thefiscaltimes--2020-02-14--Annual Health Spending for Those With Job-Based Insurance Hits All-Time High: Report

Average annual health care spending for people with employer-provided private insurance rose to an all-time high of $ 5,892 in 2018 , according to the Health Care Cost Institute ’ s yearly Health Care Cost and Utilization Report , released on Thursday .
Spending per person grew by 18.4 % from 2014 to 2018 , the report says , with about three-quarters of the increase due to rising prices rather than an increased use of health care services .
In 2018 , use of services edged up 1.8 % , the first uptick in several years .
“ Looked at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ed Silverman writes , “ from 2014 to 2018 , per capita GDP in the U.S. grew annually at an average rate of 3.4 % , while health care spending per person for those with employer coverage grew 4.3 % on average .
Meanwhile , per-person spending on prescription drugs grew at an average annual rate of 5.9 % .
” Some other data points from the report : • Health care spending grew 4.4 % in 2018 , the third straight year growth was above 4 % .
• Out-of-pocket costs for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or $ 114 , between 2014 and 2018 .
That includes copays , coinsurance and deductible payments , but not premiums .
• Prescription drug spending for those with private insurance rose by 26 % over that period , outpacing cost increases in other categories ( see chart below ) .
• Per person spending on drugs accounted for almost 20 % of all health care spending .
• The average price of medicine climbed by almost 21 % .
• Generic drugs accounted for 88 % of all prescriptions , and out-of-pocket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-fifth of such payments for brand-name drugs .
• Emergency room spending increased 32 % over the five years studied .
• Spending on psychiatry rose by 43 % over that span , driven mostly by increased use .

Average annual health care spending for people with employer-provided private insurance rose to an all-time high of $5,892 in 2018, according to the Health Care Cost Institute’s yearly Health Care Cost and Utilization Report, released on Thursday.
Spending per person grew by 18.4% from 2014 to 2018, the report says, with about three-quarters of the increase due to rising prices rather than an increased use of health care services. In 2018, use of services edged up 1.8%, the first uptick in several years.
“Looked at another way,” STAT’s Ed Silverman writes, “from 2014 to 2018, per capita GDP in the U.S. grew annually at an average rate of 3.4%, while health care spending per person for those with employer coverage grew 4.3% on average. Meanwhile, per-person spending on prescription drugs grew at an average annual rate of 5.9%.”
Some other data points from the report:


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-14--Court Strikes Down Trump Administration’s Medicaid Work Requirements

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the Trump administration ’ s approval of work requirements in the Arkansas Medicaid program , delivering a serious blow to the effort to impose more stringent rules for participation in the country ’ s primary health care program for the poor .
Upholding a lower court decision , a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit ruled unanimously that the Department of Health and Human Services lacked the authority to approve work requirements , and that Trump administration officials had been “ arbitrary and capricious ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years ago .
The opinion was written by Senior U.S .
Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle , a Reagan appointee .
Arkansas was the first state to receive permission to deploy Medicaid work requirements , which oblige aid recipients to work , volunteer or attend school for a certain number of hours each month in order to remain in the program .
The Trump administration has now approved work requirements in 10 states , some of which have paused their efforts pending litigation .
Nine other states are seeking approval .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The court found that the Trump administration disregarded the purpose of Medicaid : The court affirmed that the primary purpose of Medicaid is to provide medical care to the needy , saying that it “ is indisputably correct that the principal objective of Medicaid is providing health care coverage.
” When it comes to making changes in the program , the court said that the secretary of Health and Human Services “ is guided by the statutory directive that the demonstration must be ‘ likely to assist in promoting the objectives ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempted to justify the work requirements by referring to an alternative set of objectives , arguing that they would help people become healthier and financially independent .
The court said those goals “ are not consistent with Medicaid ” and declared that the “ text of the statute includes one primary purpose , which is providing health care coverage without any restriction geared to healthy outcomes , financial independence or transition to commercial coverage.
” The court said the work requirements have harmed recipients : “ The record shows that the Arkansas Works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Judge Sentelle wrote .
“ In Arkansas , more than 18,000 people ( about 25 % of those subject to the work requirement ) lost coverage as a result of the project in just five months.
” The court criticized the Trump administration ’ s decision-making process : The judges were critical of Trump administration health care officials , including the HHS secretary , finding that they had failed to consider the potential loss in medical coverage that would result from the work requirements , despite warnings about such losses that emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Failure to consider whether the project will result in coverage loss is arbitrary and capricious , ” Sentelle said .
“ In total , the Secretary ’ s analysis of the substantial and important problem is to note the concerns of others and dismiss those concerns in a handful of conclusory sentences .
Nodding to concerns raised by commenters only to dismiss them in a conclusory manner is not the hallmark of reasoned decisionmaking , ” the ruling says .
Critics claim a decisive victory : Critics of work requirements for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that such efforts are thinly veiled attempts to prevent needy people from getting help they are legally entitled to receive .
Sam Brooke , deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center , which challenged the work rules , said the “ court confirmed that this administration ’ s effort to ‘ explode ’ Medicaid by converting it from a health care access program to a work program is arbitrary and illegal.
” What comes next : Nicholas Bagley , a law professor at the University of Michigan , said he expects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements to be suspended unless and until the Supreme Court reviews the case .
“ The Trump administration will probably appeal this decision to the Supreme Court , but it 's hard to make a case for special urgency , especially since it 's trying to slow-roll the constitutional challenge to the [ Affordable Care Act ] , ” Bagley wrote Friday .
“ So if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case -- and I think it probably will -- we 're talking about an argument sometime in the fall or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late spring of 2021 .
”

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the Trump administration’s approval of work requirements in the Arkansas Medicaid program, delivering a serious blow to the effort to impose more stringent rules for participation in the country’s primary health care program for the poor.
Upholding a lower court decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously that the Department of Health and Human Services lacked the authority to approve work requirements, and that Trump administration officials had been “arbitrary and capricious” in allowing Arkansas to impose such requirements two years ago. The opinion was written by Senior U.S. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle, a Reagan appointee.
Arkansas was the first state to receive permission to deploy Medicaid work requirements, which oblige aid recipients to work, volunteer or attend school for a certain number of hours each month in order to remain in the program. The Trump administration has now approved work requirements in 10 states, some of which have paused their efforts pending litigation. Nine other states are seeking approval.
Here’s what you need to know:
The court found that the Trump administration disregarded the purpose of Medicaid: The court affirmed that the primary purpose of Medicaid is to provide medical care to the needy, saying that it “is indisputably correct that the principal objective of Medicaid is providing health care coverage.” When it comes to making changes in the program, the court said that the secretary of Health and Human Services “is guided by the statutory directive that the demonstration must be ‘likely to assist in promoting the objectives’ of Medicaid.”
The Trump administration has attempted to justify the work requirements by referring to an alternative set of objectives, arguing that they would help people become healthier and financially independent. The court said those goals “are not consistent with Medicaid” and declared that the “text of the statute includes one primary purpose, which is providing health care coverage without any restriction geared to healthy outcomes, financial independence or transition to commercial coverage.”
The court said the work requirements have harmed recipients: “The record shows that the Arkansas Works amendments resulted in significant coverage loss,” Judge Sentelle wrote. “In Arkansas, more than 18,000 people (about 25% of those subject to the work requirement) lost coverage as a result of the project in just five months.”
The court criticized the Trump administration’s decision-making process: The judges were critical of Trump administration health care officials, including the HHS secretary, finding that they had failed to consider the potential loss in medical coverage that would result from the work requirements, despite warnings about such losses that emerged in comments during the public review process.
“Failure to consider whether the project will result in coverage loss is arbitrary and capricious,” Sentelle said. “In total, the Secretary’s analysis of the substantial and important problem is to note the concerns of others and dismiss those concerns in a handful of conclusory sentences. Nodding to concerns raised by commenters only to dismiss them in a conclusory manner is not the hallmark of reasoned decisionmaking,” the ruling says.
Critics claim a decisive victory: Critics of work requirements for recipients of public aid have long held that such efforts are thinly veiled attempts to prevent needy people from getting help they are legally entitled to receive. Sam Brooke, deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which challenged the work rules, said the “court confirmed that this administration’s effort to ‘explode’ Medicaid by converting it from a health care access program to a work program is arbitrary and illegal.”
What comes next: Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said he expects all efforts to enforce state-level Medicaid work requirements to be suspended unless and until the Supreme Court reviews the case. “The Trump administration will probably appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, but it's hard to make a case for special urgency, especially since it's trying to slow-roll the constitutional challenge to the [Affordable Care Act],” Bagley wrote Friday. “So if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case -- and I think it probably will -- we're talking about an argument sometime in the fall or winter, followed by a decision in late spring of 2021.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-13--Pentagon to Divert Another $3.8 Billion to Pay for Trump’s Border Wall

The Trump administration plans to use billions of dollars intended to purchase combat equipment – including F-35 stealth jets , transport aircraft and an amphibious assault ship – to fund construction of the border wall with Mexico .
The Pentagon notified lawmakers Thursday that it intends to reprogram $ 3.8 billion in appropriated funds from its 2020 budget , including $ 2.2 billion from its base budget and $ 1.6 billion from the overseas contingency operations account .
This marks the first time the Trump administration has sought to shift funds away from equipment procurement for use on the border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 6 billion from military construction and drug interdiction funds , but none of that money had been appropriated specifically for combat equipment .
The latest transfer will bring the total of Pentagon funds used for the border wall in the last year to about $ 10 billion , according to Politico .
Some details : The money will be moved from procurement accounts to the drug interdiction accounts the Pentagon tapped last year for border projects .
The equipment cuts include : Lawmakers protest : House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Pete Visclosky ( D-IN ) released a statement expressing their opposition to the move : “ President Trump is once again disrespecting the separation of powers and endangering our security by raiding military resources to pay for his wasteful border wall .
The Constitution gives Congress , not the President , the power of the purse .
Congress rejected President Trump ’ s full request for wall funding , which is why he is now orchestrating this backdoor mechanism to prop up a political vanity project.
” Republican Mac Thornberry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Armed Services Committee , also expressed disapproval , saying the plan runs `` contrary to Congress 's constitutional authority . ''
Other Republican lawmakers likely have concerns as well , Defense News said , since many of the items targeted by the Pentagon were specifically added by Congress to the 2020 defense appropriations bill , including equipment manufactured in districts represented by lawmakers from both parties .

The Trump administration plans to use billions of dollars intended to purchase combat equipment – including F-35 stealth jets, transport aircraft and an amphibious assault ship – to fund construction of the border wall with Mexico.
The Pentagon notified lawmakers Thursday that it intends to reprogram $3.8 billion in appropriated funds from its 2020 budget, including $2.2 billion from its base budget and $1.6 billion from the overseas contingency operations account.
This marks the first time the Trump administration has sought to shift funds away from equipment procurement for use on the border. Last year, the Pentagon reprogrammed more than $6 billion from military construction and drug interdiction funds, but none of that money had been appropriated specifically for combat equipment.
The latest transfer will bring the total of Pentagon funds used for the border wall in the last year to about $10 billion, according to Politico.
Some details: The money will be moved from procurement accounts to the drug interdiction accounts the Pentagon tapped last year for border projects. The equipment cuts include:
Two Marine Corps F-35B fighters ($223 million)
Two Air Force C-130J transport aircraft ($196 million)
The Air Force’s light attack aircraft program ($180 million)
The Army National Guard's Humvee modernization program ($100 million)
The Navy’s amphibious assault ship replacement program ($650 million)
The Navy Expeditionary Fast Transport ship program ($261 million).
Lawmakers protest: House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Pete Visclosky (D-IN) released a statement expressing their opposition to the move: “President Trump is once again disrespecting the separation of powers and endangering our security by raiding military resources to pay for his wasteful border wall. The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power of the purse. Congress rejected President Trump’s full request for wall funding, which is why he is now orchestrating this backdoor mechanism to prop up a political vanity project.”
Republican Mac Thornberry of Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, also expressed disapproval, saying the plan runs "contrary to Congress's constitutional authority." Other Republican lawmakers likely have concerns as well, Defense News said, since many of the items targeted by the Pentagon were specifically added by Congress to the 2020 defense appropriations bill, including equipment manufactured in districts represented by lawmakers from both parties.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-19--Chart of the Day: Boosting Corporate Tax Revenues

Are interest rates destined to move higher , increasing the cost of private and public debt ?
While many experts @ @ @ @ @ all but inevitable , historian Paul Schmelzing argues that today ’ s low-interest environment is @ @ @ @ @ stretching back 600 years .
The chart “ shows a clear historical downtrend , with @ @ @ @ @ every 60 years to near zero today , ” says Bloomberg ’ s Aaron Brown @ @ @ @ @ to revert to a mean , but that mean seems to be declining .
”

The Air Force has scrapped a planned upgrade of its B-2 stealth bomber fleet — even after spending $2 billion on the effort — because defense contractor Northrup Grumman didn’t have the necessary software expertise to complete the project on time and on budget, Bloomberg’s Anthony Capaccio reports, citing the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer.
Ellen Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, told reporters that the nearly $2 billion that had already been spent on the program wasn’t wasted because “we are still going to get upgraded electronic displays.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-19--Census Bureau Spending Millions to Reassure Immigrant Communities

The Census Bureau is spending $ 500 million over the next five months to boost awareness of and encourage participation in the national 2020 headcount .
Some of the money is being spent to reassure minority populations , especially Latinos , that census data is confidential and will not be shared with state and federal law enforcement , Politico ’ s Maya King reports .
• Census officials are worried about an undercount in some communities , due in part to an effort by the Trump administration to include a controversial citizenship status question on the census – an effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that sparked concerns in immigrant communities , nevertheless .
• About $ 50 million of the total advertising budget will be direct specifically at Latinos , including ads broadcast in Spanish in sanctuary cities .
“ In response to citizenship question concerns , they will emphasize that anyone — including members of blended families and newcomers to the United States — is eligible to participate , ” King says .
• Other ethnic groups will specifically be targeted , as well , with $ 20 million being spent to encourage participation among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ads focused on Asian Americans .
• Some critics say the government isn ’ t doing enough to address fears of participation in immigrant communities .
Arturo Vargas , CEO of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials , says the Census Bureau ads don ’ t directly discuss the absence of the citizenship question .
Michael Cook , chief of the Census Bureau ’ s Public Information Office , concedes the point , saying the “ ads do not explicitly mention the citizenship question not being asked in part because they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question ’ s status and because research led our creative agency to recommend using positive messaging about the community benefits of responding to the 2020 Census .
”

The Census Bureau is spending $500 million over the next five months to boost awareness of and encourage participation in the national 2020 headcount. Some of the money is being spent to reassure minority populations, especially Latinos, that census data is confidential and will not be shared with state and federal law enforcement, Politico’s Maya King reports.
Some key details:
Census officials are worried about an undercount in some communities, due in part to an effort by the Trump administration to include a controversial citizenship status question on the census – an effort that was rejected by the courts, but that sparked concerns in immigrant communities, nevertheless.
About $50 million of the total advertising budget will be direct specifically at Latinos, including ads broadcast in Spanish in sanctuary cities. “In response to citizenship question concerns, they will emphasize that anyone — including members of blended families and newcomers to the United States — is eligible to participate,” King says.
Other ethnic groups will specifically be targeted, as well, with $20 million being spent to encourage participation among African Americans and $40 million on ads focused on Asian Americans.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-18--Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study

Bernie Sanders ’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $ 450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths , according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet .
In the analysis , a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders ’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017 .
They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $ 3 trillion that year , or $ 458 billion less than the actual total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs would decline , resulting in lower costs overall , even with millions more people covered .
And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year , the researchers .
Here are some key details and assumptions from the study : A new analysis : Previous estimates of the cost of Medicare for All have reached significantly different conclusions , ranging from a roughly 16 % increase over current national health-care spending levels to a 27 % decrease .
This latest study relies on a new analytical tool to measure the impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as applied to real-world data ( you can review and adjust the parameters of the analysis in the Single-Payer Healthcare Interactive Financing Tool ) .
Big savings with a single-payer system : The researchers found that the proposed system would reduce total health-care expenditures by about 13 % based on 2017 spending levels .
Savings would come from a variety of sources .
Here are some of the major savings the researchers found with Medicare for All , based on the 2017 total health care expenditure of nearly $ 3.5 trillion : Revenues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes while reducing the overall cost burden on both businesses and households .
The revenues look like this , according to the analysis : • Payroll tax : A 10 % tax on employers would raise $ 436 billion .
By comparison , employers currently pay $ 536 billion on insurance premiums , the equivalent of a 12.3 % tax rate .
• Household income tax : At the individual level , households would pay a 5 % income tax above the standard deduction , yielding $ 375 billion per year .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 738 billion on premiums and service fees .
• Wealth tax : A new tax on net worth over $ 21 million would produce about $ 109 billion a year .
The bottom line : There are some methodological questions about the analysis , and the politics of transitioning to a single-payer system remain as complicated as ever .
You might hear Sanders talk up this study during a debate or on the campaign trail , but it will likely do little to change minds in the debate .

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan would save the country about $450 billion a year on total health care spending while preventing nearly 70,000 deaths, according to a study published over the weekend in The Lancet.
In the analysis, a team of epidemiologists led by Alison P. Galvani of the Yale School of Public Health applied the provisions of Sanders’ plan to real-world spending in the U.S. in 2017. They concluded that Medicare for All would have cost just over $3 trillion that year, or $458 billion less than the actual total. The analysis found that per capita costs would decline, resulting in lower costs overall, even with millions more people covered. And providing universal coverage would save 68,531 lives per year, the researchers.
Here are some key details and assumptions from the study:
A new analysis: Previous estimates of the cost of Medicare for All have reached significantly different conclusions, ranging from a roughly 16% increase over current national health-care spending levels to a 27% decrease. This latest study relies on a new analytical tool to measure the impact of different provisions within Medicare for All as applied to real-world data (you can review and adjust the parameters of the analysis in the Single-Payer Healthcare Interactive Financing Tool).
Big savings with a single-payer system: The researchers found that the proposed system would reduce total health-care expenditures by about 13% based on 2017 spending levels. Savings would come from a variety of sources. Here are some of the major savings the researchers found with Medicare for All, based on the 2017 total health care expenditure of nearly $3.5 trillion:
Reducing pharmaceutical prices via negotiation: $219 billion
Improving fraud detection: $191 billion
Reducing reimbursement rates for hospitals, physician, and clinical services: $188 billion
Reducing overhead: $102 billion
Eliminating uncompensated hospitalization fees: $78 billion in savings.
Revenues: The Sanders proposal would impose new taxes while reducing the overall cost burden on both businesses and households. The revenues look like this, according to the analysis:
Payroll tax: A 10% tax on employers would raise $436 billion. By comparison, employers currently pay $536 billion on insurance premiums, the equivalent of a 12.3% tax rate.
A 10% tax on employers would raise $436 billion. By comparison, employers currently pay $536 billion on insurance premiums, the equivalent of a 12.3% tax rate. Household income tax: At the individual level, households would pay a 5% income tax above the standard deduction, yielding $375 billion per year. By comparison, households currently pay about $738 billion on premiums and service fees.
At the individual level, households would pay a 5% income tax above the standard deduction, yielding $375 billion per year. By comparison, households currently pay about $738 billion on premiums and service fees. Wealth tax: A new tax on net worth over $21 million would produce about $109 billion a year.
The bottom line: There are some methodological questions about the analysis, and the politics of transitioning to a single-payer system remain as complicated as ever. You might hear Sanders talk up this study during a debate or on the campaign trail, but it will likely do little to change minds in the debate.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-20--Elizabeth Warren to Billionaire Sheldon Adelson: Here’s Your Wealth Tax Bill

Sen. Elizabeth Warren came out swinging against Michael Bloomberg in the Democratic debate Wednesday night , and then took aim at a different billionaire the next day .
The Warren campaign ran a full-page ad in the Las Vegas Review-Journal Thursday that calculates how much money Sheldon Adelson – the billionaire owner of the newspaper who is a major Republican donor and supporter of President Trump – would owe the federal government if the wealth tax proposed by the Massachusetts senator were to take effect .
“ Here ’ s how much Sheldon Adelson pays under Elizabeth Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 2,300,000,000 , ” the ad says , before listing the ways the money could be used , including providing “ free , high-quality child care ” for 91,000 Nevada families and the elimination of “ tuition and fees at all of Nevada ’ s public universities , community colleges , and public trade schools.
” The Warren campaign valued Adelson ’ s personal wealth at $ 39.6 billion and said the tax would claim less than 6 % of his net worth .
Jon Ralston of the Nevada Independent , who served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate , highlighted Warren ’ s aggressive move on Twitter , saying , “ I think that ’ s called chutzpah.
” ( Click here for Ralston ’ s tweet , which includes a photo of the Warren ad . )

Sen. Elizabeth Warren came out swinging against Michael Bloomberg in the Democratic debate Wednesday night, and then took aim at a different billionaire the next day. The Warren campaign ran a full-page ad in the Las Vegas Review-Journal Thursday that calculates how much money Sheldon Adelson – the billionaire owner of the newspaper who is a major Republican donor and supporter of President Trump – would owe the federal government if the wealth tax proposed by the Massachusetts senator were to take effect.
“Here’s how much Sheldon Adelson pays under Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax in the first year: $2,300,000,000,” the ad says, before listing the ways the money could be used, including providing “free, high-quality child care” for 91,000 Nevada families and the elimination of “tuition and fees at all of Nevada’s public universities, community colleges, and public trade schools.”
The Warren campaign valued Adelson’s personal wealth at $39.6 billion and said the tax would claim less than 6% of his net worth.
Jon Ralston of the Nevada Independent, who served as a moderator in Wednesday’s debate, highlighted Warren’s aggressive move on Twitter, saying, “I think that’s called chutzpah.” (Click here for Ralston’s tweet, which includes a photo of the Warren ad.)


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-19--How Medicare for All Is Tearing Democrats Apart

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines last week by suggesting in an interview with HuffPost that , given how difficult it would almost certainly be to secure the congressional votes needed to enact Medicare for All , a public option health care plan might be an acceptable fallback .
“ A president can ’ t wave a magic wand and pass any legislation they want , ” Ocasio-Cortez told HuffPost .
“ The worst-case scenario ?
We compromise deeply and we end up getting a public option .
Is that a nightmare ?
I don ’ t think so.
” Ocasio-Cortez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of and surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders in his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination .
She favors Medicare for All and stressed in her interview with HuffPost that getting a public option wasn ’ t the left ’ s ultimate goal .
She later clarified that she believes the public option is worse than Medicare for All and that Democrats fight for Medicare for All first , but her comments roiled some on the left .
“ I love Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
She has done more in her first year in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young people involved , than any freshman member of Congress that I can remember , ” Sanders told CNN at a Las Vegas town hall event .
“ But my view is that Medicare-for-all , the bill that we wrote , is in a sense already a compromise .
It is a four-year transition period.
” Why it matters : Democrats are wrestling with questions about “ purity tests ” and just how ideologically flexible they can or should be as they both seek to defeat President Trump and stake out negotiating positions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ripples Ocasio-Cortez caused with her comments also highlight again just how divisive Medicare for All has been for Democrats , from party leaders to labor unions — and how risky the policy fight might be as an election issue .
A “ civil war ” among unions : The issue is likely to come up in Wednesday night ’ s Democratic presidential primary debate , after the Culinary Workers union last week criticized Medicare for All , which would eliminate the private insurance plans labor leaders have fought to secure for members over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All ’ is roiling labor unions across the country , threatening to divide a critical part of the Democratic base ahead of several major presidential primaries , ” Politico ’ s Ian Kullgren and Alice Miranda Ollstein report .
“ On one side of the divide are more liberal unions like the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union , which argue that leaving health benefits to the government could free unions to refocus collective bargaining on wages and working conditions .
On the other side are more conservative unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and New York ’ s Building & Construction Trades Council , which don ’ t trust the government to create a health plan as good as what their members enjoy now.
” The bottom line : The Washington Post ’ s Paul Waldman suggested last week that Sanders “ would privately agree with AOC — even if he can ’ t say it publicly ” for political and negotiating reasons .
Sanders , Waldman wrote , “ knows the unfortunate truth : There is precisely zero chance that a single-payer system of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon .
It wouldn ’ t even be close .
… But it ’ s important that single-payer remain on the table as an option , not only because talking about it helps highlight everything that ’ s wrong with the current system , but also because it serves as a kind of cognitive and rhetorical anchor for everyone involved.
” For that reason , the battle over Medicare for All — as unlikely as it is to get enacted and as dangerous as it might be for Democrats — will keep going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle plays out .

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines last week by suggesting in an interview with HuffPost that, given how difficult it would almost certainly be to secure the congressional votes needed to enact Medicare for All, a public option health care plan might be an acceptable fallback.
“A president can’t wave a magic wand and pass any legislation they want,” Ocasio-Cortez told HuffPost. “The worst-case scenario? We compromise deeply and we end up getting a public option. Is that a nightmare? I don’t think so.”
Ocasio-Cortez has been a key, high-profile supporter of and surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders in his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. She favors Medicare for All and stressed in her interview with HuffPost that getting a public option wasn’t the left’s ultimate goal. She later clarified that she believes the public option is worse than Medicare for All and that Democrats fight for Medicare for All first, but her comments roiled some on the left.
Sen. Bernie Sanders pushed back a bit Tuesday night.
“I love Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She has done more in her first year in Congress to transform politics, to get young people involved, than any freshman member of Congress that I can remember,” Sanders told CNN at a Las Vegas town hall event. “But my view is that Medicare-for-all, the bill that we wrote, is in a sense already a compromise. It is a four-year transition period.”
Why it matters: Democrats are wrestling with questions about “purity tests” and just how ideologically flexible they can or should be as they both seek to defeat President Trump and stake out negotiating positions for future policy debates. But the ripples Ocasio-Cortez caused with her comments also highlight again just how divisive Medicare for All has been for Democrats, from party leaders to labor unions — and how risky the policy fight might be as an election issue.
A “civil war” among unions: The issue is likely to come up in Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate, after the Culinary Workers union last week criticized Medicare for All, which would eliminate the private insurance plans labor leaders have fought to secure for members over the years.
“‘Medicare for All’ is roiling labor unions across the country, threatening to divide a critical part of the Democratic base ahead of several major presidential primaries,” Politico’s Ian Kullgren and Alice Miranda Ollstein report. “On one side of the divide are more liberal unions like the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union, which argue that leaving health benefits to the government could free unions to refocus collective bargaining on wages and working conditions. On the other side are more conservative unions like the International Association of Fire Fighters and New York’s Building & Construction Trades Council, which don’t trust the government to create a health plan as good as what their members enjoy now.”
The bottom line: The Washington Post’s Paul Waldman suggested last week that Sanders “would privately agree with AOC — even if he can’t say it publicly” for political and negotiating reasons. Sanders, Waldman wrote, “knows the unfortunate truth: There is precisely zero chance that a single-payer system of the kind Sanders proposes will pass Congress anytime soon. It wouldn’t even be close. … But it’s important that single-payer remain on the table as an option, not only because talking about it helps highlight everything that’s wrong with the current system, but also because it serves as a kind of cognitive and rhetorical anchor for everyone involved.”
For that reason, the battle over Medicare for All — as unlikely as it is to get enacted and as dangerous as it might be for Democrats — will keep going as the party’s protracted nomination battle plays out.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-18--What's Missing From Mike Bloomberg’s Social Security Plan

Democratic presidential contender Mike Bloomberg rolled out a vague plan Sunday that calls for shoring up Social Security ’ s finances , expanding benefits for the poorest and creating a government-backed “ public option ” retirement savings plans .
Bloomberg ’ s blueprint is his first campaign proposal addressing the future of Social Security — and while it echoes some other Democratic proposals in calling for expansion of the safety net program , it lacks the level of detail that many of his rivals have laid out in their plans .
It doesn ’ t specify , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s finances or pay for the expanded benefits he proposes .
What ’ s left is a broad statement of general principles with some vague policy proposals attached .
Here are the main points : “ Consider options ” for fixing the program : While Bloomberg has in the past called for Congress to adopt bipartisan changes to Social Security that would have , among other things , gradually raised the retirement age , his latest plan strikes a different note .
It pointedly starts out by saying that , while Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoring up for the long-term , ” the program “ faces no imminent crisis.
” It notes that Social Security is projected to be able to pay out full benefits until 2035 .
After that , payroll taxes will still cover 75 % of benefits .
Bloomberg promises to “ explore ways to put the system on sound financial footing for the long-term ” and to “ consider options ” for strengthening Social Security ’ s finances “ while maintaining and enhancing benefits for the neediest recipients.
” Critics on the left say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ promises to avoid benefit cuts .
“ It wouldn ’ t have been difficult for Bloomberg to release a plan that unequivocally rules out cuts , ” Nancy J. Altman and Linda Benesch of Social Security Works , an advocacy group , write at Common Dreams .
“ To get right on Social Security , Bloomberg must repudiate his past support for cuts .
He must pledge that he will never support cutting a single penny of current or future benefits.
” New benefits for low-income retirees : Bloomberg ’ s plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit to prevent low-income seniors from falling into poverty ” and notes that the new minimum would help about 10 % of current beneficiaries .
Unlike other candidates , Bloomberg does not specify what the minimum benefit would be .
Sanders has proposed increasing benefits by $ 1,300 a year for seniors with incomes of $ 16,000 or less , while Warren has called for raising benefits by $ 200 per month , or $ 2,400 a year , for all beneficiaries .
A new retirement savings plan : Bloomberg also proposes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to those floated by Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar .
Bloomberg ’ s plan would create “ automatic employer and employee contributions for all income earners who do not participate in a defined contribution or benefit plan at work.
” It would provide low-income workers with an unspecified government match on their savings , paid for by reducing the tax break for high-income retirement contributions .
The new retirement accounts would automatically invest in target-date investment funds , with other options available .
Once enrollees reach retirement age , their savings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annuity that provides steady income .
Change the way cost-of-living adjustments are calculated : Social Security ’ s annual cost-of-living adjustments are currently based on a measure of inflation called the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers , or CPI-W for short .
Bloomberg calls for using a different formula , one that reflects the inflation that affects seniors .
“ The elderly ’ s living costs – especially for health care – tend to rise faster than overall inflation , ” his plan says .
“ Mike will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this.
” Bloomberg ’ s plan doesn ’ t specifically call for using an alternative measure of inflation known as CPI-E , the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly , but other candidates and Social Security advocates have pushed for such a switch .
That alternative index is still considered experimental , and some experts say it is seriously flawed .
“ The trouble is this change tends to reward those seniors with the largest checks , most of whom aren ’ t at risk of poverty , ” writes Brenton Smith at @ @

Democratic presidential contender Mike Bloomberg rolled out a vague plan Sunday that calls for shoring up Social Security’s finances, expanding benefits for the poorest and creating a government-backed “public option” retirement savings plans.
Bloomberg’s blueprint is his first campaign proposal addressing the future of Social Security — and while it echoes some other Democratic proposals in calling for expansion of the safety net program, it lacks the level of detail that many of his rivals have laid out in their plans. It doesn’t specify, for example, how Bloomberg would shore up Social Security’s finances or pay for the expanded benefits he proposes. What’s left is a broad statement of general principles with some vague policy proposals attached.
Here are the main points:
“Consider options” for fixing the program: While Bloomberg has in the past called for Congress to adopt bipartisan changes to Social Security that would have, among other things, gradually raised the retirement age, his latest plan strikes a different note. It pointedly starts out by saying that, while Social Security faces demographic pressure and “needs shoring up for the long-term,” the program “faces no imminent crisis.” It notes that Social Security is projected to be able to pay out full benefits until 2035. After that, payroll taxes will still cover 75% of benefits. Bloomberg promises to “explore ways to put the system on sound financial footing for the long-term” and to “consider options” for strengthening Social Security’s finances “while maintaining and enhancing benefits for the neediest recipients.”
Critics on the left say that falls far short of other Democrats’ promises to avoid benefit cuts. “It wouldn’t have been difficult for Bloomberg to release a plan that unequivocally rules out cuts,” Nancy J. Altman and Linda Benesch of Social Security Works, an advocacy group, write at Common Dreams. “To get right on Social Security, Bloomberg must repudiate his past support for cuts. He must pledge that he will never support cutting a single penny of current or future benefits.”
New benefits for low-income retirees: Bloomberg’s plan calls for “a more effective minimum benefit to prevent low-income seniors from falling into poverty” and notes that the new minimum would help about 10% of current beneficiaries. Unlike other candidates, Bloomberg does not specify what the minimum benefit would be. Sanders has proposed increasing benefits by $1,300 a year for seniors with incomes of $16,000 or less, while Warren has called for raising benefits by $200 per month, or $2,400 a year, for all beneficiaries.
A new retirement savings plan: Bloomberg also proposes a “public option” retirement savings plan similar to those floated by Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Bloomberg’s plan would create “automatic employer and employee contributions for all income earners who do not participate in a defined contribution or benefit plan at work.” It would provide low-income workers with an unspecified government match on their savings, paid for by reducing the tax break for high-income retirement contributions. The new retirement accounts would automatically invest in target-date investment funds, with other options available. Once enrollees reach retirement age, their savings would automatically be switched over to an annuity that provides steady income.
Change the way cost-of-living adjustments are calculated: Social Security’s annual cost-of-living adjustments are currently based on a measure of inflation called the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W for short. Bloomberg calls for using a different formula, one that reflects the inflation that affects seniors. “The elderly’s living costs – especially for health care – tend to rise faster than overall inflation,” his plan says. “Mike will adjust the COLA to take account of this.” Bloomberg’s plan doesn’t specifically call for using an alternative measure of inflation known as CPI-E, the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, but other candidates and Social Security advocates have pushed for such a switch. That alternative index is still considered experimental, and some experts say it is seriously flawed. “The trouble is this change tends to reward those seniors with the largest checks, most of whom aren’t at risk of poverty,” writes Brenton Smith at FedSmith.
Read Bloomberg’s “Retirement Security” plan.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-21--Number of the Day: $7 Million

Number of the Day: $7 Million


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-21--Record Support for Obamacare

Record Support for Obamacare

The latest poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that the Affordable Care Act is viewed more favorably by Americans than ever before .
About 55 % of the public now say they have a favorable opinion of the health care law , the highest reading since Kaiser began tracking the issue in 2010 .
The ACA remains a partisan issue , however .
The most recent reading “ is largely driven by a continued support among Democrats with 85 % now expressing favorable views compared to 53 % of independents and 18 % of Republicans , ” Kaiser said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 77 % ) continue to hold unfavorable views towards the law.
” The Kaiser poll of 1,207 adults , which was conducted February 13 to 18 , 2020 , also found that a majority backs the idea of a national health care plan : “ About half ( 52 % ) of the public favor a Medicare-for-all plan in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan , while two-thirds favor a public option that would compete with private health plans and be available to all Americans .
”

The latest poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that the Affordable Care Act is viewed more favorably by Americans than ever before. About 55% of the public now say they have a favorable opinion of the health care law, the highest reading since Kaiser began tracking the issue in 2010.
The ACA remains a partisan issue, however. The most recent reading “is largely driven by a continued support among Democrats with 85% now expressing favorable views compared to 53% of independents and 18% of Republicans,” Kaiser said. “A majority of Republicans (77%) continue to hold unfavorable views towards the law.”
The Kaiser poll of 1,207 adults, which was conducted February 13 to 18, 2020, also found that a majority backs the idea of a national health care plan: “About half (52%) of the public favor a Medicare-for-all plan in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, while two-thirds favor a public option that would compete with private health plans and be available to all Americans.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-20--Elizabeth Warren Won the Debate. Will It Matter?

The fight was on .
The gloves were off .
The knives were out .
Whatever metaphor you prefer , Wednesday night ’ s vigorous Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas was worthy of the city known for hosting pugilistic prize fights .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivered a dominating and brutally effective performance that set the tone for the debate .
She landed shots against each of the other candidates , carving up the newcomer to the stage , Michael Bloomberg , over his record on civil rights , his failure to release his tax returns thus far and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Warren set the tone for the debate early on .
“ I ’ d like to talk about who we ’ re running against , '' she said .
`` A billionaire who calls women ‘ fat broads ’ and ‘ horse-faced lesbians.
’ And no , I ’ m not talking about Donald Trump .
I ’ m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
” Warren repeatedly used the billionaire former New York mayor as a proxy for the president , reinforcing the perception that she would be able to go toe to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It was the kind of aggressive performance that allies and even some of her campaign advisers had been hoping for , even if it marked a sharp shift from her recent strategy of appearing as an above-the-fray candidate who could unite Democrats , ” Shane Goldmacher and Reid J. Epstein write in The New York Times .
“ She had one-liners .
And twice she plowed through the weaknesses of so many of her opponents in a single answer that it left moderators struggling to even give everyone a chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strength : One of those instances was on health care , which Warren managed to turn from a liability to something resembling a strength .
She dismissed Pete Buttigieg ’ s “ Medicare for All Who Want It ” as little more than “ a slogan that was thought up by his consultants ” and said it would leave millions unable to afford their care .
“ It 's not a plan .
It 's a PowerPoint , ” she said .
Then she turned to Sen. Amy Klobuchar , with what Kaiser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Amy 's plan is even less , ” she claimed .
“ It 's like a Post-It note , ‘ Insert Plan Here.
’ ” Warren ended her barrage by hitting Sanders , saying he “ has a good start , but instead of expanding and bringing in more people to help , instead , his campaign relentlessly attacks everyone who asks a question or tries to fill in details about how to actually make this work .
And then his own advisors say , yeah , probably wo n't happen anyway.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lift Warren ’ s chances ?
Warren ’ s team touted the fundraising boost she got during the debate , and her performance could reinvigorate her campaign , which also boasts a strong organization in Nevada and beyond .
But more than 70,000 Nevadans took advantage of the state ’ s early voting , potentially undercutting any post-debate bounce .
“ Warren ’ s challenge will be how to carry forward her momentum and stay in the hunt until Super Tuesday , ” Politico ’ s Christopher Cadelago said .
Sanders may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Warren and other candidates over his Medicare-for-All plan , his identification as a Democratic socialist , the bullying behavior of some of his supporters and the fears that his candidacy will polarize the electorate .
But he deflected most of those attacks and emerged from the debate largely unscathed .
“ The story of this debate , ” Politico ’ s Tim Alberta tweeted , “ is Elizabeth Warren eviscerating all of her rivals except the one who happens to be the frontrunner and also happens to be directly obstructing her path @ @ @ @ @

The fight was on. The gloves were off. The knives were out. Whatever metaphor you prefer, Wednesday night’s vigorous Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas was worthy of the city known for hosting pugilistic prize fights.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivered a dominating and brutally effective performance that set the tone for the debate. She landed shots against each of the other candidates, carving up the newcomer to the stage, Michael Bloomberg, over his record on civil rights, his failure to release his tax returns thus far and his treatment of women.
Bashing on Bloomberg: Warren set the tone for the debate early on. “I’d like to talk about who we’re running against," she said. "A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.” Warren repeatedly used the billionaire former New York mayor as a proxy for the president, reinforcing the perception that she would be able to go toe to toe with Trump on a debate stage.
“It was the kind of aggressive performance that allies and even some of her campaign advisers had been hoping for, even if it marked a sharp shift from her recent strategy of appearing as an above-the-fray candidate who could unite Democrats,” Shane Goldmacher and Reid J. Epstein write in The New York Times. “She had one-liners. And twice she plowed through the weaknesses of so many of her opponents in a single answer that it left moderators struggling to even give everyone a chance to respond.”
Turning health care into a strength: One of those instances was on health care, which Warren managed to turn from a liability to something resembling a strength. She dismissed Pete Buttigieg’s “Medicare for All Who Want It” as little more than “a slogan that was thought up by his consultants” and said it would leave millions unable to afford their care.
“It's not a plan. It's a PowerPoint,” she said.
Then she turned to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, with what Kaiser Health News called a misleading attack. “Amy's plan is even less,” she claimed. “It's like a Post-It note, ‘Insert Plan Here.’”
Warren ended her barrage by hitting Sanders, saying he “has a good start, but instead of expanding and bringing in more people to help, instead, his campaign relentlessly attacks everyone who asks a question or tries to fill in details about how to actually make this work. And then his own advisors say, yeah, probably won't happen anyway.”
But will it be enough to lift Warren’s chances? Warren’s team touted the fundraising boost she got during the debate, and her performance could reinvigorate her campaign, which also boasts a strong organization in Nevada and beyond. But more than 70,000 Nevadans took advantage of the state’s early voting, potentially undercutting any post-debate bounce. “Warren’s challenge will be how to carry forward her momentum and stay in the hunt until Super Tuesday,” Politico’s Christopher Cadelago said.
Sanders may be the real winner: Sanders faced attacks from Warren and other candidates over his Medicare-for-All plan, his identification as a Democratic socialist, the bullying behavior of some of his supporters and the fears that his candidacy will polarize the electorate. But he deflected most of those attacks and emerged from the debate largely unscathed.
“The story of this debate,” Politico’s Tim Alberta tweeted, “is Elizabeth Warren eviscerating all of her rivals except the one who happens to be the frontrunner and also happens to be directly obstructing her path to the nomination.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-27--Big Hurdle for Sanders’ Plan to Cancel Student Debt

Bernie Sanders wants to eliminate $ 1.6 trillion in student debt , to be paid for by a tax on @ @ @ @ @ so won ’ t be easy , says Josh Mitchell of The Wall Street Journal @ @ @ @ @ Sanders is that most Americans don ’ t support the plan , with 57 % @ @ @ @ @ last fall saying they oppose the idea of canceling all student debt .
And the @ @ @ @ @ Sanders as he prepares for a likely general election run , Mitchell says : “ @ @ @ @ @ groups Democrats hope to peel away from President Trump : Rust Belt voters , independents @ @ @ @ @ voters in rural areas .
”

Bernie Sanders wants to eliminate $1.6 trillion in student debt, to be paid for by a tax on financial transactions, but doing so won’t be easy, says Josh Mitchell of The Wall Street Journal.
The main problem for Sanders is that most Americans don’t support the plan, with 57% of respondents in a poll last fall saying they oppose the idea of canceling all student debt. And the politics are particularly thorny for Sanders as he prepares for a likely general election run, Mitchell says: “Among the strongest opponents are groups Democrats hope to peel away from President Trump: Rust Belt voters, independents, whites, men and voters in rural areas.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-27--Trump: We’ll Spend ‘Whatever Is Appropriate’ to Fight Coronavirus

President Trump on Wednesday evening defended his administration ’ s preparedness for the new coronavirus , saying that the risk to the American public remains low and that Vice President Mike Pence will be his point person leading the federal response to the outbreak .
Trump also said that he is willing to spend more than the $ 2.5 billion in emergency funding the White House requested from Congress this week .
“ We were asking for $ 2.5 billion , and we think that ’ s a lot , ” Trump said at a news conference .
“ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants us to have much more than that .
Normally in life , I ’ d say , ‘ We ’ ll take it , we ’ ll take it.
’ If they want to give more , we ’ ll do more .
We ’ re going to spend whatever is appropriate .
Hopefully , we ’ re not going to have to spend so much because we really think we ’ ve done a great job in keeping it down to a minimum.
” The administration asked Congress for $ 1.25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus and proposed to redirect about the same amount from other programs , bringing total funding in its proposal to at least $ 2.5 billion .
Lawmakers in both parties quickly questioned whether that would be enough .
Here are other developments on the federal response to the virus : Azar says administration may seek more money : Facing a second day of tough questioning by lawmakers , Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told a House panel Wednesday that the administration is planning to spend “ at least ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its plan this week and would work with Congress to determine an appropriate figure .
Lawmakers look to boost emergency funding : Bipartisan congressional negotiations on funding for the coronavirus response began Wednesday , according to The Wall Street Journal , as lawmakers from both parties continued to criticize the White House request as inadequate .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the administration ’ s plan “ meager ” and “ anemic , ” while House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the White House ’ s request for $ 1.25 billion in new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he expected that about $ 4 billion would be necessary , according to Bloomberg .
Schumer proposes $ 8.5 billion in emergency funds : Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called for $ 8.5 billion in emergency funding to combat the virus .
Schumer ’ s proposal includes $ 3 billion for a public health emergency fund , $ 1.5 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , $ 2 billion to reimburse state and local governments for their efforts , $ 1 billion for rapid vaccine development and $ 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Development to deal with emerging health threats .
Schumer ’ s office reportedly noted that Congress appropriated more than $ 6 billion for a 2006 flu pandemic and more than $ 7 billion for the H1N1 swine flu outbreak in 2009 .
Democratic candidates slam Trump ’ s pandemic preparedness : At Tuesday night ’ s Democratic presidential primary debate , Joe Biden , Michael Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar all attacked the Trump administration , criticizing the president ’ s removal of global health experts from his national security team and his proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disease Control and Prevention ( for more on that , see below ) .
“ What 's really happening here is the president fired the pandemic specialists in this country two years ago .
So there 's nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing , ” Bloomberg said .
Last week , 27 senators sent a letter to national security adviser Robert O ’ Brien , asking him “ to appoint a qualified , dedicated , senior global health security expert ” to the National Security Council .

President Trump on Wednesday evening defended his administration’s preparedness for the new coronavirus, saying that the risk to the American public remains low and that Vice President Mike Pence will be his point person leading the federal response to the outbreak.
Trump also said that he is willing to spend more than the $2.5 billion in emergency funding the White House requested from Congress this week.
“We were asking for $2.5 billion, and we think that’s a lot,” Trump said at a news conference. “But the Democrats and I guess Senator Schumer wants us to have much more than that. Normally in life, I’d say, ‘We’ll take it, we’ll take it.’ If they want to give more, we’ll do more. We’re going to spend whatever is appropriate. Hopefully, we’re not going to have to spend so much because we really think we’ve done a great job in keeping it down to a minimum.”
The administration asked Congress for $1.25 billion in new funding to deal with the coronavirus and proposed to redirect about the same amount from other programs, bringing total funding in its proposal to at least $2.5 billion. Lawmakers in both parties quickly questioned whether that would be enough.
Here are other developments on the federal response to the virus:
Azar says administration may seek more money: Facing a second day of tough questioning by lawmakers, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told a House panel Wednesday that the administration is planning to spend “at least” the $2.5 billion it laid out in its plan this week and would work with Congress to determine an appropriate figure.
Lawmakers look to boost emergency funding: Bipartisan congressional negotiations on funding for the coronavirus response began Wednesday, according to The Wall Street Journal, as lawmakers from both parties continued to criticize the White House request as inadequate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the administration’s plan “meager” and “anemic,” while House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the White House’s request for $1.25 billion in new funding “a little low” and said he expected that about $4 billion would be necessary, according to Bloomberg.
Schumer proposes $8.5 billion in emergency funds: Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called for $8.5 billion in emergency funding to combat the virus. Schumer’s proposal includes $3 billion for a public health emergency fund, $1.5 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $2 billion to reimburse state and local governments for their efforts, $1 billion for rapid vaccine development and $1 billion for the U.S. Agency for International Development to deal with emerging health threats.
Schumer’s office reportedly noted that Congress appropriated more than $6 billion for a 2006 flu pandemic and more than $7 billion for the H1N1 swine flu outbreak in 2009.
Democratic candidates slam Trump’s pandemic preparedness: At Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar all attacked the Trump administration, criticizing the president’s removal of global health experts from his national security team and his proposed cuts in funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (for more on that, see below). “What's really happening here is the president fired the pandemic specialists in this country two years ago. So there's nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing,” Bloomberg said.
Last week, 27 senators sent a letter to national security adviser Robert O’Brien, asking him “to appoint a qualified, dedicated, senior global health security expert” to the National Security Council.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-25--Trump Wants $2.5 Billion to Fight the Coronavirus. Is It Enough?

With those words , public health officials on Tuesday urged Americans to prepare for the coronavirus to spread across U.S. communities and bring with it potentially significant disruptions to their lives .
“ It ’ s not so much a question of it this will happen anymore but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness , ” Dr. Nancy Messonnier , director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases , told reporters .
She later added : “ We are asking the American public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be bad.
” But as health officials were asking the public to get ready for a possible domestic outbreak , lawmakers in both parties were questioning whether the Trump administration is adequately preparing to deal with the threat from the virus that has infected nearly 80,000 people in 37 countries and caused more than 2,600 deaths .
There are 57 confirmed cases in the United States .
The Trump administration on Monday night sent Congress a request for $ 1.25 billion in emergency supplemental funding to combat the spread of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three-page letter , also calls for shifting $ 535 million in unused money that had been designated to fight Ebola toward the coronavirus efforts .
Hundreds of millions more would be redirected from other health programs and government agencies , bringing the total coronavirus response funding to at least $ 2.5 billion .
The money to be shifted under the administration plan reportedly includes $ 37 million from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program , which funds heating for poor families .
“ Democrats find this request particularly galling , because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to protect people ’ s well-being , under the duress of the coronavirus threat , ” The Washington Post ’ s Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman write .
Democrats have called for emergency funding for weeks , but the administration initially said that no additional money was necessary .
In Monday night ’ s letter , acting White House budget director Russell Vought says that , so far , no agency has been inhibited in its response effort due to lack of resources or authority .
And administration officials reportedly told senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional funding as part of fiscal 2021 spending packages .
Still , lawmakers in both parties expressed concern that the request for $ 1.25 billion in new funding falls well short of what ’ s needed right now : • Republican Sen. Richard Shelby , chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee , told Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar Tuesday that the amount could be dangerously insufficient .
`` It seems to me at the outset that this request for the money , the supplemental , is lowballing it , possibly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , '' Shelby said during a hearing on the HHS budget .
`` If you lowball something like this , you 'll pay for it later.
” • “ The President ’ s request for coronavirus response funding is long overdue and completely inadequate to the scale of this emergency , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said , adding that the Trump administration had “ left critical positions in charge of managing pandemics at the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security vacant ” for nearly two years .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slashing the CDC budget during this coronavirus epidemic , this undersized funding request shows an ongoing failure to understand urgent public health needs , ” Pelosi said .
• Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called for at least $ 3.1 billion in funding and for the administration to appoint a “ czar ” to oversee the response .
• House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey ( D-NY ) called the administration ’ s request “ woefully insufficient ” and joined Pelosi in criticizing the proposal to shift existing funds .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to raid money Congress has designated for other critical public health priorities , ” Lowey said .
“ House Democrats will move quickly to enact a robust package that fully addresses this global emergency without allowing this administration to steal from other necessary programs .
”

“This could be bad.”
With those words, public health officials on Tuesday urged Americans to prepare for the coronavirus to spread across U.S. communities and bring with it potentially significant disruptions to their lives.
“It’s not so much a question of it this will happen anymore but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters. She later added: “We are asking the American public to prepare in the expectation that this could be bad.”
But as health officials were asking the public to get ready for a possible domestic outbreak, lawmakers in both parties were questioning whether the Trump administration is adequately preparing to deal with the threat from the virus that has infected nearly 80,000 people in 37 countries and caused more than 2,600 deaths. There are 57 confirmed cases in the United States.
The Trump administration on Monday night sent Congress a request for $1.25 billion in emergency supplemental funding to combat the spread of the virus. The request, detailed in a three-page letter, also calls for shifting $535 million in unused money that had been designated to fight Ebola toward the coronavirus efforts. Hundreds of millions more would be redirected from other health programs and government agencies, bringing the total coronavirus response funding to at least $2.5 billion.
The money to be shifted under the administration plan reportedly includes $37 million from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which funds heating for poor families. “Democrats find this request particularly galling, because it would take money away from another program designed to protect people’s well-being, under the duress of the coronavirus threat,” The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman write.
Democrats have called for emergency funding for weeks, but the administration initially said that no additional money was necessary. In Monday night’s letter, acting White House budget director Russell Vought says that, so far, no agency has been inhibited in its response effort due to lack of resources or authority. And administration officials reportedly told senators Tuesday that the White House would seek additional funding as part of fiscal 2021 spending packages.
Still, lawmakers in both parties expressed concern that the request for $1.25 billion in new funding falls well short of what’s needed right now:
• Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar Tuesday that the amount could be dangerously insufficient. "It seems to me at the outset that this request for the money, the supplemental, is lowballing it, possibly, and you can't afford to do that," Shelby said during a hearing on the HHS budget. "If you lowball something like this, you'll pay for it later.”
• “The President’s request for coronavirus response funding is long overdue and completely inadequate to the scale of this emergency,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, adding that the Trump administration had “left critical positions in charge of managing pandemics at the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security vacant” for nearly two years. “Weeks after the Trump Budget called for slashing the CDC budget during this coronavirus epidemic, this undersized funding request shows an ongoing failure to understand urgent public health needs,” Pelosi said.
• Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called for at least $3.1 billion in funding and for the administration to appoint a “czar” to oversee the response.
• House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) called the administration’s request “woefully insufficient” and joined Pelosi in criticizing the proposal to shift existing funds. “It is profoundly disturbing that their answer now is to raid money Congress has designated for other critical public health priorities,” Lowey said. “House Democrats will move quickly to enact a robust package that fully addresses this global emergency without allowing this administration to steal from other necessary programs.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-25--Will Bernie Sanders Bend on Medicare for All?

Would Sen. Bernie Sanders moderate his message on Medicare for All if he secures the Democratic nomination for president ?
At The Atlantic , Elaine Godfrey reports that some of Sanders ’ supporters and organizers are willing to accept the idea of a public option plan as a compromise on Medicare for All , as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested recently , acknowledging that “ a president can ’ t wave a magic wand and pass any legislation they want ” : “ While they really do want the [ Medicare-for-All ] plan to pass , these supporters—grassroots leaders across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week—speak with more skepticism about its chances , often more so than the candidate himself .
They said they are clear-eyed about how difficult it will be to achieve such gargantuan reform .
And they would be pleased , if not completely satisfied , with passing a public option as a compromise.
” That compromise could wind up resembling current proposals from other Democratic presidential candidates , some of whom have criticized the Sanders plan as unrealistic .
Sanders publicly disagreed with Ocasio-Cortez , saying that his plan was “ already a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition period .
Sanders ’ backers also emphasize that his plan represents the strongest starting point for negotiations on health care reform and criticize rivals who they say hamstring themselves by adopting a compromise position right from the outset .
Still , Godfrey ’ s reporting suggests that many Sanders supporters realize that Medicare for All faces legislative and political hurdles that might be insurmountable , at least in the immediate future .
But , Godfrey notes , those challenges might also turn into a selling point for Sanders — that we might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the argument he will make to reel in hesitant Democrats in a general election : that a Sanders presidency won ’ t necessarily mean immediate , revolutionary change.
” The bottom line : That kind of general election messaging would represent a hard pivot from the maximalist position Sanders and many of his supporters have staked out in the primary campaign , and the candidate has shown little inclination to make such pragmatic concessions so far .
But Godfrey ’ s piece suggests that a healthy portion of Sanders ’ supporters are taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not literally .

Would Sen. Bernie Sanders moderate his message on Medicare for All if he secures the Democratic nomination for president?
At The Atlantic, Elaine Godfrey reports that some of Sanders’ supporters and organizers are willing to accept the idea of a public option plan as a compromise on Medicare for All, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested recently, acknowledging that “a president can’t wave a magic wand and pass any legislation they want”:
“While they really do want the [Medicare-for-All] plan to pass, these supporters—grassroots leaders across the country who I talked to over the last week—speak with more skepticism about its chances, often more so than the candidate himself. They said they are clear-eyed about how difficult it will be to achieve such gargantuan reform. And they would be pleased, if not completely satisfied, with passing a public option as a compromise.”
That compromise could wind up resembling current proposals from other Democratic presidential candidates, some of whom have criticized the Sanders plan as unrealistic.
Sanders publicly disagreed with Ocasio-Cortez, saying that his plan was “already a compromise” because it involves a four-year transition period. Sanders’ backers also emphasize that his plan represents the strongest starting point for negotiations on health care reform and criticize rivals who they say hamstring themselves by adopting a compromise position right from the outset.
Still, Godfrey’s reporting suggests that many Sanders supporters realize that Medicare for All faces legislative and political hurdles that might be insurmountable, at least in the immediate future. But, Godfrey notes, those challenges might also turn into a selling point for Sanders — that we might be “getting an early glimpse of the argument he will make to reel in hesitant Democrats in a general election: that a Sanders presidency won’t necessarily mean immediate, revolutionary change.”
The bottom line: That kind of general election messaging would represent a hard pivot from the maximalist position Sanders and many of his supporters have staked out in the primary campaign, and the candidate has shown little inclination to make such pragmatic concessions so far. But Godfrey’s piece suggests that a healthy portion of Sanders’ supporters are taking his vehemence about Medicare for All seriously but not literally.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-25--Sanders Releases Funding Options for His Big Plans

Facing questions about how he intends to pay for an ambitious policy agenda that includes single-payer health care , student debt cancellation and an expansion of Social Security , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday night released a list of financing proposals .
The list – titled “ How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans ?
” – provides some cost estimates for Sanders ’ major plans and funding options to pay for them .
Details are limited , though , and critics have raised questions about whether the numbers add up and square with mainstream cost and revenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers Sanders provided for key programs : Tuition-free college and student debt cancellation : The Sanders campaign says it will cost $ 2.2 trillion over the next decade to eliminate tuition at public colleges and trade school , and to cancel all student debt .
A “ modest tax on Wall Street speculation ” – separately defined as an 0.5 % tax on stock trades , an 0.1 % tax on bond trades , and an 0.005 % tax on derivatives trades – is projected to raise $ 2.4 trillion over that time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The $ 1.5 trillion cost is to be covered by a graduated wealth tax on net worth exceeding $ 32 million , projected to raise $ 4.35 trillion .
Green New Deal : His extensive proposal to address climate change would cost an estimated $ 16.3 trillion , to be paid for by new taxes on the fossil fuel industry , selling green energy , cutting defense spending , raising corporate tax rates and collecting income taxes on millions of new green energy-related jobs .
Expand Social Security : Sanders wants to increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,300 a year .
Although he doesn ’ t provide a cost estimate for doing so , Sanders says he can pay for the plan by raising Social Security taxes on “ the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans , ” with the revenues extending the solvency of the program until 2070 .
Medicare for All : Multiple analyses have estimated the additional federal cost of Sanders ’ single-payer health plan at roughly $ 30 trillion over 10 years , a number the senator cited in his interview with “ 60 Minutes ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cites a lower figure of $ 17.5 trillion in new costs over a decade , which he pays for with a variety of new taxes , including ones on employees ( raising $ 4 trillion ) , employers ( $ 5.2 trillion ) , capital gains ( $ 2.5 trillion ) and corporations ( $ 1 trillion ) .
Emma Kinery of Bloomberg News said the revenue options fail to cover the previously cited total cost of Medicare for All .
“ Sanders has not disputed estimates that his Medicare for All will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade , but his document only accounts for about $ 17.5 trillion , ” Kinery wrote Tuesday .
More broadly , Ben Ritz of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute said that if all of Sanders ’ agenda were to pass , the funding shortfall would come to about $ 10 trillion under the senator ’ s own accouting , and even more if more realistic estimates were used .
“ After reconciling Sanders ’ latest list of pay-fors with these independent estimates , PPI concludes that even if Congress were to adopt every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consideration , it would fall almost $ 25 trillion short of his proposed spending increases over the next decade – leaving a gap nearly equal to the total value of all goods and services produced by the U.S. economy in one year , ” Ritz said .

Facing questions about how he intends to pay for an ambitious policy agenda that includes single-payer health care, student debt cancellation and an expansion of Social Security, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday night released a list of financing proposals.
The list – titled “How Does Bernie Pay for His Major Plans?” – provides some cost estimates for Sanders’ major plans and funding options to pay for them. Details are limited, though, and critics have raised questions about whether the numbers add up and square with mainstream cost and revenue projections.
Here are some of the numbers Sanders provided for key programs:
Tuition-free college and student debt cancellation: The Sanders campaign says it will cost $2.2 trillion over the next decade to eliminate tuition at public colleges and trade school, and to cancel all student debt. A “modest tax on Wall Street speculation” – separately defined as an 0.5% tax on stock trades, an 0.1% tax on bond trades, and an 0.005% tax on derivatives trades – is projected to raise $2.4 trillion over that time period.
Universal childcare and pre-K: The $1.5 trillion cost is to be covered by a graduated wealth tax on net worth exceeding $32 million, projected to raise $4.35 trillion.
Green New Deal: His extensive proposal to address climate change would cost an estimated $16.3 trillion, to be paid for by new taxes on the fossil fuel industry, selling green energy, cutting defense spending, raising corporate tax rates and collecting income taxes on millions of new green energy-related jobs.
Expand Social Security: Sanders wants to increase benefits for low-income seniors by about $1,300 a year. Although he doesn’t provide a cost estimate for doing so, Sanders says he can pay for the plan by raising Social Security taxes on “the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans,” with the revenues extending the solvency of the program until 2070.
Medicare for All: Multiple analyses have estimated the additional federal cost of Sanders’ single-payer health plan at roughly $30 trillion over 10 years, a number the senator cited in his interview with “60 Minutes” on Sunday. But his new funding list cites a lower figure of $17.5 trillion in new costs over a decade, which he pays for with a variety of new taxes, including ones on employees (raising $4 trillion), employers ($5.2 trillion), capital gains ($2.5 trillion) and corporations ($1 trillion).
Emma Kinery of Bloomberg News said the revenue options fail to cover the previously cited total cost of Medicare for All. “Sanders has not disputed estimates that his Medicare for All will cost $30 trillion over the next decade, but his document only accounts for about $17.5 trillion,” Kinery wrote Tuesday.
More broadly, Ben Ritz of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute said that if all of Sanders’ agenda were to pass, the funding shortfall would come to about $10 trillion under the senator’s own accouting, and even more if more realistic estimates were used. “After reconciling Sanders’ latest list of pay-fors with these independent estimates, PPI concludes that even if Congress were to adopt every single revenue option Sanders has offered for consideration, it would fall almost $25 trillion short of his proposed spending increases over the next decade – leaving a gap nearly equal to the total value of all goods and services produced by the U.S. economy in one year,” Ritz said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-24--Sanders Bristles When Asked on ’60 Minutes’ About the Cost of His Proposals

In an interview with “ 60 Minutes , ” Sen. Bernie Sanders didn ’ t want to get into any details when pressed about the price tag for his ambitious agenda .
He said his Medicare-for-All plan would cost about $ 30 trillion over 10 years , which would , he argues , cost “ substantially less than letting the current system go.
” Asked about a total price tag for his entire agenda — which includes free public college , cancellation of all student debt and a Green New Deal to tackle climate change — Sanders said he doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Anderson Cooper : But you say you do n't know what the total price is , but you know how it 's gon na be paid for .
How do you know it 's gon na be paid for if you do n't know how much the price is ?
Bernie Sanders : Well , I ca n't -- you know , I ca n't rattle off to you ever nickel and every dime .
But we have accounted for -- you -- you talked about Medicare for All .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Later , after Cooper asked Sanders about how he ’ ll pay for a new universal childcare and pre-K proposal , the Democratic frontrunner pushed back on the premise of the question : “ It 's taxes on billionaires .
You know ?
You know , I get a little bit tired of hearing my opponents saying— ‘ Gee , how you going to pay for a program that impacts and helps children or working-class families or middle-class families ?
How you going to pay for that ?
’ And yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How are you going to pay for over $ 750 billion on military spending ?
’ How you going to pay for a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the 1 % in large corporations , which was what Trump did ?
When you help the billionaires and you help Wall Street , ‘ Hey !
Of course we can pay for it .
That 's what America 's supposed to be about.
’ Well , I disagree .
”

In an interview with “60 Minutes,” Sen. Bernie Sanders didn’t want to get into any details when pressed about the price tag for his ambitious agenda. He said his Medicare-for-All plan would cost about $30 trillion over 10 years, which would, he argues, cost “substantially less than letting the current system go.” Asked about a total price tag for his entire agenda — which includes free public college, cancellation of all student debt and a Green New Deal to tackle climate change — Sanders said he doesn’t have a total cost figure:
Anderson Cooper: But you say you don't know what the total price is, but you know how it's gonna be paid for. How do you know it's gonna be paid for if you don't know how much the price is?
Bernie Sanders: Well, I can't-- you know, I can't rattle off to you ever nickel and every dime. But we have accounted for-- you-- you talked about Medicare for All. We have options out there that will pay for it.
Later, after Cooper asked Sanders about how he’ll pay for a new universal childcare and pre-K proposal, the Democratic frontrunner pushed back on the premise of the question:
“It's taxes on billionaires. You know? You know, I get a little bit tired of hearing my opponents saying—‘Gee, how you going to pay for a program that impacts and helps children or working-class families or middle-class families? How you going to pay for that?’ And yet, where are people saying, ‘How are you going to pay for over $750 billion on military spending?’ How you going to pay for a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the 1% in large corporations, which was what Trump did? When you help the billionaires and you help Wall Street, ‘Hey! Of course we can pay for it. That's what America's supposed to be about.’ Well, I disagree.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-25--Trump White House Will Ask Congress for Emergency Coronavirus Funding

Update , February 25 : The Trump administration on Monday night sent Congress a request for $ 1.25 billion in emergency funding to combat the spread of the coronavirus .
The request , detailed in a three-page letter , also calls for shifting $ 535 million in unused money that had been designated to fight Ebola toward the coronavirus efforts .
Hundreds of millions more would be redirected from other health programs and government agencies , bringing the total coronavirus response funding to at least $ 2.5 billion .
In the letter , acting White House budget director says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been inhibited in its response effort due to lack of resources or authority .
But with public health officials warning that the spread of the virus in the U.S. is “ inevitable , ” lawmakers in both parties expressed concern that the request for $ 1.25 billion in new funding falls well short of what ’ s needed .
The Trump White House is preparing to ask Congress for emergency funding to combat the coronavirus outbreak , which spooked financial markets on Monday , fueling the biggest stock market selloff in two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and worries mount about the global economic repercussions .
`` We need some funding here to make sure that we protect all Americans , ” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said on Fox News .
Gidley declined to specify how much the White House would be requesting after Fox ’ s Ed Henry said he ’ d been hearing $ 3 billion to $ 5 billion .
Other news reports suggested the White House could seek about $ 1 billion .
Experts have reportedly questioned whether that would be sufficient .
“ By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough for a government-wide supplemental to make a meaningful impact , ” Adriane Casalotti , an official at the National Association of County and City Health Officials , told The Hill .
“ Vaccine development alone needs way more than that.
” Inside the administration ’ s decision-making : The administration has reportedly pushed back on that $ 1 billion figure , with officials saying that the final number was still being determined .
“ The White House budget office , led by Russell Vought , a stout conservative , is working with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agency seeking more than the White House is likely to approve , ” The Associated Press reported .
“ There is a receptive audience for the request on Capitol Hill , though stand-alone emergency spending bills can be tricky to pass since they are invariably a target for lawmakers seeking add-ons.
” Congress likely to provide more : Democratic lawmakers have been pushing the administration to request emergency funding , and Congress is likely to add to whatever amount the White House asks for , The New York Times reported , citing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning .
“ While I welcome action from the administration and look forward to working with them , it is worth noting that Appropriations Chairwoman [ Nita ] Lowey and I urged the administration three weeks ago to submit an emergency supplemental funding request to address the novel coronavirus public health emergency , ” Rep. Rosa DeLauro ( D-CT ) , who heads the appropriations subcommittee on health , said in a statement , according to the Times .
“ Since then , new cases and deaths around the world have significantly worsened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial information as to what funding H.H.S .
has allocated to emergency response activities or how quickly they expect to expend funding.
” The Trump administration initially said it could fund its coronavirus response by tapping into a $ 105 million rapid response fund at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and transferring up to $ 136 million from other federal programs .
What ’ s next : Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar is scheduled to testify before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday and will likely be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response and funding request .

Update, February 25: The Trump administration on Monday night sent Congress a request for $1.25 billion in emergency funding to combat the spread of the coronavirus. The request, detailed in a three-page letter, also calls for shifting $535 million in unused money that had been designated to fight Ebola toward the coronavirus efforts. Hundreds of millions more would be redirected from other health programs and government agencies, bringing the total coronavirus response funding to at least $2.5 billion.
In the letter, acting White House budget director says that, so far, no agency has been inhibited in its response effort due to lack of resources or authority. But with public health officials warning that the spread of the virus in the U.S. is “inevitable,” lawmakers in both parties expressed concern that the request for $1.25 billion in new funding falls well short of what’s needed.
The Trump White House is preparing to ask Congress for emergency funding to combat the coronavirus outbreak, which spooked financial markets on Monday, fueling the biggest stock market selloff in two years as the number of cases worldwide rises and worries mount about the global economic repercussions.
"We need some funding here to make sure that we protect all Americans,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said on Fox News. Gidley declined to specify how much the White House would be requesting after Fox’s Ed Henry said he’d been hearing $3 billion to $5 billion. Other news reports suggested the White House could seek about $1 billion.
Experts have reportedly questioned whether that would be sufficient. “By any measure, that would not be enough for a government-wide supplemental to make a meaningful impact,” Adriane Casalotti, an official at the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told The Hill. “Vaccine development alone needs way more than that.”
Inside the administration’s decision-making: The administration has reportedly pushed back on that $1 billion figure, with officials saying that the final number was still being determined.
“The White House budget office, led by Russell Vought, a stout conservative, is working with HHS to shape the request, with the agency seeking more than the White House is likely to approve,” The Associated Press reported. “There is a receptive audience for the request on Capitol Hill, though stand-alone emergency spending bills can be tricky to pass since they are invariably a target for lawmakers seeking add-ons.”
Congress likely to provide more: Democratic lawmakers have been pushing the administration to request emergency funding, and Congress is likely to add to whatever amount the White House asks for, The New York Times reported, citing a congressional aide with knowledge of the planning.
“While I welcome action from the administration and look forward to working with them, it is worth noting that Appropriations Chairwoman [Nita] Lowey and I urged the administration three weeks ago to submit an emergency supplemental funding request to address the novel coronavirus public health emergency,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who heads the appropriations subcommittee on health, said in a statement, according to the Times. “Since then, new cases and deaths around the world have significantly worsened, and we have still not received crucial information as to what funding H.H.S. has allocated to emergency response activities or how quickly they expect to expend funding.”
The Trump administration initially said it could fund its coronavirus response by tapping into a $105 million rapid response fund at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and transferring up to $136 million from other federal programs.
What’s next: Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar is scheduled to testify before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday and will likely be questioned about the administration’s coronavirus response and funding request.