thefiscaltimes--2020-06-10--Mnuchin: More Stimulus ‘Definitely’ Needed

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Wednesday that the U.S. economy has begun to rebound from coronavirus closures and will “ improve dramatically ” over the second half of the year , but that more fiscal support will be needed , especially for hard-hit sectors .
“ I definitely think we are going to need another bipartisan legislation to put more money into the economy , ” Mnuchin said at a hearing of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee .
He later added : “ We absolutely believe small business — and , by the way , many big businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to need more help.
” Mnuchin said that the administration does not want to rush that legislation but plans to spend the next 30 days considering what should go into the next package and would “ seriously look ” at whether more direct stimulus payments should be included .
“ Whatever we do going forward needs to be much more targeted to the industries and small businesses that are having the most difficulty reopening as a result of Covid-19 , ” he said .
Mnuchin pointed to travel , leisure and restaurants as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that new support measures will be needed to encourage businesses to rehire workers .
Targeting enhanced unemployment benefits : Mnuchin also said again that the enhanced jobless benefits provided by Congress will need to be fixed , since in many cases workers earned more in unemployment than they had at their jobs .
“ I think we ’ ve seen from the recent [ unemployment ] numbers that didn ’ t have a big impact , because people want their jobs , ” he said , but with unemployment expected to remain high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaluated .
Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia said Tuesday that the administration opposes a Democratic proposal to extend the $ 600 in additional weekly unemployment benefits .
Those benefits are set to expire at the end of July .
Scalia told the Senate Finance Committee that those enhanced payments were “ the right thing to do ” when introduced in March , but are no longer needed .
“ There ’ s been discussion of perhaps having a smaller benefit ― not $ 600 , but perhaps $ 250 , ” Scalia said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paycheck Protection Program with supporting 50 million jobs and more than 75 % of small business payroll in all 50 states .
He said that some $ 130 billion in PPP funds remain unspent and some money would likely be left after the June 30 application deadline passes .
He told Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana that he ’ s open to repurposing money to help businesses hurt by recent looting .
Loosening loan forgiveness rules : Mnuchin also confirmed that PPP borrowers who don ’ t spend 60 % of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to have a portion of their loan forgiven .
The loan program initially required 75 % of borrowed funds to be used on payroll in order to qualify for loan forgiveness , but Congress lowered that threshold to 60 % in legislation signed into law last week .
Mnuchin and Small Business Administration chief Jovita Carranza announced earlier this week that borrowers who use less than 60 % of their funds on payroll will still be eligible for partial loan forgiveness — “ subject to at least 60 percent of the loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs .
”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Wednesday that the U.S. economy has begun to rebound from coronavirus closures and will “improve dramatically” over the second half of the year, but that more fiscal support will be needed, especially for hard-hit sectors.
“I definitely think we are going to need another bipartisan legislation to put more money into the economy,” Mnuchin said at a hearing of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. He later added: “We absolutely believe small business — and, by the way, many big businesses in certain industries — are absolutely going to need more help.”
Mnuchin said that the administration does not want to rush that legislation but plans to spend the next 30 days considering what should go into the next package and would “seriously look” at whether more direct stimulus payments should be included. “Whatever we do going forward needs to be much more targeted to the industries and small businesses that are having the most difficulty reopening as a result of Covid-19,” he said.
Mnuchin pointed to travel, leisure and restaurants as industries that would need more help and that new support measures will be needed to encourage businesses to rehire workers.
Targeting enhanced unemployment benefits: Mnuchin also said again that the enhanced jobless benefits provided by Congress will need to be fixed, since in many cases workers earned more in unemployment than they had at their jobs. “I think we’ve seen from the recent [unemployment] numbers that didn’t have a big impact, because people want their jobs,” he said, but with unemployment expected to remain high, the benefits will have to be evaluated.
Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia said Tuesday that the administration opposes a Democratic proposal to extend the $600 in additional weekly unemployment benefits. Those benefits are set to expire at the end of July. Scalia told the Senate Finance Committee that those enhanced payments were “the right thing to do” when introduced in March, but are no longer needed. “There’s been discussion of perhaps having a smaller benefit ― not $600, but perhaps $250,” Scalia said.
Praise for PPP: Mnuchin credited the Paycheck Protection Program with supporting 50 million jobs and more than 75% of small business payroll in all 50 states. He said that some $130 billion in PPP funds remain unspent and some money would likely be left after the June 30 application deadline passes. He told Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana that he’s open to repurposing money to help businesses hurt by recent looting.
Loosening loan forgiveness rules: Mnuchin also confirmed that PPP borrowers who don’t spend 60% of their loans on payroll costs will still be able to have a portion of their loan forgiven. The loan program initially required 75% of borrowed funds to be used on payroll in order to qualify for loan forgiveness, but Congress lowered that threshold to 60% in legislation signed into law last week. Mnuchin and Small Business Administration chief Jovita Carranza announced earlier this week that borrowers who use less than 60% of their funds on payroll will still be eligible for partial loan forgiveness — “subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-09--Low-Income Health Care Providers to Receive $25 Billion

The Department of Health and Human Services said Tuesday that it will distribute $ 25 billion this week to health care providers who work with low-income populations , with the money coming from congressional appropriations targeting hospitals and caregivers struggling amid the coronavirus pandemic .
Providers in the Medicaid and CHIP ( Children ’ s Health Insurance Program ) systems will receive $ 15 billion , while safety-net hospitals , which serve all populations regardless of their ability to pay , will get $ 10 billion .
The money is part of $ 175 billion in relief funds allocated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The move comes after a bipartisan chorus of critics charged the Trump administration with moving too slowly to provide the money , The Hill reports .
In a letter to HHS last week , a groups of lawmakers including Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) , Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) , Rep. Frank Pallone , Jr. ( D-NJ ) and Rep. Greg Walden ( R-OR ) said they had “ serious concerns ” about delays in the distribution of the funds .
“ Many of these providers are safety net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if at all , ” the lawmakers wrote .
“ The COVID-19 pandemic has strained their already scarce resources , threatening their ability to keep their doors open in the midst of a declared public health emergency.
” The administration has distributed about $ 70 billion so far from the pandemic health care fund , with most of the money going to providers in the Medicare system .
Health care officials say that the complicated structure of the low-income health care system has made it difficult to distribute the funds to Medicaid @ @ @ @ @ @

The Department of Health and Human Services said Tuesday that it will distribute $25 billion this week to health care providers who work with low-income populations, with the money coming from congressional appropriations targeting hospitals and caregivers struggling amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Providers in the Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) systems will receive $15 billion, while safety-net hospitals, which serve all populations regardless of their ability to pay, will get $10 billion. The money is part of $175 billion in relief funds allocated by Congress for hospitals and health care providers.
The move comes after a bipartisan chorus of critics charged the Trump administration with moving too slowly to provide the money, The Hill reports. In a letter to HHS last week, a groups of lawmakers including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) said they had “serious concerns” about delays in the distribution of the funds.
“Many of these providers are safety net providers that operate on thin profit margins, if at all,” the lawmakers wrote. “The COVID-19 pandemic has strained their already scarce resources, threatening their ability to keep their doors open in the midst of a declared public health emergency.”
The administration has distributed about $70 billion so far from the pandemic health care fund, with most of the money going to providers in the Medicare system. Health care officials say that the complicated structure of the low-income health care system has made it difficult to distribute the funds to Medicaid providers in a timely manner.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-09--The GOP’s Big Bet on a Quick Coronavirus Recovery

The U.S. economy is officially in a pandemic-driven recession , but don ’ t expect another coronavirus relief bill until late next month .
The U.S. Senate is in session for the rest of the month , but several top Senate Republicans said Monday that they don ’ t expect to take up any “ phase four ” package of pandemic relief until after their two-week-long July 4th recess .
White House wants another relief bill : That July timing jibes with the timeframe laid out by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow , who said recently that he expects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to start only after the Independence Day weekend .
Kevin Hassett , an economic adviser to President Trump , said Tuesday in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that he sees another round of aid before the August recess and that the White House “ would definitely support ” another package .
“ There are a lot of things that really are necessary to make sure that once we open up that we actually lift off , ” Hassett said .
“ The odds of a Phase Four deal is something we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We even had a small group meeting this morning to talk about it .
The odds of a Phase Four deal are very , very high.
” A next round of relief in late July would also coincide with the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits providing an additional $ 600 a week in assistance , which are set to expire July 31 .
The GOP ’ s risky waiting game : As Politico ’ s Burgess Everett and Marianne LeVine write , the GOP ’ s lack of urgency on additional coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong economic rebound — a bet that , despite last week ’ s surprisingly strong May jobs report , could still backfire : “ Republicans say it ’ s only responsible to wait and see how nearly $ 3 trillion in total coronavirus spending seeps into the economy .
But it ’ s also a gamble : if the economic recovery isn ’ t as strong as they predict , they risk being blamed by voters in November that they and President Donald Trump didn ’ t do enough amid a global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) on Monday called on Republicans to pass the next coronavirus package in the weeks ahead , before senators leave for their recess .
“ I fear that the recent bump in the employment number , caused in large part because of the stimulus money we pumped into the economy , will create in Republicans a sense of complacency and the economy will get even worse , ” Schumer said , according to Politico .
The bottom line : The recession may already be over , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any additional coronavirus relief will be smaller than previously expected , whenever it comes .
Chris Krueger of Cowen Washington Research Group on Monday lowered his expectations for the next package from $ 2 trillion to about $ 1 trillion .

The U.S. economy is officially in a pandemic-driven recession, but don’t expect another coronavirus relief bill until late next month.
The U.S. Senate is in session for the rest of the month, but several top Senate Republicans said Monday that they don’t expect to take up any “phase four” package of pandemic relief until after their two-week-long July 4th recess.
White House wants another relief bill: That July timing jibes with the timeframe laid out by White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who said recently that he expects formal bipartisan negotiations for the next bill to start only after the Independence Day weekend. Kevin Hassett, an economic adviser to President Trump, said Tuesday in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that he sees another round of aid before the August recess and that the White House “would definitely support” another package.
“There are a lot of things that really are necessary to make sure that once we open up that we actually lift off,” Hassett said. “The odds of a Phase Four deal is something we talked with the president about last week. We even had a small group meeting this morning to talk about it. The odds of a Phase Four deal are very, very high.”
A next round of relief in late July would also coincide with the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits providing an additional $600 a week in assistance, which are set to expire July 31.
The GOP’s risky waiting game: As Politico’s Burgess Everett and Marianne LeVine write, the GOP’s lack of urgency on additional coronavirus legislation is essentially a big bet on a strong economic rebound — a bet that, despite last week’s surprisingly strong May jobs report, could still backfire:
“Republicans say it’s only responsible to wait and see how nearly $3 trillion in total coronavirus spending seeps into the economy. But it’s also a gamble: if the economic recovery isn’t as strong as they predict, they risk being blamed by voters in November that they and President Donald Trump didn’t do enough amid a global pandemic and historic recession.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Monday called on Republicans to pass the next coronavirus package in the weeks ahead, before senators leave for their recess. “I fear that the recent bump in the employment number, caused in large part because of the stimulus money we pumped into the economy, will create in Republicans a sense of complacency and the economy will get even worse,” Schumer said, according to Politico.
The bottom line: The recession may already be over, and the jobs numbers announced Friday likely means that any additional coronavirus relief will be smaller than previously expected, whenever it comes. Chris Krueger of Cowen Washington Research Group on Monday lowered his expectations for the next package from $2 trillion to about $1 trillion.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-08--Rapid Changes to Health System Spurred by COVID Might Be Here to Stay

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change .
It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid , mostly due to opposition from the medical-industrial complex .
Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act .
But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of : It forced sudden major changes to the nation ’ s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed .
“ Health care is never going back to the way it was before , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W .
Bush in the early 1990s .
Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes .
But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better , or make it less expensive .
That said , here are three trends that seem likely to continue .
Telehealth is not new ; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But even while technology has made video visits easier , it has failed to reach critical mass , largely because of political fights .
Licensing has been one main obstacle -– determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed .
The other obstacle , not surprisingly , is payment .
Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit ?
Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s $ 3.6 trillion health tab even more ?
Or could it replace care once provided free by phone ?
Still , the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points .
Almost overnight , by necessity , every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine .
A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “ virtual ” medical visits more than doubled , from 12 % to 27 % , from late March to mid-May .
That is due , at least in part , to Medicare having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for virtual visits .
It ’ s easy to see why many patients like video visits ― there ’ s no parking to find and pay for , and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office .
Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent .
On one hand , it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can ’ t be done via a digital connection .
On the other hand , they can see more patients in the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually .
Of course , telemedicine doesn ’ t work for everyone .
Many areas and patients don ’ t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work .
And some patients , particularly the oldest seniors , lack the technological skills needed to connect .
Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation ’ s dwindling supply of primary care doctors .
The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers .
Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic , more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options .
At the same time , fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care .
“ I ’ ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care , ” said Farzad Mostashari , a top Health and Human Services Department official in the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models .
The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70 % of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50 % or more since March , and 40 % have laid off or furloughed staff .
The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash .
“ This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups wrote .
One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do , but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy .
This move from fee-for-service to what ’ s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act .
But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his time helping doctors make the transition , said in times like these , it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “ a steady monthly revenue stream , and [ the doctor ] can decide the best way to deliver that care .
Unlimited texts , phone calls , video calls .
The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.
” Still , many physicians , particularly those in solo or small practices , worry about the potential financial risk ― particularly the possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control .
But with many practices now ground to a halt , or just starting to reopen , those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat .
That model may be gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic , or the next wave of this one .
The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care .
While hospitals in many parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick COVID patients , they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic .
People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available , for fear of catching something worse than what they already have .
Many experts predict that care won ’ t just snap back when the current emergency wanes .
Dr. Mark Smith , former president of the California Health Care Foundation , said among consumers , a switch has been flipped .
“ Overnight it seems we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units , orthopedic centers and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income .
Even more concerning is that hospitals ’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely .
Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas , where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already .
All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or society .
Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation , which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout .
But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen .
Said Wilensky , “ When you ’ re forced to find different ways of doing things and you find out they are easier and more efficient , it ’ s going to be hard to go back to the old way.
” Kaiser Health News ( KHN ) is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente .

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly due to opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.
“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.
Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better, or make it less expensive.
That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
Telehealth For All
Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.
But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle -– determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.
The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?
Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is due, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.
It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits ― there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.
Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.
Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
Primary Care Doctors In Peril
Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.
At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.
“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, a top Health and Human Services Department official in the Obama administration. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.
The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.
“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.
One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.
But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care. Unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”
Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk ― particularly the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.
But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may be gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
Hospitals On The Decline?
The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.
Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Dr. Mark Smith, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”
Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.
Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.
All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.
But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen. Said Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-12--A Bailout for Defense Contractors

A Bailout for Defense Contractors

The Pentagon has announced that it is providing financial assistance to defense contractors who have been hurt by the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ .
The Defense Department said this week that it has paid $ 135 million to @ @ @ @ @ ” as part of an effort to “ sustain defense-critical workforce capabilities in body armor @ @ @ @ @ shipbuilding.
” The money reportedly will be used to retain skilled workers and in some @ @ @ @ @ have been laid off due to the slowdown in business .
The Pentagon also said @ @ @ @ @ Congress for funds to defray costs for contractors as they address the crisis , including @ @ @ @ @ protective gear and the redesign of factories .
The CARES Act allows defense contractors to @ @ @ @ @ , but Congress has not provided any funds to make those payments .

The Pentagon has announced that it is providing financial assistance to defense contractors who have been hurt by the coronavirus pandemic, Defense One reports.
The Defense Department said this week that it has paid $135 million to five “mid-tier defense companies” as part of an effort to “sustain defense-critical workforce capabilities in body armor, aircraft manufacturing, and shipbuilding.” The money reportedly will be used to retain skilled workers and in some cases to rehire those who have been laid off due to the slowdown in business.
The Pentagon also said that it plans to ask Congress for funds to defray costs for contractors as they address the crisis, including reimbursements for the costs of protective gear and the redesign of factories. The CARES Act allows defense contractors to be reimbursed for coronavirus-related expenses, but Congress has not provided any funds to make those payments.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-11--Unemployment Claims Climb Past 44 Million

Another 1.5 million people filed for unemployment benefits last week , the Department of Labor announced Thursday , bringing the @ @ @ @ @ to more than 44 million .
While weekly initial claims have maintained a downward trend @ @ @ @ @ , the latest number is still more than twice the pre-pandemic record high of 695,000 @ @ @ @ @ report also suggests that some workers have begun to return to their jobs , with @ @ @ @ @ receiving unemployment benefits dropping to 20.9 million , down from a revised 21.3 million the @ @ @ @ @ that number is stunningly high relative to previous recessions .
Federal Reserve head Jay Powell @ @ @ @ @ recovery was likely to be sluggish and stretch well into next year .
On Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ rate of 9.3 % at the end of 2020 .

Another 1.5 million people filed for unemployment benefits last week, the Department of Labor announced Thursday, bringing the 12-week total for first-time claims to more than 44 million.
While weekly initial claims have maintained a downward trend over the last 10 weeks, the latest number is still more than twice the pre-pandemic record high of 695,000 set in 1982.
The report also suggests that some workers have begun to return to their jobs, with the total number of people receiving unemployment benefits dropping to 20.9 million, down from a revised 21.3 million the week before. Still, that number is stunningly high relative to previous recessions.
Federal Reserve head Jay Powell recently said that the economic recovery was likely to be sluggish and stretch well into next year. On Wednesday the Fed estimated an unemployment rate of 9.3% at the end of 2020.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-11--Small Business Aid Program Still Has $130 Billion

The federal program designed to keep small businesses afloat during the coronavirus pandemic still has billions of dollars available to lend , and officials think a good chunk of the money could go unclaimed .
Congress has made about $ 660 billion available to small businesses for loans and grants through the Paycheck Protection Program .
The first round of funding of $ 349 billion was snapped up quickly , with the program running out of money in less than two weeks .
But the second round of $ 310 billion has been claimed far more slowly , and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 130 billion left in the PPP fund .
Worries about the rules : Designed to help small businesses keep their employees on the payroll , the PPP was rushed out the door by lawmakers as the economy imploded in March , and participants have complained about what they see as overly restrictive rules , as well as uncertainty about who will qualify to have their loans converted into grants .
Those issues , along with a public outcry over publicly traded companies benefiting from the program in the first few weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told a Senate panel Wednesday that roughly $ 12 billion had been returned to the PPP .
On some days last month , more money was returned to the program than was lent out , The New York Times reported .
The returns leave the total of approved loans at about $ 511 billion .
New rules could help : Congress passed a law that eases some of the regulations in the PPP , including an extension of the time period for using the loans to 24 weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Borrowers also now have more flexibility on how to use the borrowed money , with more spending on overhead rather than labor costs , and still qualify to have their loans forgiven .
Mnuchin said he expects the relaxed rules to help bring more small business owners into the program and accelerate the distribution of the loans .
But it may be too late : Many small business owners have already decided that the program — which has provided loans to more than 4.5 million companies — is too much of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would need to be repaid even if business conditions remain depressed .
Given the chaotic rollout of the program , and the instability of its rules and requirements , it ’ s likely that billions of dollars will remain in the PPP when the government stops processing applications after June 30 .

The federal program designed to keep small businesses afloat during the coronavirus pandemic still has billions of dollars available to lend, and officials think a good chunk of the money could go unclaimed.
Congress has made about $660 billion available to small businesses for loans and grants through the Paycheck Protection Program. The first round of funding of $349 billion was snapped up quickly, with the program running out of money in less than two weeks. But the second round of $310 billion has been claimed far more slowly, and as of Tuesday there was still more than $130 billion left in the PPP fund.
Worries about the rules: Designed to help small businesses keep their employees on the payroll, the PPP was rushed out the door by lawmakers as the economy imploded in March, and participants have complained about what they see as overly restrictive rules, as well as uncertainty about who will qualify to have their loans converted into grants. Those issues, along with a public outcry over publicly traded companies benefiting from the program in the first few weeks, pushed some borrowers to return their money.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told a Senate panel Wednesday that roughly $12 billion had been returned to the PPP. On some days last month, more money was returned to the program than was lent out, The New York Times reported. The returns leave the total of approved loans at about $511 billion.
New rules could help: Congress passed a law that eases some of the regulations in the PPP, including an extension of the time period for using the loans to 24 weeks, up from the original eight weeks. Borrowers also now have more flexibility on how to use the borrowed money, with more spending on overhead rather than labor costs, and still qualify to have their loans forgiven. Mnuchin said he expects the relaxed rules to help bring more small business owners into the program and accelerate the distribution of the loans.
But it may be too late: Many small business owners have already decided that the program — which has provided loans to more than 4.5 million companies — is too much of a risk, possibly saddling them with loans that would need to be repaid even if business conditions remain depressed. Given the chaotic rollout of the program, and the instability of its rules and requirements, it’s likely that billions of dollars will remain in the PPP when the government stops processing applications after June 30.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-11--26 Generic Drugmakers Accused of Price-Fixing, ‘Multibillion-Dollar Fraud’

A coalition of attorneys general from nearly every state filed a massive lawsuit Wednesday charging 26 generic drug companies and 10 executives of conspiring to reduce competition and raise prices .
The lawsuit by 46 states , four territories and the District of Columbia is the third in an ongoing antitrust investigation .
It accuses the manufacturers of secretly agreeing to fix prices of more than 80 prescription creams , ointments and tablets from at least 2009 through early 2016 .
Brand names of some of the drugs allegedly involved in the schemes include Dilantin , an anti-seizure medicine ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ritalin , a treatment for attention deficit disorder .
“ These generic drug manufacturers perpetrated a multibillion-dollar fraud on the American public so systemic that it has touched nearly every single consumer of topical products , ” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement .
“ Through phone calls , text messages , emails , corporate conventions , and cozy dinner parties , generic pharmaceutical executives were in constant communication , colluding to fix prices and restrain competition as though it were a standard course of business .
But they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they took steps to evade accountability , using code words and warning each other to avoid email and detection.
” Tong said the plaintiffs ’ case is built on evidence from cooperating witnesses , phone records , notes and a database of more than 20 million documents and call records “ that paint an undeniable picture of the largest domestic corporate cartel in our nation ’ s history.
” Health insurer Cigna filed its own lawsuit this week , alleging that price fixing by the companies led to “ overcharges ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the nation ’ s health care system .
A number of the major drugmakers named in the suit denied have unlawful conduct or price fixing .
A Novartis subsidiary named in the new suit agreed in March to pay $ 195 million to settle price-fixing and other charges “ The individual instances of misconduct at the core of the resolution we reached with the U.S. Department of Justice in March do not support the vast , systemic conspiracy the States allege , ” Novartis said Wednesday .
“ We take seriously our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue to defend ourselves in this matter .
”

A coalition of attorneys general from nearly every state filed a massive lawsuit Wednesday charging 26 generic drug companies and 10 executives of conspiring to reduce competition and raise prices. The lawsuit by 46 states, four territories and the District of Columbia is the third in an ongoing antitrust investigation. It accuses the manufacturers of secretly agreeing to fix prices of more than 80 prescription creams, ointments and tablets from at least 2009 through early 2016.
Brand names of some of the drugs allegedly involved in the schemes include Dilantin, an anti-seizure medicine; Lotrimin AF Cream, an antifungal; and Ritalin, a treatment for attention deficit disorder.
“These generic drug manufacturers perpetrated a multibillion-dollar fraud on the American public so systemic that it has touched nearly every single consumer of topical products,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement. “Through phone calls, text messages, emails, corporate conventions, and cozy dinner parties, generic pharmaceutical executives were in constant communication, colluding to fix prices and restrain competition as though it were a standard course of business. But they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they took steps to evade accountability, using code words and warning each other to avoid email and detection.”
Tong said the plaintiffs’ case is built on evidence from cooperating witnesses, phone records, notes and a database of more than 20 million documents and call records “that paint an undeniable picture of the largest domestic corporate cartel in our nation’s history.”
Health insurer Cigna filed its own lawsuit this week, alleging that price fixing by the companies led to “overcharges” and has caused “significant harm” to the nation’s health care system.
A number of the major drugmakers named in the suit denied have unlawful conduct or price fixing. A Novartis subsidiary named in the new suit agreed in March to pay $195 million to settle price-fixing and other charges “The individual instances of misconduct at the core of the resolution we reached with the U.S. Department of Justice in March do not support the vast, systemic conspiracy the States allege,” Novartis said Wednesday. “We take seriously our compliance with antitrust laws, and we will continue to defend ourselves in this matter.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-11--Biden’s Secretive Economic Brain Trust

Biden’s Secretive Economic Brain Trust

Joe Biden ’ s economic brain trust is shrouded in secrecy , write Jim Tankersley and Thomas Kaplan at The New York Times : “ Some broad contours have become clear .
Mr. Biden plays down concerns about the deficit during this recession , aides say , and he has begun soliciting ambitious plans to bridge the gap in earnings and wealth between black and white Americans .
His regular briefings are by a small group of liberal economists and others with roots in the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign .
And he sees the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wins the presidency.
” “ Yet the details of the policymaking process are closely held .
Mr. Biden is now seeking input from more than 100 left-leaning economists and other researchers , but there is little clarity on who has true influence .
The Biden campaign recently formed an economic policy committee , which includes these outside experts , and imposed strict rules to ensure their public silence .
A three-page document , sent last month ahead of the committee ’ s first online meeting , warned participants not to circulate email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the candidate or to the campaign ’ in documents.
” Campaign officials refused requests from the Times for details about Biden ’ s roster of economic advisers , but they confirmed that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee gets regular briefings from at least three establishment liberal economists : Jared Bernstein , Ben Harris and Heather Boushey .
Why it matters : Biden ’ s campaign has said that , faced with a pandemic-driven recession , he is casting a wide net for bold ideas that can spur growth and address the persistent economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , the former vice president , seen as a moderate , also faces pressure to veer left and , as the Times puts it , “ embrace a bolder agenda of taxing the rich and spending heavily on social programs.
” The secrecy surrounding his advisers also may raise some ethical questions .
“ It is unethical to formally advise a candidate and publicly advocate the candidate ’ s views while concealing that relationship , ” Kevin Hassett , an economic adviser to President Trump who worked on other GOP presidential campaigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full story at The New York Times .

Joe Biden’s economic brain trust is shrouded in secrecy, write Jim Tankersley and Thomas Kaplan at The New York Times:
“Some broad contours have become clear. Mr. Biden plays down concerns about the deficit during this recession, aides say, and he has begun soliciting ambitious plans to bridge the gap in earnings and wealth between black and white Americans. His regular briefings are by a small group of liberal economists and others with roots in the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. And he sees the economic recovery as his foremost duty if he wins the presidency.”
“Yet the details of the policymaking process are closely held. Mr. Biden is now seeking input from more than 100 left-leaning economists and other researchers, but there is little clarity on who has true influence. The Biden campaign recently formed an economic policy committee, which includes these outside experts, and imposed strict rules to ensure their public silence. A three-page document, sent last month ahead of the committee’s first online meeting, warned participants not to circulate email from committee leaders or refer to ‘the candidate or to the campaign’ in documents.”
Campaign officials refused requests from the Times for details about Biden’s roster of economic advisers, but they confirmed that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee gets regular briefings from at least three establishment liberal economists: Jared Bernstein, Ben Harris and Heather Boushey.
Why it matters: Biden’s campaign has said that, faced with a pandemic-driven recession, he is casting a wide net for bold ideas that can spur growth and address the persistent economic challenges facing the nation. In doing so, the former vice president, seen as a moderate, also faces pressure to veer left and, as the Times puts it, “embrace a bolder agenda of taxing the rich and spending heavily on social programs.”
The secrecy surrounding his advisers also may raise some ethical questions. “It is unethical to formally advise a candidate and publicly advocate the candidate’s views while concealing that relationship,” Kevin Hassett, an economic adviser to President Trump who worked on other GOP presidential campaigns, told the Times.
Read the full story at The New York Times.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-15--At a Time of Great Need, Public Health Lacks ‘Lobbying Muscle’

If there were ever a time for more public health funding , health experts say , it ’ s now .
Yet California Gov .
Gavin Newsom and the state ’ s Democratic-controlled legislature are expected to reject a plea from local public health officials for an additional $ 150 million a year to battle the COVID-19 pandemic and protect against future public health threats .
“ I ’ m not holding my breath , ” said Riverside County Public Health Director Kim Saruwatari .
“ Right now , more than ever , the gaps that we have in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public health officials vow to continue making their case .
But persuading lawmakers to increase spending in a time of cuts will be even more difficult because public health doesn ’ t carry the same political clout in the Capitol as other power players such as hospitals , doctors or public employee unions , which plow millions of dollars into lobbying each year .
“ I ’ ve not met anybody who is a lobbyist for public health , ” said Assembly member Jim Wood ( D-Santa Rosa ) , who chairs the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that wear the whitest of hats have the least resources .
Consequently , it ’ s easier to say ‘ No.
’ ” The novel coronavirus has decimated California ’ s economy and , like local and state governments around the country , the state faces unprecedented budget challenges .
Newsom is projecting a $ 54 billion deficit for the 2020-21 fiscal year , and says the state must make painful decisions before his July 1 deadline to sign a balanced budget into law .
The budget lawmakers are poised to send to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional public health funding .
Similar funding battles are taking place elsewhere , such as in Wisconsin , where the state faces budget cuts and officials are asking for more public health money .
“ We need to have a plan to build up public health , ” said Dr. Georges Benjamin , executive director of the American Public Health Association .
“ We have to figure out how to afford it , otherwise we ’ re going to have the same kind of economic consequences the next time something like this happens.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ departments are the backbone of the state ’ s public health system , and the two leading public health organizations representing local health officials have spent pennies on the dollar to lobby the governor , lawmakers and state agencies compared with big-name groups .
The Health Officers Association of California spent almost $ 7,000 on lobbying from January 2019 , the start of the current legislative session , through March 2020 , according to lobbying disclosures from the California Secretary of State office .
The County Health Executives Association of California spent $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while other groups employ in-house lobbyists to influence Capitol decision-makers full time , the public health organizations ’ executive directors pull double duty , serving as head lobbyists when they can fit it in .
Among the top spenders on lobbying were the powerful California Teachers Association , at $ 7.4 million , and the Service Employees International Union California , at $ 5.3 million .
Deep-pocketed health industry groups have also outspent public health interests .
DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care , the two dominant dialysis companies operating in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during that period .
The California Hospital Association spent $ 3.4 million and the California Medical Association , representing doctors , spent $ 2.7 million .
The groups collectively employ at least 15 in-house lobbyists .
In addition to paying for lobbyists , the money is used to curry favor with the governor , lawmakers and agency officials .
California lobbyists are allowed to give gifts , and to wine and dine officials .
In October , for example , the California Medical Association hosted a “ legislative reception ” and dinner that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Napa Rose restaurant at the Disneyland Resort totaling more than $ 22,500 .
Although political spending doesn ’ t always get big industry groups everything they want , it has gained them more access to the governor and other state leaders steering pandemic response plans .
It has also enabled moneyed health industry groups to continue working on other legislative priorities , such as relaxing hospital seismic safety standards and opposing a proposal granting nurse practitioners the ability to work without doctor oversight .
By comparison , lobbying by public health groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , often accompanied by health officials from the lawmakers ’ jurisdictions .
Public health leaders are regularly invited to testify at legislative hearings tackling issues like measles outbreaks , the opioid epidemic or teen vaping , but they don ’ t have anywhere near the “ lobbying muscle ” that major health industry groups have cultivated , said Kat DeBurgh , executive director of the Health Officers Association of California .
“ We have no money ; we advocate with our ideas , ” DeBurgh said .
“ We don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we can ’ t call in a hundred people to stand up at a hearing and say ‘ I didn ’ t get sick because of public health measures.
’ ” State spending for state and county public health programs has declined over the past decade .
The governor ’ s budget proposal for 2020-21 would continue that trend , reducing the current $ 3.4 billion public health budget to $ 3.2 billion .
Counties also are confronting a $ 1.7 billion loss in public health dollars due to pandemic-related declines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees , county health officials said , and they have asked Newsom to provide $ 1 billion from the state ’ s general fund to help make up for it .
Newsom has said the state may not be able to afford to do that given other financial demands .
Health officials say the additional $ 150 million they ’ re requesting would help them hire public health nurses and disease investigators , fund public health labs and purchase protective gear .
They say addressing the underfunding of public health is especially critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing adequate testing and contact tracing before easing stay-at-home restrictions .
“ That $ 150 million , that doesn ’ t even get anywhere close to where we need to be because so much of our funding has eroded away , ” said Mimi Hall , president of the County Health Executives Association of California , who is also the director of the Santa Cruz County health department .
State Sen. Richard Pan ( D-Sacramento ) , who chairs the Senate Health Committee , is also a pediatrician .
Pan has consistently pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the legislature , and Capitol insiders view him as a de facto lobbyist for public health .
Pan said he plans to continue to advocate for the additional public health funding — despite the economic turmoil .
“ It ’ s hard because what public health does is invisible and you have to move people ’ s hearts , ” Pan said .
Other lawmakers acknowledged concerns about public health shortfalls but said it would be difficult to increase spending this year .
However , organizations that can afford to hire high-priced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this budget , ” said Wood , the Santa Rosa Assembly member .
He is among the lawmakers considered most friendly to public health and said he supports more money , but wants to understand how it would be spent before deciding .
“ They have been underfunded for years , ” Wood said .
“ But some of that happens at the local level , too.
” Last year , public health officials sought $ 50 million a year from state lawmakers to help rebuild public health infrastructure following years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request .
County health directors say chronic underfunding has forced them to make difficult decisions to curtail spending and cut programs like public health labs — 11 of 40 have shuttered in the past two decades .
And for years , they have warned California leaders that the state would be quickly overwhelmed should a public health crisis strike .
Their pleas have gone largely ignored .
The impact of the relentless cuts has been felt across the state , including in Riverside County , which has slashed its public health staff by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leaving just 30 disease investigators , contact tracers and public health nurses to serve the sprawling region of 2.5 million people , said Saruwatari , its public health director .
“ Had we had the ability to test earlier , I think we would have been able to get out in front of this a little bit more , ” she said .
This KHN story first published on California Healthline , a service of the California Health Care Foundation .
Kaiser Health News ( KHN ) is a national health policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente .

If there were ever a time for more public health funding, health experts say, it’s now.
Yet California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature are expected to reject a plea from local public health officials for an additional $150 million a year to battle the COVID-19 pandemic and protect against future public health threats.
“I’m not holding my breath,” said Riverside County Public Health Director Kim Saruwatari. “Right now, more than ever, the gaps that we have in our public health infrastructure have been exposed.”
Public health officials vow to continue making their case. But persuading lawmakers to increase spending in a time of cuts will be even more difficult because public health doesn’t carry the same political clout in the Capitol as other power players such as hospitals, doctors or public employee unions, which plow millions of dollars into lobbying each year.
“I’ve not met anybody who is a lobbyist for public health,” said Assembly member Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa), who chairs the Assembly Health Committee. “The organizations that wear the whitest of hats have the least resources. Consequently, it’s easier to say ‘No.’”
The novel coronavirus has decimated California’s economy and, like local and state governments around the country, the state faces unprecedented budget challenges. Newsom is projecting a $54 billion deficit for the 2020-21 fiscal year, and says the state must make painful decisions before his July 1 deadline to sign a balanced budget into law.
The budget lawmakers are poised to send to Newsom on Monday does not include the additional public health funding.
Similar funding battles are taking place elsewhere, such as in Wisconsin, where the state faces budget cuts and officials are asking for more public health money.
“We need to have a plan to build up public health,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “We have to figure out how to afford it, otherwise we’re going to have the same kind of economic consequences the next time something like this happens.”
California’s 61 local health departments are the backbone of the state’s public health system, and the two leading public health organizations representing local health officials have spent pennies on the dollar to lobby the governor, lawmakers and state agencies compared with big-name groups.
The Health Officers Association of California spent almost $7,000 on lobbying from January 2019, the start of the current legislative session, through March 2020, according to lobbying disclosures from the California Secretary of State office. The County Health Executives Association of California spent $191,000 over the same period. And while other groups employ in-house lobbyists to influence Capitol decision-makers full time, the public health organizations’ executive directors pull double duty, serving as head lobbyists when they can fit it in.
Among the top spenders on lobbying were the powerful California Teachers Association, at $7.4 million, and the Service Employees International Union California, at $5.3 million.
Deep-pocketed health industry groups have also outspent public health interests. DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care, the two dominant dialysis companies operating in the U.S., spent $5.3 million on lobbying during that period. The California Hospital Association spent $3.4 million and the California Medical Association, representing doctors, spent $2.7 million. The groups collectively employ at least 15 in-house lobbyists.
In addition to paying for lobbyists, the money is used to curry favor with the governor, lawmakers and agency officials. California lobbyists are allowed to give gifts, and to wine and dine officials.
In October, for example, the California Medical Association hosted a “legislative reception” and dinner that included lawmakers, with the tab at the Napa Rose restaurant at the Disneyland Resort totaling more than $22,500.
Although political spending doesn’t always get big industry groups everything they want, it has gained them more access to the governor and other state leaders steering pandemic response plans. It has also enabled moneyed health industry groups to continue working on other legislative priorities, such as relaxing hospital seismic safety standards and opposing a proposal granting nurse practitioners the ability to work without doctor oversight.
By comparison, lobbying by public health groups consists primarily of visiting lawmakers’ offices, often accompanied by health officials from the lawmakers’ jurisdictions.
Public health leaders are regularly invited to testify at legislative hearings tackling issues like measles outbreaks, the opioid epidemic or teen vaping, but they don’t have anywhere near the “lobbying muscle” that major health industry groups have cultivated, said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Association of California.
“We have no money; we advocate with our ideas,” DeBurgh said. “We don’t have millions of dollars to spend on billboards, and we can’t call in a hundred people to stand up at a hearing and say ‘I didn’t get sick because of public health measures.’”
State spending for state and county public health programs has declined over the past decade. The governor’s budget proposal for 2020-21 would continue that trend, reducing the current $3.4 billion public health budget to $3.2 billion.
Counties also are confronting a $1.7 billion loss in public health dollars due to pandemic-related declines in sales tax revenue and vehicle license fees, county health officials said, and they have asked Newsom to provide $1 billion from the state’s general fund to help make up for it.
Newsom has said the state may not be able to afford to do that given other financial demands.
Health officials say the additional $150 million they’re requesting would help them hire public health nurses and disease investigators, fund public health labs and purchase protective gear. They say addressing the underfunding of public health is especially critical now because counties are primarily responsible for providing adequate testing and contact tracing before easing stay-at-home restrictions.
“That $150 million, that doesn’t even get anywhere close to where we need to be because so much of our funding has eroded away,” said Mimi Hall, president of the County Health Executives Association of California, who is also the director of the Santa Cruz County health department.
State Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), who chairs the Senate Health Committee, is also a pediatrician. Pan has consistently pushed for public health funding during his time in the legislature, and Capitol insiders view him as a de facto lobbyist for public health.
Pan said he plans to continue to advocate for the additional public health funding — despite the economic turmoil.
“It’s hard because what public health does is invisible and you have to move people’s hearts,” Pan said.
Other lawmakers acknowledged concerns about public health shortfalls but said it would be difficult to increase spending this year. However, organizations that can afford to hire high-priced lobbying firms “will probably do OK in this budget,” said Wood, the Santa Rosa Assembly member.
He is among the lawmakers considered most friendly to public health and said he supports more money, but wants to understand how it would be spent before deciding.
“They have been underfunded for years,” Wood said. “But some of that happens at the local level, too.”
Last year, public health officials sought $50 million a year from state lawmakers to help rebuild public health infrastructure following years of recession-era budget cuts. Newsom denied their request.
County health directors say chronic underfunding has forced them to make difficult decisions to curtail spending and cut programs like public health labs — 11 of 40 have shuttered in the past two decades.
And for years, they have warned California leaders that the state would be quickly overwhelmed should a public health crisis strike. Their pleas have gone largely ignored.
The impact of the relentless cuts has been felt across the state, including in Riverside County, which has slashed its public health staff by about 60% over the past decade, leaving just 30 disease investigators, contact tracers and public health nurses to serve the sprawling region of 2.5 million people, said Saruwatari, its public health director.
“Had we had the ability to test earlier, I think we would have been able to get out in front of this a little bit more,” she said.
This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-12--Defense Bill Sets Up Potential Clash With Trump

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved on Wednesday the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) , the annual bill that defines the budget and key policies for the Pentagon .
Though the full details have not yet been released , the committee set a topline number of $ 740.5 billion for 2021 while including some controversial policy prescriptions .
Here ’ s what we know so far from the committee ’ s 19-page summary : Budget breakdown : The bill authorizes $ 636.4 billion for the base Pentagon budget and $ 69 billion for the overseas war-fighting account .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion for defense-related activities at the Department of Energy , and $ 9.1 billion for “ defense related activities outside NDAA jurisdiction.
” A larger military : The bill prohibits the Air Force from shrinking and renews calls for a significantly larger Navy .
It authorizes the Defense Department to spend $ 9.1 billion for 95 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters , 14 more than requested by the Trump administration , while preventing the Air Force from retiring A-10 Warthog ground-attack jets and some F-15 fighters stationed in Europe .
It also delays the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their replacement is ready .
The bill would authorize $ 21.3 billion for Navy shipbuilding , $ 1.4 billion more than requested by the White House .
And it affirms the national policy of building a fleet with “ not fewer than 355 battle force ships ” – a target Navy leaders have been backing away from in recent months .
The bill also authorizes a slight increase in the size of the Army , to 485,000 soldiers , up from the 475,000 and 480,000 troop level it has sustained over the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill comes at a time of growing tensions between President Trump and his top military leaders , and some of its provisions could further destabilize the relationship between the White House and the Pentagon .
The committee approved an amendment from Sen. Tim Kaine ( D-VA ) that would prevent the military from deploying active-duty troops against protesters .
In a statement , Kaine said that the amendment “ was something I would never have thought I needed to do until last week : prevent the use of military force against peaceful protesters.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would require the Pentagon to change the name of military bases named after Confederate commanders .
`` If we 're going to have bases throughout the United States , I think it should be with the names of individuals who fought for our country , '' Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said Thursday .
`` This is the right time for it .
And I think it sends the right message . ''
The White House has signaled that it will veto the NDAA if the final version contains any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , President Trump said his “ Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations .
Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with .
Respect our Military !
” What ’ s next : Just the first step in a complicated annual process , the bill will head to the Senate floor for debate and a likely vote .
The House will write its own NDAA , which then has to be reconciled with the Senate ’ s version .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that provides the funds for defense spending – a separate and sometimes lengthy process that could drag well into the fall .

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved on Wednesday the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual bill that defines the budget and key policies for the Pentagon. Though the full details have not yet been released, the committee set a topline number of $740.5 billion for 2021 while including some controversial policy prescriptions.
Here’s what we know so far from the committee’s 19-page summary:
Budget breakdown: The bill authorizes $636.4 billion for the base Pentagon budget and $69 billion for the overseas war-fighting account. In addition, it provides $25.9 billion for defense-related activities at the Department of Energy, and $9.1 billion for “defense related activities outside NDAA jurisdiction.”
A larger military: The bill prohibits the Air Force from shrinking and renews calls for a significantly larger Navy. It authorizes the Defense Department to spend $9.1 billion for 95 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, 14 more than requested by the Trump administration, while preventing the Air Force from retiring A-10 Warthog ground-attack jets and some F-15 fighters stationed in Europe. It also delays the retirements of KC-10 and KC-135 tankers until their replacement is ready.
The bill would authorize $21.3 billion for Navy shipbuilding, $1.4 billion more than requested by the White House. And it affirms the national policy of building a fleet with “not fewer than 355 battle force ships” – a target Navy leaders have been backing away from in recent months.
The bill also authorizes a slight increase in the size of the Army, to 485,000 soldiers, up from the 475,000 and 480,000 troop level it has sustained over the last year.
Potentially controversial amendments: The bill comes at a time of growing tensions between President Trump and his top military leaders, and some of its provisions could further destabilize the relationship between the White House and the Pentagon. The committee approved an amendment from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) that would prevent the military from deploying active-duty troops against protesters. In a statement, Kaine said that the amendment “was something I would never have thought I needed to do until last week: prevent the use of military force against peaceful protesters.”
The committee also approved a provision that would require the Pentagon to change the name of military bases named after Confederate commanders. "If we're going to have bases throughout the United States, I think it should be with the names of individuals who fought for our country," Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said Thursday. "This is the right time for it. And I think it sends the right message."
The White House has signaled that it will veto the NDAA if the final version contains any such a language. In a tweet, President Trump said his “Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations. Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military!”
What’s next: Just the first step in a complicated annual process, the bill will head to the Senate floor for debate and a likely vote. The House will write its own NDAA, which then has to be reconciled with the Senate’s version. Both chambers must then pass an appropriations bill that provides the funds for defense spending – a separate and sometimes lengthy process that could drag well into the fall.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-12--More Than Half of Coronavirus Response Funds Are ‘Out the Door’

Congress and President Trump have responded to the coronavirus crisis with $ 4 trillion worth of measures to support the @ @ @ @ @ a Responsible Federal Budget , a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group , says that just over @ @ @ @ @ 2.1 trillion , has now been disbursed or committed .
“ While several programs and @ @ @ @ @ rocky starts , including the Paycheck Protection Program and expanded unemployment benefits , disbursement appears @ @ @ @ @ speed , ” the group says .
“ For comparison , it took 14 months @ @ @ @ @ Recovery and Reinvestment Act to be disbursed in 2009 and 2010.
” Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s already “ out the door ” and what remains to be spent @ @ @ @ @ how the money has been disbursed over time .

Congress and President Trump have responded to the coronavirus crisis with $4 trillion worth of measures to support the economy. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, says that just over half that money, $2.1 trillion, has now been disbursed or committed.
“While several programs and policies got off to a rocky starts, including the Paycheck Protection Program and expanded unemployment benefits, disbursement appears to be moving at record speed,” the group says. “For comparison, it took 14 months for half of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to be disbursed in 2009 and 2010.”
Here’s CRFB’s breakdown of what’s already “out the door” and what remains to be spent along with a look at how the money has been disbursed over time.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-12--Senate GOPers Eye Bill to Prevent Next Shutdown Fight Before It Starts: Report

It ’ s safe to say that President Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi don ’ t enjoy a warm working relationship .
Senate Republicans looking ahead to the fall are already worried that tensions between the two leaders could lead to another government shutdown fight — and concerned that they may pay the price for any such showdown in the November elections , The Hill ’ s Alexander Bolton reports : “ There is widespread anxiety among GOP senators that Trump ’ s penchant for picking fights is a political liability as his response to nationwide protests against police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his declining approval ratings .
“ Republicans are now worried that he ’ s likely to pick a fight with Pelosi in September over government funding for the next fiscal year , which starts Oct. 1.
” To defuse the risk of a shutdown , some Senate Republicans are reportedly considering legislation that would keep the government running even if the required annual spending bills haven ’ t been passed .
The Senate hasn ’ t yet passed any of the 12 appropriations bills , while House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending bills next month .
Sen. Mike Braun ( R-IN ) tells The Hill that the aim of the legislation would be to “ get rid of shutting down the government as a lever that can be used by whoever chooses to do it ” — or at least to get Senate Republicans on record as opposing a possible shutdown , helping them pin any blame on Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi .
Some Democrats may be wary of automatically extending spending at previous levels or may object to the details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If Schumer and/or Pelosi wants to keep that open as an option , I think it will be pretty easy to connect the dots on whose fault it would be if we ever have a government shutdown , ” Braun told The Hill .

It’s safe to say that President Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi don’t enjoy a warm working relationship. Senate Republicans looking ahead to the fall are already worried that tensions between the two leaders could lead to another government shutdown fight — and concerned that they may pay the price for any such showdown in the November elections, The Hill’s Alexander Bolton reports:
“There is widespread anxiety among GOP senators that Trump’s penchant for picking fights is a political liability as his response to nationwide protests against police brutality appears to be the cause of his declining approval ratings.
“Republicans are now worried that he’s likely to pick a fight with Pelosi in September over government funding for the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1.”
To defuse the risk of a shutdown, some Senate Republicans are reportedly considering legislation that would keep the government running even if the required annual spending bills haven’t been passed. The Senate hasn’t yet passed any of the 12 appropriations bills, while House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) plans to mark up the spending bills next month.
Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) tells The Hill that the aim of the legislation would be to “get rid of shutting down the government as a lever that can be used by whoever chooses to do it” — or at least to get Senate Republicans on record as opposing a possible shutdown, helping them pin any blame on Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Some Democrats may be wary of automatically extending spending at previous levels or may object to the details of GOP proposals to prevent shutdowns.
“If Schumer and/or Pelosi wants to keep that open as an option, I think it will be pretty easy to connect the dots on whose fault it would be if we ever have a government shutdown,” Braun told The Hill.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-12--Senators Considering Corporate Tax Breaks for Next Coronavirus Bill: Report

Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are studying a proposal from business lobbying groups to speed up some corporate tax breaks as part of the next coronavirus relief package , The Washington Post ’ s Jeff Stein reports : “ Under current law , corporations are generally not allowed to claim federal tax credits if the credits exceed their overall tax liability , meaning they can not receive more from the government than they pay in .
If corporations can not claim their federal tax credits , they can roll them into future years .
The current proposal being discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee would void that limit , allowing firms to ‘ cash out ’ on all their credits this year.
” The proposal is reportedly one of the top priorities for business groups and some tax policy experts on the right back the plan .
But Steve Rosenthal , a policy analyst at the Tax Policy Center , warned that the change presents risks for the federal government ’ s finances .
“ This form of cashing out could strip the government of revenue in the future to give money away to business owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Rosenthal told the Post .
“ This is another overreach by big businesses to grab tax dollars at a time when small businesses need assistance.
” Read more at The Washington Post .

Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are studying a proposal from business lobbying groups to speed up some corporate tax breaks as part of the next coronavirus relief package, The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein reports:
“Under current law, corporations are generally not allowed to claim federal tax credits if the credits exceed their overall tax liability, meaning they cannot receive more from the government than they pay in. If corporations cannot claim their federal tax credits, they can roll them into future years. The current proposal being discussed by several Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee would void that limit, allowing firms to ‘cash out’ on all their credits this year.”
The proposal is reportedly one of the top priorities for business groups and some tax policy experts on the right back the plan. But Steve Rosenthal, a policy analyst at the Tax Policy Center, warned that the change presents risks for the federal government’s finances. “This form of cashing out could strip the government of revenue in the future to give money away to business owners today. That’s very dangerous,” Rosenthal told the Post. “This is another overreach by big businesses to grab tax dollars at a time when small businesses need assistance.”
Read more at The Washington Post.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-11--Trump Admin Won’t Release Data on Small Business Loans

Reversing an earlier commitment to release information on aid provided to small business owners , the Trump administration said Wednesday that it will not disclose the names or dollar amounts of loans made through the $ 660 billion Paycheck Protection Program .
Appearing before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he believes the data is “ proprietary information , and in many cases for sole proprietors and small businesses , it is confidential information.
” Releasing the data could harm participants , Mnuchin said .
Critics worry that the lack of transparency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and abuse within the massive program , which approved loans rapidly and with less vetting and oversight than usual .
“ Clearly , this is meant to prevent some entities from being embarrassed , or being revealed , ” Steve Ellis of the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense told The Washington Post .
“ Nobody forced them to take the money , and it was already set up so that they could return it with no questions asked .
And they were told that this information would be made public when they @ @ @ @ @ @

Reversing an earlier commitment to release information on aid provided to small business owners, the Trump administration said Wednesday that it will not disclose the names or dollar amounts of loans made through the $660 billion Paycheck Protection Program.
Appearing before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he believes the data is “proprietary information, and in many cases for sole proprietors and small businesses, it is confidential information.” Releasing the data could harm participants, Mnuchin said.
Critics worry that the lack of transparency could make it harder to identify fraud and abuse within the massive program, which approved loans rapidly and with less vetting and oversight than usual.
“Clearly, this is meant to prevent some entities from being embarrassed, or being revealed,” Steve Ellis of the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense told The Washington Post. “Nobody forced them to take the money, and it was already set up so that they could return it with no questions asked. And they were told that this information would be made public when they applied for the loan.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-16--Poll of the Day: Americans Unhappier Than They’ve Been in Decades

Americans are unhappier than they have been in almost 50 years , according to a new report from the National @ @ @ @ @ ) at the University of Chicago .
Using public opinion data from the General Social @ @ @ @ @ that only 14 % of American adults describe themselves as being very happy , an @ @ @ @ @ since the question was first asked in 1972 .
( The number of Americans who @ @ @ @ @ happy , ” the orange line in the chart below , has taken a sharp @ @ @ @ @ the same time , an all-time high of 80 % report that they are satisfied @ @ @ @ @ financial situation .
Yet optimism for the future also reached a decades-long low , with @ @ @ @ @ that the children will grow up to enjoy a better standard of living than they @ @ @ @ @ 57 % in 2018 .
Interviews for the study were conducted in May .
The @ @ @ @ @ adults and has a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points .

Americans are unhappier than they have been in almost 50 years, according to a new report from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.
Using public opinion data from the General Social Survey, the report finds that only 14% of American adults describe themselves as being very happy, an all-time low for the survey since the question was first asked in 1972. (The number of Americans who say they are “pretty happy,” the orange line in the chart below, has taken a sharp turn higher.)
At the same time, an all-time high of 80% report that they are satisfied with their family’s financial situation. Yet optimism for the future also reached a decades-long low, with 43% of Americans believing that the children will grow up to enjoy a better standard of living than they do, down sharply from 57% in 2018.
Interviews for the study were conducted in May. The survey was completed by 2,279 adults and has a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-16--National Health Spending Plunged 24% in April Compared With 2019

As the coronavirus pandemic spread and much normal activity was halted , national health spending in April fell by 24.3 % compared to the previous April , according to an analysis by consulting firm Altarum .
Health spending in April was $ 2.88 trillion ( seasonally adjusted annual rate ) , down from $ 3.57 trillion in March and $ 3.8 trillion in April 2019 .
“ While March 2020 exhibited the only previous occurrence in our historical time series ( which goes back to 1989 ) of a monthly decline from the previous year , the April reading dwarfs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
Spending on hospitals and doctors fell by more than 40 % , reaching the lowest monthly levels in more than a decade .
Spending on dental services , meanwhile , fell by more than 60 % year over year .
The only health care areas to see increased spending were nursing home care and prescription drugs , which rose 6.3 % and 5.1 % , respectively .
Altarum ’ s analysts say that , with the economy starting to reopen in May , they expect to see the declines in spending @ @

As the coronavirus pandemic spread and much normal activity was halted, national health spending in April fell by 24.3% compared to the previous April, according to an analysis by consulting firm Altarum. Health spending in April was $2.88 trillion (seasonally adjusted annual rate), down from $3.57 trillion in March and $3.8 trillion in April 2019.
“While March 2020 exhibited the only previous occurrence in our historical time series (which goes back to 1989) of a monthly decline from the previous year, the April reading dwarfs the March value,” the report says.
Spending on hospitals and doctors fell by more than 40%, reaching the lowest monthly levels in more than a decade. Spending on dental services, meanwhile, fell by more than 60% year over year.
The only health care areas to see increased spending were nursing home care and prescription drugs, which rose 6.3% and 5.1%, respectively. Altarum’s analysts say that, with the economy starting to reopen in May, they expect to see the declines in spending reverse.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-15--New York Could Lose 40% of Its Tax Revenue Due to Pandemic: Report

States can expect to see a 20 % drop in tax revenues on average due to the coronavirus slowdown , and the 10 hardest-hit states could experience losses of more than 30 % , according to a new analysis from a pair of economists published over the weekend .
New York , the epicenter of the crisis , will likely see the biggest losses , with revenues falling by about 40 % .
Examining 25 years of economic data , the researchers found that states record a 1.56 percentage point increase in tax receipts for every 1 percentage point rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primarily from higher sales , corporate and individual income taxes .
Extrapolating from the results , the economists estimate that states will lose about $ 63.7 billion in revenues in the coronavirus recession , with the average state seeing a 20 % drop , or $ 1.25 billion .
( Both revenue figures are in 2012 prices . )
On Monday , New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli provided some anecdotal evidence that jibes with the analysis , announcing that sales tax revenues for local governments in the state had fallen 32 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why it matters : Economists worry about the negative effects of fiscal belt-tightening at the state level .
“ Budget shortfalls are forcing state and municipal authorities to cut jobs and spending , as they did after the 2008 financial crisis when local austerity held back the economy ’ s recovery , ” Bloomberg ’ s Alexandre Tanzi said Monday , adding that “ Congress is deadlocked over sending more cash to the states to plug the gap .
”

States can expect to see a 20% drop in tax revenues on average due to the coronavirus slowdown, and the 10 hardest-hit states could experience losses of more than 30%, according to a new analysis from a pair of economists published over the weekend. New York, the epicenter of the crisis, will likely see the biggest losses, with revenues falling by about 40%.
Examining 25 years of economic data, the researchers found that states record a 1.56 percentage point increase in tax receipts for every 1 percentage point rise in employment, with the revenues flowing primarily from higher sales, corporate and individual income taxes. Extrapolating from the results, the economists estimate that states will lose about $63.7 billion in revenues in the coronavirus recession, with the average state seeing a 20% drop, or $1.25 billion. (Both revenue figures are in 2012 prices.)
On Monday, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli provided some anecdotal evidence that jibes with the analysis, announcing that sales tax revenues for local governments in the state had fallen 32% in May compared to the year before.
Why it matters: Economists worry about the negative effects of fiscal belt-tightening at the state level. “Budget shortfalls are forcing state and municipal authorities to cut jobs and spending, as they did after the 2008 financial crisis when local austerity held back the economy’s recovery,” Bloomberg’s Alexandre Tanzi said Monday, adding that “Congress is deadlocked over sending more cash to the states to plug the gap.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-15--House Dems Press for Details of Small Business Bailout Loans

House Democrats overseeing the coronavirus response are demanding details from eight big banks about the implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program of coronavirus relief loans to small businesses .
In letters to Bank of America , Citibank , JPMorgan Chase , PNC Bank , Santander , Truist Bank , U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo , House Majority Whip James Clyburn ( D-SC ) and six colleagues said the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis “ is investigating whether implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) has favored large , well-funded companies over struggling small businesses in underserved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Paycheck Protection Program has approved more than $ 512 billion in loans , but the program has also been plagued by reports that large companies with access to other funds received loans while some smaller businesses had difficulty in getting approved .
“ We have significant concerns that the two-tiered system that some banks reportedly developed for wealthy clients may have diverted PPP funds intended for vulnerable small business owners in underserved and rural markets , including small businesses owned by veterans , members of the military , socially and economically disadvantaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation for under two years , ” the Democrats wrote in their letters .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also set off a storm of criticism last week when he reversed course on a pledge to provide “ full transparency ” regarding recipients of more than $ 500 billion in Paycheck Protection Program funds .
Mnuchin told Congress last week that the names of loan recipients and amounts they received are “ proprietary ” and “ confidential.
” Watchdog groups and lawmakers , including some Republicans , have objected to the administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Clyburn and his colleagues on Monday also wrote to Mnuchin and Small Business Administration chief Jovita Carranza asking for their communication with the banks and financial industry associations as well as details , including names and loan amounts , for PPP borrowers and applicants .
“ Contrary to Secretary Mnuchin ’ s recent testimony , there is nothing ‘ proprietary ’ or ‘ confidential ’ about a business receiving millions of dollars appropriated by Congress , and taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent , ” the lawmakers wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted that he “ will be having discussions with the Senate [ Small Business Committee ] and others on a bipartisan basis to strike the appropriate balance for proper oversight of # ppploans and appropriate protection of small business information . ''

House Democrats overseeing the coronavirus response are demanding details from eight big banks about the implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program of coronavirus relief loans to small businesses.
In letters to Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, Santander, Truist Bank, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) and six colleagues said the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis “is investigating whether implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) has favored large, well-funded companies over struggling small businesses in underserved communities—contrary to Congress’ clear intent.”
The Paycheck Protection Program has approved more than $512 billion in loans, but the program has also been plagued by reports that large companies with access to other funds received loans while some smaller businesses had difficulty in getting approved.
“We have significant concerns that the two-tiered system that some banks reportedly developed for wealthy clients may have diverted PPP funds intended for vulnerable small business owners in underserved and rural markets, including small businesses owned by veterans, members of the military, socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, women, and businesses in operation for under two years,” the Democrats wrote in their letters.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also set off a storm of criticism last week when he reversed course on a pledge to provide “full transparency” regarding recipients of more than $500 billion in Paycheck Protection Program funds. Mnuchin told Congress last week that the names of loan recipients and amounts they received are “proprietary” and “confidential.”
Watchdog groups and lawmakers, including some Republicans, have objected to the administration’s refusal to disclose details of PPP loans. Clyburn and his colleagues on Monday also wrote to Mnuchin and Small Business Administration chief Jovita Carranza asking for their communication with the banks and financial industry associations as well as details, including names and loan amounts, for PPP borrowers and applicants.
“Contrary to Secretary Mnuchin’s recent testimony, there is nothing ‘proprietary’ or ‘confidential’ about a business receiving millions of dollars appropriated by Congress, and taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter.
Mnuchin on Monday tweeted that he “will be having discussions with the Senate [Small Business Committee] and others on a bipartisan basis to strike the appropriate balance for proper oversight of #ppploans and appropriate protection of small business information."


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-15--Trump Wants ‘At Least $2 Trillion’ More in Coronavirus Relief, Adviser Says

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said late last week that it was premature to speculate about the size of the next coronavirus relief package .
“ Before we rush back and spend more money , whether that ’ s a trillion dollars or whether that ’ s more , we want to make sure we ’ re careful in knowing how much more we need to spend , ” he said .
So maybe White House trade adviser Peter Navarro was being premature , but twice in recent days he has said that President Trump is looking for the next stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wants the package to be focused on boosting U.S. manufacturing .
“ The president is very interested in something on the order of at least $ 2 trillion , with the bulk of that focused on bringing home our manufacturing base , starting with pharmaceuticals and medical supplies and equipment , ” he told Fox Business on Friday .
He made similar comments on CNN on Saturday , saying that Trump wants to see `` at least $ 2 trillion that is strategically focused around the president 's two simple rules—buy American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies to bring offshored jobs back home . ''
The $ 2 trillion figure floated by Navarro falls between the $ 3 trillion that House Democrats provided in a bill they passed a month ago and the $ 1 trillion that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly set as a ceiling for the next package .

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said late last week that it was premature to speculate about the size of the next coronavirus relief package. “Before we rush back and spend more money, whether that’s a trillion dollars or whether that’s more, we want to make sure we’re careful in knowing how much more we need to spend,” he said.
So maybe White House trade adviser Peter Navarro was being premature, but twice in recent days he has said that President Trump is looking for the next stimulus to be at least $2 trillion and wants the package to be focused on boosting U.S. manufacturing.
“The president is very interested in something on the order of at least $2 trillion, with the bulk of that focused on bringing home our manufacturing base, starting with pharmaceuticals and medical supplies and equipment,” he told Fox Business on Friday. He made similar comments on CNN on Saturday, saying that Trump wants to see "at least $2 trillion that is strategically focused around the president's two simple rules—buy American, hire American—along with incentives for American companies to bring offshored jobs back home."
The $2 trillion figure floated by Navarro falls between the $3 trillion that House Democrats provided in a bill they passed a month ago and the $1 trillion that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly set as a ceiling for the next package.