger payments .
It ’ s worth noting , though , that Trump did not explicitly threaten to veto the Covid relief and spending package .
“ I am also asking Congress to immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation , and to send me a suitable bill , or else the next administration will have to deliver a Covid relief package , and maybe that administration will be me , ” he said .
Having expressed his displeasure with the stimulus checks and made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who he might court in another presidential campaign , Trump could still relent and sign the package .
“ Two people close to the president said the president is unlikely to actually veto the bill and cause a government shutdown because he doesn ’ t want to delay funding for distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine , which he considers one of his biggest achievements , ” Politico reported .
If Trump does veto the bill , or refuses to sign it , the government could shut down on December 29 , when a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits provided by an earlier relief package , including an eviction moratorium and extended unemployment insurance , would expire by the end of the month .
Congress could still avert a shutdown by approving another stopgap funding bill , but averting additional economic pain would be harder .
The latest relief bill passed with a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress , but with the 116th Congress ending in just days , there ’ s a chance that Trump could prevent it from being enacted via a “ pocket veto ” — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begins on January 3 .
The new Congress would then have to pass the package again .
In the meantime , millions of jobless workers would see a lapse in benefits , and the expiration of emergency unemployment programs could push nearly 5 million people into poverty virtually overnight , according to an estimate from researchers at Columbia University cited by The New York Times .
Trump on Wednesday left Washington , D.C. , for his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida , where he reportedly plans to stay through the new year .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December 23 .

President Trump on Tuesday night abruptly threw the $900 billion Covid relief package approved by Congress into chaos, calling the bill that his administration helped craft a “disgrace” and demanding changes to the hard-fought deal, including an increase in direct payments from $600 to $2,000 per person.
In a video posted to Twitter, Trump complained that the stimulus checks included in the relief package were “ridiculously low” and criticized a litany of other provisions in the massive legislative package passed this week, seeming to confuse the Covid relief deal and the $1.4 trillion catchall spending bill it was paired with to ease passage.
“It’s called the Covid relief bill, but it has almost nothing to do with Covid,” Trump said in his video, complaining about various appropriations he termed wasteful. “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it,” he said.
A last-minute muddle: As The Washington Post noted: “Virtually all of the complaints Trump made in the four-minute video — including foreign aid agreements, aid to the Kennedy Center, fish management language and more — are not part of the $900 billion covid relief agreement but rather included in other, separately negotiated parts of the legislation, including a $1.4 trillion omnibus appropriations bill and a measure authorizing $9.9 billion in water projects.” And CNN reports that many of the items Trump objected to also appeared in his own budget proposal.
The president was largely absent from the congressional negotiations toward a coronavirus relief deal in recent weeks, focusing instead on baseless and unsuccessful claims that he lost the election because of widespread fraud. Trump had reportedly complained to aides last week that the $600 checks should be bigger, but was convinced — temporarily, it now seems — to not push the issue for fear of derailing the ongoing talks.
Trump’s comments reportedly blindsided some White House and congressional aides and left others in the administration embarrassed.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had represented the administration in talks — and, as The Washington Post points out, the $600 checks were his idea. “In a meeting with congressional leaders on Dec. 15, Mrs. Pelosi repeatedly asked Mr. Mnuchin what Mr. Trump’s position was on the direct payments, but he declined to answer,” The Wall Street Journal reported, citing a person familiar with the meeting.
In a statement released earlier on Tuesday, Mnuchin said he was pleased that the Covid relief package had passed “an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis” and thanked Trump and congressional leaders for their work “to provide critical additional economic relief for American workers, families, and businesses.” He added: “We are fully committed to ensuring that hardworking Americans get this vital support as quickly as possible and to further strengthening our economic recovery.”
Making them squirm: As Washington scrambled to make sense of Trump’s surprise announcement, some suggested that he was responding to conservative backlash against the bill. “Current and former administration officials speculated on Tuesday evening that Mr. Trump did not like the narrative that he had been sidelined from the negotiations and that calling for higher direct payments was a political move to please his base,” The New York Times reported.
One unnamed aide told The Wall Street Journal that Trump’s move was an effort to make Congress squirm. If so, Republicans are likely to be the ones feeling most uncomfortable. “This is what happens with a president who places more trust in conservative fever swamp Twitter than his own Treasury Secretary. His administration helped negotiate this bill, and he just pulled down the pants of every Republican who voted for it,” Brendan Buck, who served as a top aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) told the Post.
Some “insiders” reportedly suggested that may have been Trump’s goal, with the president intentionally punishing members of his own party because he felt angry and betrayed that GOP leaders had accepted the outcome of the election.
Democrats, on the other hand, eagerly took Trump up on his demand, with party leaders and members voicing support for the larger checks, seizing the opportunity to ratchet up pressure on congressional Republicans, most of whom oppose the additional spending and sought to limit the size of the aid package to less than $1 trillion. Upping the payments to $2,000 per adult would add some $370 billion to the cost of the package, according to an estimate by economist Ernie Tedeschi, putting it well above the GOP’s ceiling.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responded to the president’s Twitter post with one of her own: “Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks. At last, the President has agreed to $2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let’s do it!”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) criticized Republicans for previously blocking larger stimulus checks and pressed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to go along this time, tweeting: “I’m in. Whaddya say, Mitch? Let’s not get bogged down with ideological offsets and unrelated items and just DO THIS! The American people deserve it.”
What’s next: No one knows at this point. “No one on either side of Pennsylvania Avenue appears to know what Trump’s plan is — or even if there is one,” Politico reported.
How Trump’s challenge plays out in the coming days will determine whether coronavirus relief is delayed and the government shuts down.
Pelosi is set to stage a vote of support for the $2,000 payments by unanimous consent Thursday, but any Democratic effort to amend the relief package or approve payments isn’t likely to succeed.
In a letter to colleagues on Wednesday, the speaker said that bringing up a standalone bill to increase the direct payments would require the agreement of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). “If the President truly wants to join us in $2,000 payments, he should call upon Leader McCarthy to agree to our Unanimous Consent request,” she wrote. Any House member could also block the bill from advancing by denying unanimous consent. It’s not clear that the Senate would take up the measure either, and Senate Republicans are unlikely to approve the larger payments.
It’s worth noting, though, that Trump did not explicitly threaten to veto the Covid relief and spending package.
“I am also asking Congress to immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation, and to send me a suitable bill, or else the next administration will have to deliver a Covid relief package, and maybe that administration will be me,” he said.
Having expressed his displeasure with the stimulus checks and made his point to his base and voters who he might court in another presidential campaign, Trump could still relent and sign the package. “Two people close to the president said the president is unlikely to actually veto the bill and cause a government shutdown because he doesn’t want to delay funding for distribution of the Covid-19 vaccine, which he considers one of his biggest achievements,” Politico reported.
If Trump does veto the bill, or refuses to sign it, the government could shut down on December 29, when a stopgap funding measure expires, and emergency benefits provided by an earlier relief package, including an eviction moratorium and extended unemployment insurance, would expire by the end of the month.
Congress could still avert a shutdown by approving another stopgap funding bill, but averting additional economic pain would be harder.
The latest relief bill passed with a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, but with the 116th Congress ending in just days, there’s a chance that Trump could prevent it from being enacted via a “pocket veto” — not signing it before the 117th Congress begins on January 3.
The new Congress would then have to pass the package again. In the meantime, millions of jobless workers would see a lapse in benefits, and the expiration of emergency unemployment programs could push nearly 5 million people into poverty virtually overnight, according to an estimate from researchers at Columbia University cited by The New York Times.
Trump on Wednesday left Washington, D.C., for his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where he reportedly plans to stay through the new year.
This story was updated at 6:45 p.m. on December 23.


thefiscaltimes--2020-12-22--Congress Plans Post-Christmas Session to Try to Override Trump Veto

President Trump has announced that he plans to veto the $ 741 billion National Defense Authorization Act , which Congress passed with veto-proof majorities earlier this month .
The bill , which has passed annually every year for the past 59 years , defines spending levels and key policies for the Department of Defense .
Trump has criticized this year ’ s version on numerous counts , including its failure to repeal legal protections for tech firms and its requirement that the names of Confederate leaders be removed from military bases .
Politico ’ s Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no signs of changing his mind .
“ Aides and congressional allies have made it clear to Trump that his veto is likely to be overridden , and have tried to get him to back off , but he does not at all appear moved by their pleas , ” they wrote .
In response , Congress has drawn up plans to reconvene between Christmas and New Year ’ s .
If Trump follows through on the threat – which he must do by December 23 – the House will return to Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ override the veto .
While the margin in favor of an override looks safe , there is some uncertainty , with some Republicans who voted for the bill the first time around saying they would not vote to override a Trump veto .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) announced Tuesday that , while he hopes the president does not veto the bill , the Senate would be in session on December 29 to “ process ” the House override should he do so .
Facing a noon deadline on January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate could face procedural hurdles , according to The Hill ’ s Jordain Carney .
Trump supporters could try to drag the process out by requiring a cloture vote of 60 senators .
Majority Whip Sen. John Thune ( R-SD ) said the process could take a few days .
`` It will take more than one day if we have objections and I think we probably will .
So the question is , if the House , if they override it , then ... we 'll have to set it up , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do that , '' Thune said .
Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) said he would try to slow the process down , due in part to a provision that limits the president ’ s ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan .
“ I very much am opposed to the Afghan war , and I ’ ve told them I ’ ll come back to try to prevent them from easily overriding the president ’ s veto , ” Paul said Monday .

President Trump has announced that he plans to veto the $741 billion National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress passed with veto-proof majorities earlier this month.
The bill, which has passed annually every year for the past 59 years, defines spending levels and key policies for the Department of Defense. Trump has criticized this year’s version on numerous counts, including its failure to repeal legal protections for tech firms and its requirement that the names of Confederate leaders be removed from military bases.
Politico’s Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman reported Tuesday that the president is showing no signs of changing his mind. “Aides and congressional allies have made it clear to Trump that his veto is likely to be overridden, and have tried to get him to back off, but he does not at all appear moved by their pleas,” they wrote.
In response, Congress has drawn up plans to reconvene between Christmas and New Year’s. If Trump follows through on the threat – which he must do by December 23 – the House will return to Washington for a session on December 28 to override the veto. While the margin in favor of an override looks safe, there is some uncertainty, with some Republicans who voted for the bill the first time around saying they would not vote to override a Trump veto.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced Tuesday that, while he hopes the president does not veto the bill, the Senate would be in session on December 29 to “process” the House override should he do so.
Facing a noon deadline on January 3 to complete the override, the Senate could face procedural hurdles, according to The Hill’s Jordain Carney. Trump supporters could try to drag the process out by requiring a cloture vote of 60 senators. Majority Whip Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said the process could take a few days. "It will take more than one day if we have objections and I think we probably will. So the question is, if the House, if they override it, then ... we'll have to set it up, and it may take a few days to do that," Thune said.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he would try to slow the process down, due in part to a provision that limits the president’s ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. “I very much am opposed to the Afghan war, and I’ve told them I’ll come back to try to prevent them from easily overriding the president’s veto,” Paul said Monday.


thefiscaltimes--2020-12-28--The Night Before Christmas 2020

The Night Before Christmas 2020

'T was the night before Christmas , and up on the Hill Congress keeps fighting over its stimulus bill .
@ @ @ @ @ if they dare Block the bigger checks Trump said are fair .
Sure enough , @ @ @ @ @ Then off to their homes our lawmakers went .
And Trump showed no signs of @ @ @ @ @ left for Florida early last night To pardon more pals while he still has that @ @ @ @ @ s no Merry Christmas for all , not tonight .
Because the president and Congress @ @ @ @ @ fight .
They all say they want the economy to grow faster But right now @ @ @ @ @ re headed for disaster .

'Twas the night before Christmas, and up on the Hill
Congress keeps fighting over its stimulus bill.
Pelosi pressed Republicans to see if they dare
Block the bigger checks Trump said are fair.
Sure enough, Republicans denied their consent.
Then off to their homes our lawmakers went.
Bye, Mitch! Bye, Kevin! Bye, Nancy! Bye, Chuck!
And Trump showed no signs of giving a f—-.
He left for Florida early last night
To pardon more pals while he still has that right.
So it’s no Merry Christmas for all, not tonight.
Because the president and Congress won’t end this fight.
They all say they want the economy to grow faster
But right now it feels like we’re headed for disaster.


thefiscaltimes--2020-12-23--Trump Vetoes $741 Billion Defense Bill

Trump Vetoes $741 Billion Defense Bill

President Trump carried through on his threat to veto the $ 741 billion National Defense Authorization Act Wednesday , setting up what is expected to be the first veto override during his administration .
Both the House and the Senate passed the bill earlier this month with veto-proof majorities , and Congress has already made plans for a post-Christmas session during which lawmakers plan to override the veto .
Congress will have until noon on January 3 to do so .
In his statement announcing the veto , Trump charged that the bill is “ a ‘ gift ’ to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No one has worked harder , or approved more money for the military , than I have , ” the president recited a series of complaints about the bill , including its failure to repeal legal protections for tech firms , its establishment of a process for removing the names of Confederate leaders from U.S. military bases , and its restrictions on the executive ’ s ability to bring troops home from overseas .
“ For all of these reasons , I can not support this bill , ” Trump said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help keep our Nation safe and support our service members .
I will not approve this bill , which would put the interests of the Washington , D.C. establishment over those of the American people.
” Congress reacts : House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith ( D-WA ) said Wednesday he was confident the bill would become law .
“ The FY21 NDAA passed with overwhelming , veto-proof support in both the House and Senate , and I remain confident that Congress will override this harmful veto , ” Smith said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-NY ) was more pointed in his criticism , invoking the military pay raise included in the bill .
“ Donald Trump just vetoed a pay raise for our troops so he can defend dead Confederate traitors , ” Schumer tweeted .
“ Democrats will vote to override it.
” Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma , one of Trump ’ s most loyal Republican allies , released a statement praising the president while calling for passage of the bill .
Inhofe did not mention that Trump had in fact vetoed the bill and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill into law .

President Trump carried through on his threat to veto the $741 billion National Defense Authorization Act Wednesday, setting up what is expected to be the first veto override during his administration.
Both the House and the Senate passed the bill earlier this month with veto-proof majorities, and Congress has already made plans for a post-Christmas session during which lawmakers plan to override the veto. Congress will have until noon on January 3 to do so.
In his statement announcing the veto, Trump charged that the bill is “a ‘gift’ to China and Russia.” Boasting that “No one has worked harder, or approved more money for the military, than I have,” the president recited a series of complaints about the bill, including its failure to repeal legal protections for tech firms, its establishment of a process for removing the names of Confederate leaders from U.S. military bases, and its restrictions on the executive’s ability to bring troops home from overseas.
“For all of these reasons, I cannot support this bill,” Trump said. “My Administration has taken strong actions to help keep our Nation safe and support our service members. I will not approve this bill, which would put the interests of the Washington, D.C. establishment over those of the American people.”
Congress reacts: House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) said Wednesday he was confident the bill would become law. “The FY21 NDAA passed with overwhelming, veto-proof support in both the House and Senate, and I remain confident that Congress will override this harmful veto,” Smith said in a statement.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was more pointed in his criticism, invoking the military pay raise included in the bill. “Donald Trump just vetoed a pay raise for our troops so he can defend dead Confederate traitors,” Schumer tweeted. “Democrats will vote to override it.”
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of Trump’s most loyal Republican allies, released a statement praising the president while calling for passage of the bill. Inhofe did not mention that Trump had in fact vetoed the bill and was the only impediment to passing the bill into law.


thefiscaltimes--2020-12-28--Trump Caves, Signs $2.3 Trillion Year-End Covid Relief and Spending Package

After five days of drama and uncertainty created by his demands for the massive year-end Covid relief and government funding bill , President Trump on Sunday unexpectedly signed into law the package he had dismissed days earlier as a “ disgrace.
” The reversal by the president averted a government shutdown that would have started on Tuesday and it will extend a moratorium on evictions that was due to lapse at the end of the month .
But the delay in enacting the legislation also allowed pandemic-related unemployment benefits for some 14 million Americans to temporarily expire .
Those programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others who don ’ t typically qualify for unemployment insurance and the other extending payments by up to 13 weeks — will restart now that Trump has signed the bill , but jobless workers in the programs likely won ’ t get a payment for the final week of the year and future benefits could also be delayed as state agencies update their computers .
The $ 300 in weekly supplemental federal payments may now only last 10 weeks instead of 11 since the legislation sets a March 14 end date for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s pointless delay in approving the relief legislation cost millions of Americans a week ’ s worth of pandemic-related unemployment assistance that they desperately need , ” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal ( D-MA ) said in a statement .
“ His stalling only intensified anxiety and hardship for workers and families who are collateral damage in his political games .
Now , people will need to wait even longer for direct payments and other vital assistance to arrive.
” What Trump says he got : Trump had insisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid relief bill and $ 1.4 trillion omnibus spending package were passed by Congress with overwhelming support — that the $ 600 per person in direct payments provided by the legislation should be increased .
He also railed against other spending in the nearly 5,600-page year-end package before departing Washington to spend the holidays in Florida , where he has been golfing repeatedly in recent days .
The president said in a statement released Sunday that he still wants increased stimulus payments of $ 2,000 per adult and $ 600 per child and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or cuts to various spending measures in the legislation .
“ I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed .
I will send back to Congress a redlined version , item by item , accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill , ” the statement said .
Trump added that Congress will review Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , a law he objects to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liability for content posted on their platforms .
The president said that section of the law will “ either be terminated or substantially reformed.
” And , he said , Congress agreed to “ focus strongly ” on his claims of election fraud .
“ The Senate will start the process for a vote that increases checks to $ 2,000 , repeals Section 230 , and starts an investigation into voter fraud , ” he said .
“ Much more money is coming .
I will never give up my fight for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got : Trump ’ s demands reportedly caused lawmakers to panic , concerned about the potential effects of a government shutdown during a pandemic .
Republicans , in particular , were in an uncomfortable position , faced with a choice of publicly bucking a president of their own party or accepting the larger payments that they had previously blocked .
Trump , angry at lawmakers in both parties , may have been happy to make them squirm — and to thrust himself into the legislative process again after largely being absent from negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud .
In practical terms , though , the president got nothing from the last-minute confusion he created .
“ Trump got taken to the cleaners , ” Politico ’ s Playbook said .
“ What a bizarre , embarrassing episode for the president .
He opposed a bill his administration negotiated .
He had no discernible strategy and no hand to play — and it showed .
He folded , and got nothing besides a few days of attention and chaos .
People waiting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertainty.
” Lawmakers are likely to dismiss any rescission requests Trump sends or act on his other demands .
“ I applaud President Trump ’ s decision to get hundreds of billions of dollars of crucial COVID-19 relief out the door and into the hands of American families as quickly as possible , '' Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that made no mention of the concessions Trump said lawmakers had made .
What ’ s next : The Democratic-led House is set to vote Monday evening on a separate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 2,000 per adult .
The House failed to approve the increased payments by unanimous consent on Thursday , but there ’ s a fair chance that the measure will pass today .
It ’ s unclear whether the larger payments can clear the Senate , where 60 votes will be needed for passage .
“ If the bill actually passes the House with a strong Republican vote , it will put Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a tough position of having to decide whether to bring the provision to the floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” CNN reports .
“ While the President has been urging Republicans to up the payments , many Republicans in McConnell ’ s ranks have made it clear they don ’ t think an increase is warranted , given how much it would increase the price tag of the stimulus bill.
” The increased payments would add roughly $ 370 billion to the $ 900 billion cost of the Covid relief package .
A veto override ?
The House also plans to vote to override Trump ’ s veto of the annual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set to vote on that Tuesday , potentially overriding a Trump veto for the first time .
The Treasury Department , meanwhile , is rushing to get stimulus payments out , but The Washington Post reports that it ’ s not clear yet whether the administration will be able to start sending the payments by the end of the week .

After five days of drama and uncertainty created by his demands for the massive year-end Covid relief and government funding bill, President Trump on Sunday unexpectedly signed into law the package he had dismissed days earlier as a “disgrace.”
The reversal by the president averted a government shutdown that would have started on Tuesday and it will extend a moratorium on evictions that was due to lapse at the end of the month. But the delay in enacting the legislation also allowed pandemic-related unemployment benefits for some 14 million Americans to temporarily expire.
Those programs — one providing aid to gig workers and others who don’t typically qualify for unemployment insurance and the other extending payments by up to 13 weeks — will restart now that Trump has signed the bill, but jobless workers in the programs likely won’t get a payment for the final week of the year and future benefits could also be delayed as state agencies update their computers. The $300 in weekly supplemental federal payments may now only last 10 weeks instead of 11 since the legislation sets a March 14 end date for the enhanced benefits.
“The President’s pointless delay in approving the relief legislation cost millions of Americans a week’s worth of pandemic-related unemployment assistance that they desperately need,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) said in a statement. “His stalling only intensified anxiety and hardship for workers and families who are collateral damage in his political games. Now, people will need to wait even longer for direct payments and other vital assistance to arrive.”
What Trump says he got: Trump had insisted last week — after the $900 Covid relief bill and $1.4 trillion omnibus spending package were passed by Congress with overwhelming support — that the $600 per person in direct payments provided by the legislation should be increased. He also railed against other spending in the nearly 5,600-page year-end package before departing Washington to spend the holidays in Florida, where he has been golfing repeatedly in recent days.
The president said in a statement released Sunday that he still wants increased stimulus payments of $2,000 per adult and $600 per child and would be demanding numerous “rescissions” or cuts to various spending measures in the legislation.
“I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed. I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill,” the statement said.
Trump added that Congress will review Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law he objects to that protects big tech companies like Twitter from liability for content posted on their platforms. The president said that section of the law will “either be terminated or substantially reformed.” And, he said, Congress agreed to “focus strongly” on his claims of election fraud.
“The Senate will start the process for a vote that increases checks to $2,000, repeals Section 230, and starts an investigation into voter fraud,” he said. “Much more money is coming. I will never give up my fight for the American people!”
What Trump really got: Trump’s demands reportedly caused lawmakers to panic, concerned about the potential effects of a government shutdown during a pandemic. Republicans, in particular, were in an uncomfortable position, faced with a choice of publicly bucking a president of their own party or accepting the larger payments that they had previously blocked.
Trump, angry at lawmakers in both parties, may have been happy to make them squirm — and to thrust himself into the legislative process again after largely being absent from negotiations on the year-end deal as he focused on his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.
In practical terms, though, the president got nothing from the last-minute confusion he created.
“Trump got taken to the cleaners,” Politico’s Playbook said. “What a bizarre, embarrassing episode for the president. He opposed a bill his administration negotiated. He had no discernible strategy and no hand to play — and it showed. He folded, and got nothing besides a few days of attention and chaos. People waiting for aid got a few days of frightening uncertainty.”
Lawmakers are likely to dismiss any rescission requests Trump sends or act on his other demands.
“I applaud President Trump’s decision to get hundreds of billions of dollars of crucial COVID-19 relief out the door and into the hands of American families as quickly as possible," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that made no mention of the concessions Trump said lawmakers had made.
What’s next: The Democratic-led House is set to vote Monday evening on a separate bill to increase the relief payments to $2,000 per adult. The House failed to approve the increased payments by unanimous consent on Thursday, but there’s a fair chance that the measure will pass today.
It’s unclear whether the larger payments can clear the Senate, where 60 votes will be needed for passage. “If the bill actually passes the House with a strong Republican vote, it will put Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a tough position of having to decide whether to bring the provision to the floor in the Senate as a standalone bill,” CNN reports. “While the President has been urging Republicans to up the payments, many Republicans in McConnell’s ranks have made it clear they don’t think an increase is warranted, given how much it would increase the price tag of the stimulus bill.”
The increased payments would add roughly $370 billion to the $900 billion cost of the Covid relief package.
A veto override? The House also plans to vote to override Trump’s veto of the annual defense authorization bill. The Senate is set to vote on that Tuesday, potentially overriding a Trump veto for the first time.
The Treasury Department, meanwhile, is rushing to get stimulus payments out, but The Washington Post reports that it’s not clear yet whether the administration will be able to start sending the payments by the end of the week.


thefiscaltimes--2020-12-22--Biden Promises to Pursue Another Big Stimulus, Including Checks

President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday praised Congress for passing the relief bill , but he said the package is “ far from perfect ” and reiterated that he sees it as just a “ down payment ” on an additional aid package he wants to pass after he takes office .
“ We have a lot more work to do .
Early next year I will put before the Congress my plans for what comes next , ” he said .
“ We will need more help to fully distribute the vaccine .
We need more testing in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding to help firefighters and police , many of whom are being laid off .
The same with nurses risking their lives on the frontlines .
The same for the millions of families hurting and unable to put food on the table or pay rent or a mortgage.
” Asked by a reporter if he would seek to provide a third round of direct payments , Biden said yes , but that the amount would be “ a negotiating issue.
” Congressional leaders have said they expect to consider another Covid relief bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope that as we see the need for what we have done in this nearly $ 900 billion legislation that we ’ ll vote on today , that everyone understands it ’ s a first step , ” Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) said on the House floor Monday .
Biden said that American families suffering the hardships caused by the virus — including Republicans — will push their representatives in Congress to work with him to provide more help .
Asked if he Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press for liability protections for businesses , hospitals and schools .
`` I think liability relief is really important , ” McConnell told Fox News on Monday .
“ And if there is another coronavirus relief bill after the first year of the year , I 'm going to insist that liability protection for these universities and healthcare providers is a part of it .
”

President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday praised Congress for passing the relief bill, but he said the package is “far from perfect” and reiterated that he sees it as just a “down payment” on an additional aid package he wants to pass after he takes office.
“We have a lot more work to do. Early next year I will put before the Congress my plans for what comes next,” he said. “We will need more help to fully distribute the vaccine. We need more testing in order to reopen our schools. We need more funding to help firefighters and police, many of whom are being laid off. The same with nurses risking their lives on the frontlines. The same for the millions of families hurting and unable to put food on the table or pay rent or a mortgage.”
Asked by a reporter if he would seek to provide a third round of direct payments, Biden said yes, but that the amount would be “a negotiating issue.”
Congressional leaders have said they expect to consider another Covid relief bill early next year. “I would hope that as we see the need for what we have done in this nearly $900 billion legislation that we’ll vote on today, that everyone understands it’s a first step,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor Monday.
Biden said that American families suffering the hardships caused by the virus — including Republicans — will push their representatives in Congress to work with him to provide more help. Asked if he
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) indicated Monday that he will continue to press for liability protections for businesses, hospitals and schools. "I think liability relief is really important,” McConnell told Fox News on Monday. “And if there is another coronavirus relief bill after the first year of the year, I'm going to insist that liability protection for these universities and healthcare providers is a part of it.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-12-29--McConnell Blocks $2,000 Covid Relief Checks

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) on Tuesday blocked an attempt by Democrats to pass a bill that would increase coronavirus relief payments from $ 600 to $ 2,000 for most Americans .
McConnell objected to calls by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) for unanimous consent to approve the $ 2,000 payments .
In a bit of parliamentary maneuvering , Sanders then blocked McConnell ’ s bid to unanimously override President Trump ’ s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act , tying to the two issues together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few days left before the 116th Congress comes to a close on Sunday .
Both the $ 2,000 payments and the NDAA veto override were passed by the House on Monday .
The larger stimulus checks passed 275-134 , with 44 Republicans joining 231 Democrats in favor of the increased payments and 130 Republicans opposed .
House lawmakers voted 322-87 to override Trump 's veto of the defense bill .
The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said Monday that increasing the direct payments from $ 600 to $ 2,000 and expanding eligibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 464 billion .
McConnell ’ s strategy : Speaking on the floor of the Senate , McConnell recognized that Trump had demanded that the coronavirus relief legislation , which was signed into law on Sunday , include the $ 2,000 payments .
He also referred to two of Trump ’ s other complaints about the bill : that it failed to remove legal protections for tech firms contained in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or provide for further investigations of alleged election fraud .
“ Those are the three important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This week the Senate will begin a process to bring those three priorities into focus , ” McConnell said , while remaining vague about how those issues — and the timing of votes — might play out .
McConnell ’ s on Tuesday reportedly filed a bill tying the $ 2,000 payments — which he and other Republican leaders oppose — to Trump ’ s additional demands .
The move is sure to undermine support for the bill among Democrats , who are unlikely to vote in favor of eliminating Section 230 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a statement , Schumer said that McConnell ’ s combined bill `` will not pass the House and can not become law – any move like this by Sen. McConnell would a blatant attempt to deprive Americans of a $ 2,000 survival check . ''
Trump responds : The president replied to McConnell ’ s vote block in a tweet : “ Unless Republicans have a death wish , and it is also the right thing to do , they must approve the $ 2000 payments ASAP .
$ 600 IS NOT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Section 230 - Don ’ t let Big Tech steal our Country , and don ’ t let the Democrats steal the Presidential Election.
” Trump also attacked Republican leaders , calling them “ weak and tired ” for allowing the override vote on the NDAA to proceed .
Strange bedfellows : The conflict is creating some unusual alliances , with Democrats backing Trump on the larger relief payments and GOP leaders threatening to defy a president they have been loath to cross in the past .
While most Republican senators oppose the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a handful have expressed support , including Sens .
Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) and Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) .
Facing runoff elections next week , GOP Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia have also recently gotten behind the effort .
What ’ s next : McConnell may have effectively killed off the $ 2,000 checks since his combined bill won ’ t pass the Senate and the House is done for the year .
A Senate vote to override the NDAA is now delayed until January 1 at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and senators my now face several days of debate and maneuvering on the relief payments .
“ McConnell ’ s move was just the beginning of a saga that is likely to engulf the Senate for the rest of the week , ” The Washington Post ’ s Mike DeBonis and Tony Romm reported .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Tuesday blocked an attempt by Democrats to pass a bill that would increase coronavirus relief payments from $600 to $2,000 for most Americans.
McConnell objected to calls by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for unanimous consent to approve the $2,000 payments. In a bit of parliamentary maneuvering, Sanders then blocked McConnell’s bid to unanimously override President Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, tying to the two issues together while leaving both in limbo with just a few days left before the 116th Congress comes to a close on Sunday.
Both the $2,000 payments and the NDAA veto override were passed by the House on Monday. The larger stimulus checks passed 275-134, with 44 Republicans joining 231 Democrats in favor of the increased payments and 130 Republicans opposed. House lawmakers voted 322-87 to override Trump's veto of the defense bill.
The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said Monday that increasing the direct payments from $600 to $2,000 and expanding eligibility as the House-passed bill did would cost $464 billion.
McConnell’s strategy: Speaking on the floor of the Senate, McConnell recognized that Trump had demanded that the coronavirus relief legislation, which was signed into law on Sunday, include the $2,000 payments. He also referred to two of Trump’s other complaints about the bill: that it failed to remove legal protections for tech firms contained in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or provide for further investigations of alleged election fraud.
“Those are the three important subjects the president has linked together. This week the Senate will begin a process to bring those three priorities into focus,” McConnell said, while remaining vague about how those issues — and the timing of votes — might play out.
McConnell’s on Tuesday reportedly filed a bill tying the $2,000 payments — which he and other Republican leaders oppose — to Trump’s additional demands. The move is sure to undermine support for the bill among Democrats, who are unlikely to vote in favor of eliminating Section 230 or opening investigations into the recent election. In a statement, Schumer said that McConnell’s combined bill "will not pass the House and cannot become law – any move like this by Sen. McConnell would a blatant attempt to deprive Americans of a $2,000 survival check."
Trump responds: The president replied to McConnell’s vote block in a tweet: “Unless Republicans have a death wish, and it is also the right thing to do, they must approve the $2000 payments ASAP. $600 IS NOT ENOUGH! Also, get rid of Section 230 - Don’t let Big Tech steal our Country, and don’t let the Democrats steal the Presidential Election.”
Trump also attacked Republican leaders, calling them “weak and tired” for allowing the override vote on the NDAA to proceed.
Strange bedfellows: The conflict is creating some unusual alliances, with Democrats backing Trump on the larger relief payments and GOP leaders threatening to defy a president they have been loath to cross in the past.
While most Republican senators oppose the effort to increase the relief payments, a handful have expressed support, including Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). Facing runoff elections next week, GOP Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia have also recently gotten behind the effort.
What’s next: McConnell may have effectively killed off the $2,000 checks since his combined bill won’t pass the Senate and the House is done for the year.
A Senate vote to override the NDAA is now delayed until January 1 at the earliest, Roll Call said, and senators my now face several days of debate and maneuvering on the relief payments.
“McConnell’s move was just the beginning of a saga that is likely to engulf the Senate for the rest of the week,” The Washington Post’s Mike DeBonis and Tony Romm reported.


thefiscaltimes--2020-12-28--Some Said the Vaccine Rollout Would Be a ‘Nightmare.’ They Were Right.

WASHINGTON — Even before there was a vaccine , some seasoned doctors and public health experts warned , Cassandra-like , that its distribution would be “ a logistical nightmare.
” After Week 1 of the rollout , “ nightmare ” sounds like an apt description .
Dozens of states say they didn ’ t receive nearly the number of promised doses .
Pfizer says millions of doses sat in its storerooms , because no one from President Donald Trump ’ s Operation Warp Speed task force told them where to ship them .
A number of states have few sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Pfizer product , so , for example , front-line workers in Georgia have had to travel 40 minutes to get a shot .
At some hospitals , residents treating COVID patients protested that they had not received the vaccine while administrators did , even though they work from home and don ’ t treat patients .
The potential for more chaos is high .
Dr. Vivek Murthy , named as the next surgeon general under President-elect Joe Biden , said this week that the Trump administration ’ s prediction — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April — was realistic only if everything went smoothly .
He instead predicted wide distribution by summer or fall .
The Trump administration had expressed confidence that the rollout would be smooth , because it was being overseen by a four-star general , Gustave Perna , an expert in logistics .
But it turns out that getting fuel , tanks and tents into war-torn mountainous Afghanistan is in many ways simpler than passing out a vaccine in our privatized , profit-focused and highly fragmented medical system .
Gen. Perna apologized this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal responsibility.
” It ’ s really mostly not his fault .
Throughout the COVID pandemic , the U.S. health care system has shown that it is not built for a coordinated pandemic response ( among many other things ) .
States took wildly different COVID prevention measures ; individual hospitals varied in their ability to face this kind of national disaster ; and there were huge regional disparities in test availability — with a slow ramp-up in availability due , at least in some part , because no payment or billing mechanism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be any different ?
In World War II , toymakers were conscripted to make needed military hardware airplane parts , and commercial shipyards to make military transport vessels .
The Trump administration has been averse to invoking the Defense Production Act , which could help speed and coordinate the process of vaccine manufacture and distribution .
On Tuesday , it indicated it might do so , but only to help Pfizer obtain raw materials that are in short supply , so that the drugmaker could produce — and sell — more vaccines in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central health-directed strategy , we have multiple companies competing to capture their financial piece of the pandemic health care pie , each with its patent-protected product as well as its own supply chain and shipping methods .
Add to this bedlam the current decision-tree governing distribution : The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made official recommendations about who should get the vaccine first — but throughout the pandemic , many states have felt free to ignore the agency ’ s suggestions .
Instead , Operation Warp Speed allocated initial doses to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From there , an inscrutable mix of state officials , public health agencies and lobbyists seem to be determining where the vaccine should go .
In some states , counties requested an allotment from the state , and then they tried to accommodate requests from hospitals , which made their individual algorithms for how to dole out the precious cargo .
Once it became clear there wasn ’ t enough vaccine to go around , each entity made its own adjustments .
Some doses are being shipped by FedEx or UPS .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Operation Warp Speed — is shipping much of the vaccine itself .
In nursing homes , some vaccines will be delivered and administered by employees of CVS and Walgreens , though issues of staffing and consent remain there .
The Moderna vaccine , rolling out this week , will be packaged by the “ pharmaceutical services provider ” Catalent in Bloomington , Indiana , and then sent to McKesson , a large pharmaceutical logistics and distribution outfit .
It has offices in places like Memphis , Tennessee , and Louisville , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UPS , which will ship them out .
Is your head spinning yet ?
Looking forward , basic questions remain for 2021 : How will essential workers at some risk ( transit workers , teachers , grocery store employees ) know when it ’ s their turn ?
( And it will matter which city you work in . )
What about people with chronic illness — and then everyone else ?
And who administers the vaccine — doctors or the local drugstore ?
In Belgium , where many hospitals and doctors are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization , residents will get an invitation letter “ when it ’ s their turn.
” In Britain , the National Joint Committee on Vaccination has settled on a priority list for vaccinations — those over 80 , those who live or work in nursing homes , and health care workers at high risk .
The National Health Service will let everyone else “ know when it ’ s your turn to get the vaccine ” from the government-run health system .
In the United States , I dread a mad scramble — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CVS on P Street got a shipment ?
” But this time , it ’ s not toilet paper .
Combine this vision of disorder with the nation ’ s high death toll , and it ’ s not surprising that there is intense jockeying and lobbying — by schools , unions , even people with different types of preexisting diseases — over who should get the vaccine first , second and third .
It ’ s hard to “ wait your turn ” in a country where there are 200,000 new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily COVID deaths — a tragic per capita order of magnitude higher than in many other developed countries .
So kudos and thanks to the science and the scientists who made the vaccine in record time .
I ’ ll eagerly hold out my arm — so I can see the family and friends and colleagues I ’ ve missed all these months .
If only I can figure out when I ’ m eligible , and where to go to get it .

WASHINGTON — Even before there was a vaccine, some seasoned doctors and public health experts warned, Cassandra-like, that its distribution would be “a logistical nightmare.”
After Week 1 of the rollout, “nightmare” sounds like an apt description.
Dozens of states say they didn’t receive nearly the number of promised doses. Pfizer says millions of doses sat in its storerooms, because no one from President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed task force told them where to ship them. A number of states have few sites that can handle the ultra-cold storage required for the Pfizer product, so, for example, front-line workers in Georgia have had to travel 40 minutes to get a shot. At some hospitals, residents treating COVID patients protested that they had not received the vaccine while administrators did, even though they work from home and don’t treat patients.
The potential for more chaos is high. Dr. Vivek Murthy, named as the next surgeon general under President-elect Joe Biden, said this week that the Trump administration’s prediction — that the general population would get the vaccine in April — was realistic only if everything went smoothly. He instead predicted wide distribution by summer or fall.
The Trump administration had expressed confidence that the rollout would be smooth, because it was being overseen by a four-star general, Gustave Perna, an expert in logistics. But it turns out that getting fuel, tanks and tents into war-torn mountainous Afghanistan is in many ways simpler than passing out a vaccine in our privatized, profit-focused and highly fragmented medical system. Gen. Perna apologized this week, saying he wanted to “take personal responsibility.” It’s really mostly not his fault.
Throughout the COVID pandemic, the U.S. health care system has shown that it is not built for a coordinated pandemic response (among many other things). States took wildly different COVID prevention measures; individual hospitals varied in their ability to face this kind of national disaster; and there were huge regional disparities in test availability — with a slow ramp-up in availability due, at least in some part, because no payment or billing mechanism was established.
Why should vaccine distribution be any different?
In World War II, toymakers were conscripted to make needed military hardware airplane parts, and commercial shipyards to make military transport vessels. The Trump administration has been averse to invoking the Defense Production Act, which could help speed and coordinate the process of vaccine manufacture and distribution. On Tuesday, it indicated it might do so, but only to help Pfizer obtain raw materials that are in short supply, so that the drugmaker could produce — and sell — more vaccines in the United States.
Instead of a central health-directed strategy, we have multiple companies competing to capture their financial piece of the pandemic health care pie, each with its patent-protected product as well as its own supply chain and shipping methods.
Add to this bedlam the current decision-tree governing distribution: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made official recommendations about who should get the vaccine first — but throughout the pandemic, many states have felt free to ignore the agency’s suggestions.
Instead, Operation Warp Speed allocated initial doses to the states, depending on population. From there, an inscrutable mix of state officials, public health agencies and lobbyists seem to be determining where the vaccine should go. In some states, counties requested an allotment from the state, and then they tried to accommodate requests from hospitals, which made their individual algorithms for how to dole out the precious cargo. Once it became clear there wasn’t enough vaccine to go around, each entity made its own adjustments.
Some doses are being shipped by FedEx or UPS. But Pfizer — which did not fully participate in Operation Warp Speed — is shipping much of the vaccine itself. In nursing homes, some vaccines will be delivered and administered by employees of CVS and Walgreens, though issues of staffing and consent remain there.
The Moderna vaccine, rolling out this week, will be packaged by the “pharmaceutical services provider” Catalent in Bloomington, Indiana, and then sent to McKesson, a large pharmaceutical logistics and distribution outfit. It has offices in places like Memphis, Tennessee, and Louisville, which are near air hubs for FedEx and UPS, which will ship them out.
Is your head spinning yet?
Looking forward, basic questions remain for 2021: How will essential workers at some risk (transit workers, teachers, grocery store employees) know when it’s their turn? (And it will matter which city you work in.) What about people with chronic illness — and then everyone else? And who administers the vaccine — doctors or the local drugstore?
In Belgium, where many hospitals and doctors are private but work within a significant central organization, residents will get an invitation letter “when it’s their turn.” In Britain, the National Joint Committee on Vaccination has settled on a priority list for vaccinations — those over 80, those who live or work in nursing homes, and health care workers at high risk. The National Health Service will let everyone else “know when it’s your turn to get the vaccine ” from the government-run health system.
In the United States, I dread a mad scramble — as in, “Did you hear the CVS on P Street got a shipment?” But this time, it’s not toilet paper.
Combine this vision of disorder with the nation’s high death toll, and it’s not surprising that there is intense jockeying and lobbying — by schools, unions, even people with different types of preexisting diseases — over who should get the vaccine first, second and third. It’s hard to “wait your turn” in a country where there are 200,000 new cases and as many as 2,000 new daily COVID deaths — a tragic per capita order of magnitude higher than in many other developed countries.
So kudos and thanks to the science and the scientists who made the vaccine in record time. I’ll eagerly hold out my arm — so I can see the family and friends and colleagues I’ve missed all these months. If only I can figure out when I’m eligible, and where to go to get it.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-30--With Deficits Topping $1 Trillion, Is There Room for More Spending?

With the Congressional Budget Office projecting annual deficits greater than $ 1 trillion for years to come , many experts are calling for a renewed focus on the country ’ s fiscal path .
But one contrarian economist says that the federal government could be running much larger deficits without running into trouble .
Stephanie Kelton , an economist at Stony Brook University who has advised Sen. Bernie Sanders and who is one of the leading proponents of Modern Monetary Theory , told Bloomberg TV ’ s Erik Schatzker Thursday that in her view the U.S. could increase its current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any immediate problems .
“ We could safely increase the deficit , let ’ s say by another $ 500 billion or so , before we begin to see inflation accelerating to something that we would consider problematic , ” Kelton said , citing research by analyst Philip Pilkington at the investment firm GMO .
The main thing to worry about is inflation , Kelton said , but the data show no problems in that area despite years of substantial budget deficits .
Although standard economic theory says that increased federal borrowing should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposite has happened over the last decade , signaling that there ’ s still plenty of fiscal space that could be exploited by policymakers to make public investments in education or infrastructure — or even for more tax cuts — before inflation becomes a problem .
See the full interview with Kelton here .

With the Congressional Budget Office projecting annual deficits greater than $1 trillion for years to come, many experts are calling for a renewed focus on the country’s fiscal path. But one contrarian economist says that the federal government could be running much larger deficits without running into trouble.
Stephanie Kelton, an economist at Stony Brook University who has advised Sen. Bernie Sanders and who is one of the leading proponents of Modern Monetary Theory, told Bloomberg TV’s Erik Schatzker Thursday that in her view the U.S. could increase its current deficit by about 50% without causing any immediate problems.
“We could safely increase the deficit, let’s say by another $500 billion or so, before we begin to see inflation accelerating to something that we would consider problematic,” Kelton said, citing research by analyst Philip Pilkington at the investment firm GMO.
The main thing to worry about is inflation, Kelton said, but the data show no problems in that area despite years of substantial budget deficits. Although standard economic theory says that increased federal borrowing should push inflation and interest rates higher, the opposite has happened over the last decade, signaling that there’s still plenty of fiscal space that could be exploited by policymakers to make public investments in education or infrastructure — or even for more tax cuts — before inflation becomes a problem.
See the full interview with Kelton here.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-30--US Economy Misses Trump's 3% Growth Target

The U.S. economy grew at a 2.1 % annual rate over the final three months of 2019 , the Commerce Department estimated Tuesday .
For the full year , gross domestic product grew by 2.3 % , down from 2.9 % in 2018 and 2.4 % in 2017 .
“ Trump and his fellow Republicans have portrayed the U.S. economy ’ s performance as ‘ unprecedented , ’ ‘ historic , ’ and in the ‘ fast lane ’ after the GOP tax cuts , but economists say it is best characterized as slightly above potential , ” The Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Van Dam write .
“ The strong gains in 2018 did not last.
” The deceleration in 2019 reflected slowing in business investment and consumer spending and a drop in exports .
Business investment has fallen for three straight quarters amid uncertainty created by President Trump ’ s trade wars with China .
“ That 's the longest contraction since the great recession and suggests GOP tax cuts did n't lead to the kind of sustained spending boom advocates had touted , ” The Wall Street Journal says .
Those drags on growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local and federal government spending .
“ U.S .
government spending has been a consistent driver of growth during the Trump administration , ” the Journal notes .
“ Federal expenditures and investment have added to GDP for 11 straight quarters , the longest such stretch since the recession and its immediate aftermath.
” Economists expect growth to slow a bit further in 2020 and come in around 1.8 % .

The U.S. economy grew at a 2.1% annual rate over the final three months of 2019, the Commerce Department estimated Tuesday. For the full year, gross domestic product grew by 2.3%, down from 2.9% in 2018 and 2.4% in 2017.
“Trump and his fellow Republicans have portrayed the U.S. economy’s performance as ‘unprecedented,’ ‘historic,’ and in the ‘fast lane’ after the GOP tax cuts, but economists say it is best characterized as slightly above potential,” The Washington Post’s Heather Long and Andrew Van Dam write. “The strong gains in 2018 did not last.”
The deceleration in 2019 reflected slowing in business investment and consumer spending and a drop in exports. Business investment has fallen for three straight quarters amid uncertainty created by President Trump’s trade wars with China. “That's the longest contraction since the great recession and suggests GOP tax cuts didn't lead to the kind of sustained spending boom advocates had touted,” The Wall Street Journal says.
Those drags on growth were partly offset by increased state, local and federal government spending. “U.S. government spending has been a consistent driver of growth during the Trump administration,” the Journal notes. “Federal expenditures and investment have added to GDP for 11 straight quarters, the longest such stretch since the recession and its immediate aftermath.”
Economists expect growth to slow a bit further in 2020 and come in around 1.8%.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-30--The F-35 Can’t Shoot Straight: Report

The F-35 Can’t Shoot Straight: Report

The gun on the most common version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is so inaccurate that its performance was deemed “ unacceptable ” in recent Pentagon tests , according to a report Thursday from Bloomberg ’ s Anthony Capaccio .
Accuracy isn ’ t the only problem for the 25mm canon on the Air Force version of the jet .
The gun housing on the aircraft manufactured by Lockheed Martin is cracking , too , forcing the Air Force to restrict its use .
( The less common Navy and Marine variants use a different type of gun mount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceptable ” ratings for accuracy . )
The $ 428 billion F-35 program , whose total cost will exceed $ 1 trillion over its lifetime , still has more than 800 unresolved issues , many related to its troubled operating system , Capaccio said , based on the latest assessment from the Pentagon ’ s test office .
Those issues include 13 “ Category 1 ” problems that could affect safety or combat capability , and that the Defense Department says should be fixed before the manufacturer commences the next phase of production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 22 billion .
The F-35 has also failed to pass what ’ s being called the Mattis Test , after former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis , which calls for the jet to be available 80 % of the time for at least one kind of combat mission .
While some units have been able to meet the requirement for short periods , most have been unable to do so on a sustained basis .
And the great majority of units have been unable to meet the more demanding goal of “ Full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Defense continues to ramp up its purchases of the troubled jet .
“ Despite the incomplete testing and unresolved flaws , Congress continues to accelerate F-35 purchases , Capaccio said , “ adding 11 to the Pentagon ’ s request in 2016 and in 2017 , 20 in fiscal 2018 , 15 last year and 20 this year .
”

The gun on the most common version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is so inaccurate that its performance was deemed “unacceptable” in recent Pentagon tests, according to a report Thursday from Bloomberg’s Anthony Capaccio.
Accuracy isn’t the only problem for the 25mm canon on the Air Force version of the jet. The gun housing on the aircraft manufactured by Lockheed Martin is cracking, too, forcing the Air Force to restrict its use. (The less common Navy and Marine variants use a different type of gun mount, and those jets have received “acceptable” ratings for accuracy.)
The $428 billion F-35 program, whose total cost will exceed $1 trillion over its lifetime, still has more than 800 unresolved issues, many related to its troubled operating system, Capaccio said, based on the latest assessment from the Pentagon’s test office. Those issues include 13 “Category 1” problems that could affect safety or combat capability, and that the Defense Department says should be fixed before the manufacturer commences the next phase of production, which has a price tag of $22 billion.
The F-35 has also failed to pass what’s being called the Mattis Test, after former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, which calls for the jet to be available 80% of the time for at least one kind of combat mission. While some units have been able to meet the requirement for short periods, most have been unable to do so on a sustained basis. And the great majority of units have been unable to meet the more demanding goal of “Full Mission Capability.”
Nevertheless, the Department of Defense continues to ramp up its purchases of the troubled jet. “Despite the incomplete testing and unresolved flaws, Congress continues to accelerate F-35 purchases, Capaccio said, “adding 11 to the Pentagon’s request in 2016 and in 2017, 20 in fiscal 2018, 15 last year and 20 this year.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-29--Trump Administration Readies Big Changes for Medicaid

The Trump administration is reportedly taking steps toward achieving a longtime conservative goal : allowing states to turn Medicaid funds into block grants .
Health officials are expected to release a plan Thursday that would give states the option to convert some of their Medicaid funding from the federal government into block grants with a fixed cap .
The new program – which will be referred to as “ Healthy Adult Opportunity ” rather than block grants , according to Politico – would allow states to request capped funding for adults who gained Medicaid coverage through the expansion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It would also allow states to set limits on benefits and drug coverage for some patients , Politico said .
A major change : Proponents of the block grant approach say it will give states more flexibility in how they spend their Medicaid funds , while providing some limits on the federal government ’ s open-ended commitment to cover a significant percentage of costs within the program .
Critics say capped funds would simply offer a way for states to cut services to vulnerable populations – and would likely be illegal , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a cap on Medicaid funding would represent a significant change in the 55-year-old program , which now covers about 20 % of the U.S. population .
The motivation for states : The program will be voluntary , and Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation said an important detail will be how much leeway states are given to limit eligibility and benefits .
“ No state would volunteer to just get less money from the federal government for Medicaid under a block grant , ” Levitt said Wednesday .
“ But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit eligibility , benefits , or drugs and pocket the savings , some states may jump at the opportunity.
” Questions about the branding : “ So states would be allowed to turn away qualified applicants , limit health benefits and deprive people access to medications they need , ” said Paul Waldman of The Washington Post .
“ That ’ s ‘ Healthy Adult Opportunity ’ in the same sense that if I shoot you in the kneecap , I ’ ve given you ‘ Mobility-Enhancing Pain Relief.
’ ” Democrats push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House Wednesday , several dozen House Democrats warned against the proposed rule change .
“ The administration should not issue any guidance encouraging block grant waivers , should reject these waivers and the concept of block grants , and urge any state that is considering this misguided policy to commit its energy to implementing Medicaid as Congress intends , ” the Democrats wrote .
What ’ s next : States will have to apply to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for permission to begin deploying the block grant option .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are expected to receive multiple legal challenges that could delay implementation until after the 2020 election .

The Trump administration is reportedly taking steps toward achieving a longtime conservative goal: allowing states to turn Medicaid funds into block grants.
Health officials are expected to release a plan Thursday that would give states the option to convert some of their Medicaid funding from the federal government into block grants with a fixed cap.
The new program – which will be referred to as “Healthy Adult Opportunity” rather than block grants, according to Politico – would allow states to request capped funding for adults who gained Medicaid coverage through the expansion of the program under the Affordable Care Act. It would also allow states to set limits on benefits and drug coverage for some patients, Politico said.
A major change: Proponents of the block grant approach say it will give states more flexibility in how they spend their Medicaid funds, while providing some limits on the federal government’s open-ended commitment to cover a significant percentage of costs within the program. Critics say capped funds would simply offer a way for states to cut services to vulnerable populations – and would likely be illegal, to boot. Either way, the imposition of a cap on Medicaid funding would represent a significant change in the 55-year-old program, which now covers about 20% of the U.S. population.
The motivation for states: The program will be voluntary, and Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation said an important detail will be how much leeway states are given to limit eligibility and benefits. “No state would volunteer to just get less money from the federal government for Medicaid under a block grant,” Levitt said Wednesday. “But, if the Trump administration allows them to limit eligibility, benefits, or drugs and pocket the savings, some states may jump at the opportunity.”
Questions about the branding: “So states would be allowed to turn away qualified applicants, limit health benefits and deprive people access to medications they need,” said Paul Waldman of The Washington Post. “That’s ‘Healthy Adult Opportunity’ in the same sense that if I shoot you in the kneecap, I’ve given you ‘Mobility-Enhancing Pain Relief.’”
Democrats push back: In a letter to the White House Wednesday, several dozen House Democrats warned against the proposed rule change. “The administration should not issue any guidance encouraging block grant waivers, should reject these waivers and the concept of block grants, and urge any state that is considering this misguided policy to commit its energy to implementing Medicaid as Congress intends,” the Democrats wrote.
What’s next: States will have to apply to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for permission to begin deploying the block grant option. In the meantime, the new rules are expected to receive multiple legal challenges that could delay implementation until after the 2020 election.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-31--Sanders’ Medicare-for-All Plan Would Boost Life Expectancy, but Its Cost Is Highly Uncertain: Report

Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ Medicare for All plan would provide considerable health benefits for Americans , according to a new report from the Penn Wharton Budget Model , but its economic and budgetary impact is far less certain , with much depending on how it is financed .
The Penn Wharton analysis finds that by 2060 , Sanders ’ universal health plan would add nearly two years to average life expectancy in the U.S. , grow the population by 3 % , boost worker productivity through better health and reduce the share of the population that is seriously ill by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost of the plan varies widely , though , depending on how it is paid for .
Penn Wharton modeled three financing options : premiums , payroll taxes and deficit spending .
• If Medicare for All is paid for by issuing more debt , Penn Wharton projects a roughly 24 % reduction in GDP by 2060 , relative to the baseline , due largely to the crowding out of private investment and a smaller capital stock .
• Payroll financing would have more modest negative effect , producing a 15 % smaller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would have no negative effect on GDP growth , producing a 0.2 % larger economy in 2060 .
Similarly , the plan ’ s effect on the national debt depends on its financing .
Deficit financing would nearly double the national debt by 2060 .
Using payroll taxes would increase the debt by 4.3 % , while a premium model would shrink the debt by about 12.7 % .
A bottom line that ’ s a moving target : The Penn Wharton analysts have good reason to be uncertain about the plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has refused to provide details , citing the inherent complexity of health care spending and the politic surrounding it .
In response to a question from `` CBS Evening News '' anchor Norah O'Donnell last week about how much Medicare for All would cost , Sanders said , `` You do n't know .
Nobody knows .
This is impossible to predict . ''
Read the Penn Wharton analysis , which allows you to dynamically adjust key parameters of the Sanders plan , here .

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan would provide considerable health benefits for Americans, according to a new report from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, but its economic and budgetary impact is far less certain, with much depending on how it is financed.
The Penn Wharton analysis finds that by 2060, Sanders’ universal health plan would add nearly two years to average life expectancy in the U.S., grow the population by 3%, boost worker productivity through better health and reduce the share of the population that is seriously ill by two percentage points.
The estimated economic cost of the plan varies widely, though, depending on how it is paid for. Penn Wharton modeled three financing options: premiums, payroll taxes and deficit spending.
If Medicare for All is paid for by issuing more debt, Penn Wharton projects a roughly 24% reduction in GDP by 2060, relative to the baseline, due largely to the crowding out of private investment and a smaller capital stock.
Payroll financing would have more modest negative effect, producing a 15% smaller economy.
Using premiums, however, would have no negative effect on GDP growth, producing a 0.2% larger economy in 2060.
Similarly, the plan’s effect on the national debt depends on its financing. Deficit financing would nearly double the national debt by 2060. Using payroll taxes would increase the debt by 4.3%, while a premium model would shrink the debt by about 12.7%.
A bottom line that’s a moving target: The Penn Wharton analysts have good reason to be uncertain about the plan’s ultimate cost, since Sanders has refused to provide details, citing the inherent complexity of health care spending and the politic surrounding it. In response to a question from "CBS Evening News" anchor Norah O'Donnell last week about how much Medicare for All would cost, Sanders said, "You don't know. Nobody knows. This is impossible to predict."
Read the Penn Wharton analysis, which allows you to dynamically adjust key parameters of the Sanders plan, here.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-03--The American Dream Alive and Well in ... Finland?

Bernie Sanders ’ s opponents routinely accuse him of being a “ socialist ” bent on importing nefarious foreign values to the U.S. , and President Trump took that approach one step further this past weekend , telling Fox News host Sean Hannity , `` I think he ’ s a communist .
I mean , you know , look , I think of communism when I think of Bernie.
” For his part , Sanders says he is a “ democratic socialist ” who looks less to Cuba for inspiration than to the Nordic nations such as Denmark , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high taxes to fund generous social programs including universal health care and free public education .
Speaking at Davos last month , the new Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin put an interesting twist on that political tradition , tying it not just to a robust social safety net in the European tradition but to something near and dear to most Americans : “ I feel that the American Dream can be achieved best in the Nordic countries , where every child no matter their background or the background of their families can become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good education system .
We have a good health-care and social welfare system that allows anybody to become anything .
This is probably one of the reasons why Finland gets ranked the happiest country in the world .
”

Bernie Sanders’s opponents routinely accuse him of being a “socialist” bent on importing nefarious foreign values to the U.S., and President Trump took that approach one step further this past weekend, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity, "I think he’s a communist. I mean, you know, look, I think of communism when I think of Bernie.”
For his part, Sanders says he is a “democratic socialist” who looks less to Cuba for inspiration than to the Nordic nations such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland – countries that use high taxes to fund generous social programs including universal health care and free public education.
Speaking at Davos last month, the new Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin put an interesting twist on that political tradition, tying it not just to a robust social safety net in the European tradition but to something near and dear to most Americans:
“I feel that the American Dream can be achieved best in the Nordic countries, where every child no matter their background or the background of their families can become anything, because we have a very good education system. We have a good health-care and social welfare system that allows anybody to become anything. This is probably one of the reasons why Finland gets ranked the happiest country in the world.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-31--Trump Medicaid Overhaul Will Spark Furious Election-Year Fight

The Trump administration on Thursday set off a fight over Medicaid by officially opening the door for states to apply to convert part of the program into block grants — a controversial structure that , instead of providing open-ended federal funding , would have the U.S. government send states a lump sum of money or a specific amount per enrollee .
In exchange , states would get unprecedented flexibility in how they implement the safety-net program , including the ability to limit who is eligible and restrict the prescription drugs covered .
Axios ’ s Sam Baker spells out why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 million people — more than Medicare .
It ’ s the biggest item in many states ’ budgets .
It is a huge part of the health care system , and the Trump administration has been fully committed , since day one , to shrinking it.
” Medicaid spending totaled $ 593 billion in fiscal year 2018 , with 62.5 % paid by the federal government and 37.5 % financed by states , according to the Kaiser Family Foundation .
Here ’ s what else you need to know .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Rachana Pradhan and Phil Galewitz explain why the administration ’ s initiative is so momentous : “ Medicaid , a federal-state health program that covers 1 in 5 Americans , has been an open-ended entitlement since its beginning in 1965 .
That means the amount of money provided by the federal government grows with a rise in enrollment and health costs .
“ The administration said the new program would allow states to offer patients more benefits while controlling government spending .
But the plan was assailed by Democrats , consumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve the poor.
” And a long-time conservative goal : Though the Trump administration isn ’ t using the term block grants , instead calling its plan “ Healthy Adult Opportunity , ” the basic idea has been embraced by conservatives dating back to the Reagan administration .
“ Conservatives complain that the [ current ] financing formula encourages states to spend more so they can secure more federal money , while a block grant would prompt them to better control costs , ” CNN ’ s Tami Luhby explains .
Supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way to both rein in Medicaid spending and give more control to states , which they argue are best positioned to determine the needs of their populations and structure health programs .
Critics charge it will harm patients : Opponents , including a coalition of 27 patient and consumer groups , argue that fixed block grant payments and the broad authority they come with would likely lead states to limit enrollment , cut benefits , lower provider payments or raise patient costs .
Under the new guidance , states could seek to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , introduce additional or higher out-of-pocket costs or eliminate some current Medicaid benefits .
The proposal would also pare back federal oversight of the private health insurers that states pay to manage their Medicaid programs .
“ Per capita caps and block grants are designed to reduce federal funding for Medicaid , forcing states to either make up the difference with their own funds or make cuts to their programs that would reduce access to care for the patients we represent , ” the coalition said .
“ Simply put , block grants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to quality and affordable health care for patients with serious and chronic health conditions.
” The administration ’ s plan is optional , and it wouldn ’ t apply to all current Medicaid enrollees : States aren ’ t required to switch to the block grants , and those that want to will have to get approval from the federal government .
“ It remains unclear how many of the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid — typically with Republican leaders — will be drawn to do so now with the block-grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Amy Goldstein says .
For states that seek to switch , the block grants would apply “ only to financing health insurance for able-bodied adults — primarily for people slightly less poor than traditional Medicaid recipients and who have joined through expansions of the program under the Affordable Care Act , ” Goldstein explains .
Kaiser ’ s Pradhan and Galewitz add that states could also decide to include certain pregnant women and low-income parents , because their coverage is not mandated by federal law .
The political impact will be felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reportedly unlikely that any state would get a waiver under the program this year — but the plan is certain to be used by Democrats running for president as an example of how the Trump administration is undermining the health-care system and social safety net .
As that political battle plays out , legal challenges are likely as well .

The Trump administration on Thursday set off a fight over Medicaid by officially opening the door for states to apply to convert part of the program into block grants — a controversial structure that, instead of providing open-ended federal funding, would have the U.S. government send states a lump sum of money or a specific amount per enrollee. In exchange, states would get unprecedented flexibility in how they implement the safety-net program, including the ability to limit who is eligible and restrict the prescription drugs covered.
Axios’s Sam Baker spells out why it matters: “Medicaid covers about 70 million people — more than Medicare. It’s the biggest item in many states’ budgets. It is a huge part of the health care system, and the Trump administration has been fully committed, since day one, to shrinking it.”
Medicaid spending totaled $593 billion in fiscal year 2018, with 62.5% paid by the federal government and 37.5% financed by states, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Here’s what else you need to know.
This is a big change: Kaiser Health News’s Rachana Pradhan and Phil Galewitz explain why the administration’s initiative is so momentous:
“Medicaid, a federal-state health program that covers 1 in 5 Americans, has been an open-ended entitlement since its beginning in 1965. That means the amount of money provided by the federal government grows with a rise in enrollment and health costs.
“The administration said the new program would allow states to offer patients more benefits while controlling government spending. But the plan was assailed by Democrats, consumer advocates and health providers as undermining efforts to serve the poor.”
And a long-time conservative goal: Though the Trump administration isn’t using the term block grants, instead calling its plan “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the basic idea has been embraced by conservatives dating back to the Reagan administration. “Conservatives complain that the [current] financing formula encourages states to spend more so they can secure more federal money, while a block grant would prompt them to better control costs,” CNN’s Tami Luhby explains. Supporters tout the idea of block grants as a way to both rein in Medicaid spending and give more control to states, which they argue are best positioned to determine the needs of their populations and structure health programs.
Critics charge it will harm patients: Opponents, including a coalition of 27 patient and consumer groups, argue that fixed block grant payments and the broad authority they come with would likely lead states to limit enrollment, cut benefits, lower provider payments or raise patient costs.
Under the new guidance, states could seek to limit the number of drugs they cover, introduce additional or higher out-of-pocket costs or eliminate some current Medicaid benefits. The proposal would also pare back federal oversight of the private health insurers that states pay to manage their Medicaid programs.
“Per capita caps and block grants are designed to reduce federal funding for Medicaid, forcing states to either make up the difference with their own funds or make cuts to their programs that would reduce access to care for the patients we represent,” the coalition said. “Simply put, block grants and per capita caps will reduce access to quality and affordable health care for patients with serious and chronic health conditions.”
The administration’s plan is optional, and it wouldn’t apply to all current Medicaid enrollees: States aren’t required to switch to the block grants, and those that want to will have to get approval from the federal government. “It remains unclear how many of the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid — typically with Republican leaders — will be drawn to do so now with the block-grant option,” The Washington Post’s Amy Goldstein says.
For states that seek to switch, the block grants would apply “only to financing health insurance for able-bodied adults — primarily for people slightly less poor than traditional Medicaid recipients and who have joined through expansions of the program under the Affordable Care Act,” Goldstein explains. Kaiser’s Pradhan and Galewitz add that states could also decide to include certain pregnant women and low-income parents, because their coverage is not mandated by federal law.
The political impact will be felt before any on health. It’s reportedly unlikely that any state would get a waiver under the program this year — but the plan is certain to be used by Democrats running for president as an example of how the Trump administration is undermining the health-care system and social safety net. As that political battle plays out, legal challenges are likely as well.