thefiscaltimes--2020-06-24--Trump Admin Cutting Funding for 13 Coronavirus Test Sites

The Trump administration plans to cut funding for 13 Covid-19 testing sites in five states , including seven sites in hard-hit Texas , according to multiple reports this week .
The other sites facing a loss of federal funding are in Illinois , New Jersey , Colorado and Pennsylvania .
The testing sites were set up during the initial response to the coronavirus pandemic , but federal officials have decided not to extend funding for them beyond June 30 .
Responsibility for operating the sites will be transferred to the states .
The Trump administration has downplayed the withdrawal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giroir telling reporters that it is “ providing federal support in a different way , ” including hundreds of other federally funded testing sites .
Even so , Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) , whose home state is experiencing what Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott called a “ massive outbreak ” of the disease , is pushing back on the decision .
A Cruz spokesperson told NBC News that the senator “ has urged and will continue to urge [ health officials ] to extend the community testing sites in Texas.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump has claimed that he told officials to slow down testing in order to reduce the number of detected cases .
Lawmakers have criticized the president ’ s comments , including some Republican senators .
“ No , no , no .
We need tests and we need … millions of them , tens of millions of them , especially when we start opening up this fall , ” Sen. John Thune ( R-SD ) said when asked about slowing down testing .
Sen. Patty Murray ( D-WA ) on Wednesday charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s desire to reduce the case count .
“ The pandemic is clearly getting worse in states nationwide—and instead of trying harder to stop it , President Trump is apparently trying harder to hide it , ” Murray said in a statement .
“ It ’ s completely unacceptable that while billions in federal dollars Congress passed to support testing sit unspent , this Administration is closing testing sites in states where new COVID-19 cases are rapidly on the rise .
The President should reverse this clearly counterproductive step immediately .
@

The Trump administration plans to cut funding for 13 Covid-19 testing sites in five states, including seven sites in hard-hit Texas, according to multiple reports this week. The other sites facing a loss of federal funding are in Illinois, New Jersey, Colorado and Pennsylvania.
The testing sites were set up during the initial response to the coronavirus pandemic, but federal officials have decided not to extend funding for them beyond June 30. Responsibility for operating the sites will be transferred to the states.
The Trump administration has downplayed the withdrawal of funding, with testing czar Adm. Brett Giroir telling reporters that it is “providing federal support in a different way,” including hundreds of other federally funded testing sites.
Even so, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whose home state is experiencing what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a “massive outbreak” of the disease, is pushing back on the decision. A Cruz spokesperson told NBC News that the senator “has urged and will continue to urge [health officials] to extend the community testing sites in Texas.”
The decision to withdraw funding comes as President Trump has claimed that he told officials to slow down testing in order to reduce the number of detected cases. Lawmakers have criticized the president’s comments, including some Republican senators. “No, no, no. We need tests and we need … millions of them, tens of millions of them, especially when we start opening up this fall,” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said when asked about slowing down testing.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) on Wednesday charged that the funding withdrawal is driven by Trump’s desire to reduce the case count.
“The pandemic is clearly getting worse in states nationwide—and instead of trying harder to stop it, President Trump is apparently trying harder to hide it,” Murray said in a statement. “It’s completely unacceptable that while billions in federal dollars Congress passed to support testing sit unspent, this Administration is closing testing sites in states where new COVID-19 cases are rapidly on the rise. The President should reverse this clearly counterproductive step immediately.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-24--Poll of the Day: Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate

About two-thirds ( 65 % ) of Americans say the federal government isn ’ t doing enough to reduce the @ @ @ @ @ according to a survey by the Pew Research Center .
Among the policies with broad @ @ @ @ @ trillion trees around the world to absorb carbon dioxide emissions , tax credits for businesses @ @ @ @ @ stricter fuel efficiency standards for vehicles .

About two-thirds (65%) of Americans say the federal government isn’t doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. Among the policies with broad bipartisan support: planting a trillion trees around the world to absorb carbon dioxide emissions, tax credits for businesses that capture carbon emissions and stricter fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-24--Trump Scores a Court Win on Hospital, Insurer Price Disclosures

The Trump administration won a federal court ruling Tuesday upholding its plan to require hospitals to disclose the secret rates they negotiate with health insurers .
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar called the decision “ a resounding victory for President Trump and HHS ’ s agenda to lower Americans ’ healthcare costs.
” The president celebrated the decision in a Tuesday night tweet : “ BIG VICTORY for patients – Federal court UPHOLDS hospital price transparency .
Patients deserve to know the price of care BEFORE they enter the hospital .
Because of my action , they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than healthcare itself .
Congratulations America !
‘ ’ The American Hospital Association , a hospital trade group , had sought to block implementation of the Trump administration ’ s rule , arguing that it violated the First Amendment and goes beyond the intent of the Affordable Care Act .
Insurers also oppose the plan .
“ The proposal does nothing to help patients understand their out-of-pocket costs .
It also imposes significant burdens on hospitals at a time when resources are stretched thin and need to be devoted to patient care , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s general counsel , said in a statement after the ruling .
“ Hospitals and health systems have consistently supported efforts to provide patients with information about the costs of their medical care .
This is not the right way to achieve this important goal.
” Hatton said the AHA plans to appeal the court ’ s decision and seek an expedited review .
The administration ’ s rule is scheduled to take effect in January .

The Trump administration won a federal court ruling Tuesday upholding its plan to require hospitals to disclose the secret rates they negotiate with health insurers.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar called the decision “a resounding victory for President Trump and HHS’s agenda to lower Americans’ healthcare costs.” The president celebrated the decision in a Tuesday night tweet: “BIG VICTORY for patients – Federal court UPHOLDS hospital price transparency. Patients deserve to know the price of care BEFORE they enter the hospital. Because of my action, they will. This may very well be bigger than healthcare itself. Congratulations America! ‘’
The American Hospital Association, a hospital trade group, had sought to block implementation of the Trump administration’s rule, arguing that it violated the First Amendment and goes beyond the intent of the Affordable Care Act. Insurers also oppose the plan.
“The proposal does nothing to help patients understand their out-of-pocket costs. It also imposes significant burdens on hospitals at a time when resources are stretched thin and need to be devoted to patient care,” Melinda Hatton, the AHA’s general counsel, said in a statement after the ruling. “Hospitals and health systems have consistently supported efforts to provide patients with information about the costs of their medical care. This is not the right way to achieve this important goal.”
Hatton said the AHA plans to appeal the court’s decision and seek an expedited review. The administration’s rule is scheduled to take effect in January.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-24--Pelosi Unveils Bill to Bolster Obamacare — and Dems’ Election Chances

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders unveiled legislation Wednesday aimed at making Affordable Care Act insurance plans cheaper to buy and encouraging states to expand their Medicaid programs .
“ The legislation ( H.R .
1425 ) is largely a repeat of bills the Democratic-controlled House already passed , mostly largely along party lines , ” Bloomberg Law ’ s Alex Ruoff writes .
The package , called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act , would expand tax credits for plans sold through the Obamacare exchanges and allow more middle-income families to qualify for subsidies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ silver ” plans at 8.5 % of income , instead of nearly 10 % under the current law .
It also seeks to entice the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid to reconsider by having the federal government cover 100 % of the costs for the first three years , mirroring the original expansion plan .
The bill would also allow the government to negotiate the price of some prescription drugs , a measure that would offset costs of expanding coverage .
The legislation would reduce the number of uninsured extend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone ( D-NJ ) told reporters , citing Congressional Budget Office estimates .
CBO also found that the package would reduce deficits over 10 years by $ 15 billion .
The House will vote on the bill on Monday , Pelosi said .
Election-year messaging : The bill stands no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate , but gives Democrats another way to signal to election-year voters that they are prioritizing health care — and to draw a contrast with the Trump administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to undermine Obamacare .
“ We have become the party of health care — this is increasingly our brand , this is what we have fought for , ” Rep. Cheri Bustos ( D-IL ) , chairwoman of the House Democrats ’ campaign arm , told The New York Times earlier this week .
“ They are becoming the party of drinking bleach.
” At the same time , as Politico ’ s Susannah Luthi and Alica Miranda Ollstein note , the latest plan “ is less ambitious than the platform put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include a public insurance option that could compete with private plans .
It also would not expand eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid.
” House Democrats , they report , privately acknowledge that the bill was largely crafted with campaign messaging in mind .
Trump has sought to lower health care and prescription drug costs through a series of executive actions , many focused on encouraging competition by increasing price transparency .
But many of Trump ’ s efforts to lower costs have met with legal or other setbacks , and the administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace Obamacare .
The White House is expected to present legal briefs on Thursday asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the 2010 health care law .
“ Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear the brief from the Trump administration as to taking down the Affordable Care Act , right in the heart of the time of the pandemic , ” Pelosi said .
“ It was wrong any time .
Now it ’ s beyond stupid , beyond stupid .
”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders unveiled legislation Wednesday aimed at making Affordable Care Act insurance plans cheaper to buy and encouraging states to expand their Medicaid programs.
“The legislation (H.R. 1425) is largely a repeat of bills the Democratic-controlled House already passed, mostly largely along party lines,” Bloomberg Law’s Alex Ruoff writes.
The package, called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act, would expand tax credits for plans sold through the Obamacare exchanges and allow more middle-income families to qualify for subsidies. It would cap enrollee premium costs for “silver” plans at 8.5% of income, instead of nearly 10% under the current law. It also seeks to entice the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid to reconsider by having the federal government cover 100% of the costs for the first three years, mirroring the original expansion plan.
The bill would also allow the government to negotiate the price of some prescription drugs, a measure that would offset costs of expanding coverage.
The legislation would reduce the number of uninsured extend health coverage to 4 million more Americans, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) told reporters, citing Congressional Budget Office estimates. CBO also found that the package would reduce deficits over 10 years by $15 billion.
The House will vote on the bill on Monday, Pelosi said.
Election-year messaging: The bill stands no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate, but gives Democrats another way to signal to election-year voters that they are prioritizing health care — and to draw a contrast with the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and GOP efforts to undermine Obamacare.
“We have become the party of health care — this is increasingly our brand, this is what we have fought for,” Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), chairwoman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, told The New York Times earlier this week. “They are becoming the party of drinking bleach.”
At the same time, as Politico’s Susannah Luthi and Alica Miranda Ollstein note, the latest plan “is less ambitious than the platform put forward by Joe Biden and doesn't include a public insurance option that could compete with private plans. It also would not expand eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid.” House Democrats, they report, privately acknowledge that the bill was largely crafted with campaign messaging in mind.
Trump has sought to lower health care and prescription drug costs through a series of executive actions, many focused on encouraging competition by increasing price transparency. But many of Trump’s efforts to lower costs have met with legal or other setbacks, and the administration has yet to release a comprehensive plan to replace Obamacare.
The White House is expected to present legal briefs on Thursday asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the 2010 health care law.
“Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear the brief from the Trump administration as to taking down the Affordable Care Act, right in the heart of the time of the pandemic,” Pelosi said. “It was wrong any time. Now it’s beyond stupid, beyond stupid.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-25--Senior Economic Adviser Leaving the White House

The acting chairman of President Trump ’ s Council of Economic Advisers , Tomas J. Philipson , will leave his post and return to the University of Chicago at the end of June , an administration official said Wednesday .
Following the departure of deputy director Andrew Olmem last week , the three-member panel will be down to one member , Tyler Goodspeed , who is trained as an historian .
Another top adviser , Kevin Hassett , who preceded Philipson as CEA chair before stepping down a year ago , said he was ending a three-month stint advising the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The departures come at a critical time for the White House and the country , ” The Washington Post said , citing the severe recession , massive job losses , the resurgence of coronavirus in much of the country , and the trillions of dollars the government has spent and may spend again to aid the economy .
“ Losing two top economists in the midst of the crisis could push more of the analysis of future steps onto other advisers who don ’ t have the same background or expertise , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump isn ’ t known for relying on the guidance of economists as much as his own instincts .
”

The acting chairman of President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, Tomas J. Philipson, will leave his post and return to the University of Chicago at the end of June, an administration official said Wednesday.
Following the departure of deputy director Andrew Olmem last week, the three-member panel will be down to one member, Tyler Goodspeed, who is trained as an historian.
Another top adviser, Kevin Hassett, who preceded Philipson as CEA chair before stepping down a year ago, said he was ending a three-month stint advising the president.
Why it matters: “The departures come at a critical time for the White House and the country,” The Washington Post said, citing the severe recession, massive job losses, the resurgence of coronavirus in much of the country, and the trillions of dollars the government has spent and may spend again to aid the economy. “Losing two top economists in the midst of the crisis could push more of the analysis of future steps onto other advisers who don’t have the same background or expertise,” the Post added. “Still, Trump isn’t known for relying on the guidance of economists as much as his own instincts.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-25--‘Lobster King’ Trump Extends Farmer Bailout to Maine

The White House ordered the Department of Agriculture Wednesday to provide financial assistance to lobstermen in Maine , who have been hurt by President Trump ’ s trade war with China and the European Union .
The funds will come from the $ 30 billion bailout program the Trump administration has created to aid farmers caught up in the conflict .
In a tweet Wednesday evening , the president falsely claimed that President Barack Obama had “ destroyed the lobster and fishing industry in Maine.
” The White House memorandum on “ protecting the United States lobster industry ” makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lobster industry is being hurt by retaliatory tariffs from China , imposed in response to Trump ’ s tariffs on Chinese imports to the U.S .
In a celebratory tweet , trade adviser Peter Navarro – who was crowned the “ lobster king ” by Trump earlier this month for his role in negotiations with the European Union , which currently imposes tariffs on American lobsters – paid tribute to the president , saying he was the real crustacean sovereign .
“ Promises made , promises kept by the true Lobster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive order to provide relief for our GREAT American lobster fishermen .
Stay tuned !
”

The White House ordered the Department of Agriculture Wednesday to provide financial assistance to lobstermen in Maine, who have been hurt by President Trump’s trade war with China and the European Union. The funds will come from the $30 billion bailout program the Trump administration has created to aid farmers caught up in the conflict.
In a tweet Wednesday evening, the president falsely claimed that President Barack Obama had “destroyed the lobster and fishing industry in Maine.” The White House memorandum on “protecting the United States lobster industry” makes it clear, however, that Maine’s lobster industry is being hurt by retaliatory tariffs from China, imposed in response to Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports to the U.S.
In a celebratory tweet, trade adviser Peter Navarro – who was crowned the “lobster king” by Trump earlier this month for his role in negotiations with the European Union, which currently imposes tariffs on American lobsters – paid tribute to the president, saying he was the real crustacean sovereign. “Promises made, promises kept by the true Lobster King. @POTUS signed a historic executive order to provide relief for our GREAT American lobster fishermen. Stay tuned!”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-25--US Sent $1.4 Billion to Dead People for Coronavirus Stimulus

The Trump administration sent almost 1.1 million coronavirus relief payments totaling nearly $ 1.4 billion to Americans who had died , the Government Accountability Office says in a report published Thursday .
In their rush to send out more than 160 million emergency “ economic impact payments ” worth $ 269 billion — and to meet the CARES Act requirement that the payments be sent out as “ rapidly as possible ” — the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service used many of the procedures developed to send stimulus checks in 2008 .
As a result , while the IRS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Administration ’ s death records to prevent improper payments , the agency did not filter out people who had died from the first three batches of coronavirus relief , accounting for 72 % of payments disbursed as of the end of May .
The IRS was aware that some payments may go to people who had died , according to the report , and officials raised questions about that possibility with Treasury while the CARES Act was being drafted .
But IRS lawyers initially determined that it did not have the legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had filed their tax returns , even if they had since died , according to the report .
Treasury officials told the GAO that , once they learned that payments had been made to dead people , the department and IRS determined that the deceased aren ’ t entitled to coronavirus relief money .
The government filtered out payments to the dead starting with the fourth batch , and the IRS announced in early May that payments to dead or incarcerated people should be returned .
The GAO says that the IRS does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notify ineligible recipients of how to return the payments and recommended that the agency “ should consider cost effective options ” for such notifications .
The IRS agreed with the recommendation .
GAO also recommended that Congress allow the Social Security Administration to share its death records with Treasury and its Bureau of the Fiscal Service , which distributed the payments .
Why it matters : “ The number of economic impact payments going to decedents highlights the importance of consistently using key safeguards in providing government assistance to individuals , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significance of the report goes beyond efforts to root out improper payments .
It comes as the administration and Congress consider another round of coronavirus payments and could affect that decision : “ The news that so much money has gone to the dead could add to reluctance from some Republicans to agree to more direct relief payments , ” The Washington Post ’ s Erica Werner writes .
The prospect of such a backlash has some advocates for additional coronavirus stimulus concerned .
“ [ T ] here 's going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ended up going to recently deceased people than on the $ 500 billion that went to corporations , is n't there ?
” tweeted Michael Linden , a fellow at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute .
Ernie Tedeschi , a former Treasury economist in the Obama administration , suggested that the broader context of the coronavirus relief effort really matters here .
The improper checks amount to less than 1 % of the total coronavirus relief payments .
“ This strikes me as a fairly *low* error rate , given that stimulus checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the sake of speed were sent out automatically based on prior-year tax returns , ” he tweeted .
Some low-income families got too little : “ The report also includes new data showing that many low-income families were shortchanged on payments , ” The Wall Street Journal ’ s Richard Rubin reports .
“ Some 450,000 households that used a special IRS online tool for people who typically don ’ t file tax returns didn ’ t get the $ 500 payments for children that they should have .
According to GAO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money to those households by the end of July.
” PPP problems : The finding of $ 1.4 billion in improper payments is just one part of a sweeping 400-page report on the federal response to the pandemic .
The GAO also warns that the $ 660 billion Paycheck Protection Program is vulnerable to fraud because the Small Business Administration ( SBA ) , in an effort to streamline the loan process and get money out quickly , allowed borrowers to self-certify that they were eligible .
GAO also raises the possibility that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PPP loans and enhanced unemployment benefits provided under the CARES Act at the same time .
GAO warns that “ the limited safeguards and lack of timely and complete guidance and oversight planning have increased the likelihood that borrowers may misuse or improperly receive loan proceeds.
” The report calls on the SBA to develop plans to and address potential fraud in the small business rescue program .
It also calls out the SBA for failing to provide critical information , including details of loan data , though the SBA pushed back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pages of documents and made officials available for interviews with the GAO .
Waiting for spending data : GAO also says that total federal spending data on the $ 2.6 trillion appropriated for coronavirus relief efforts are not yet available because the White House Office of Management and Budget told federal agencies they did not have to report coronavirus-related obligations and expenditures until July .
“ It is unfortunate that the public will have waited more than 4 months since the enactment of the CARES Act for access to comprehensive obligation and expenditure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief laws , ” the report says .
The bottom line : The government sought to respond to the coronavirus pandemic with unprecedented speed and fiscal power .
Transparency and accountability about those efforts still need more work , GAO says .
“ Consistent with the urgency of responding to serious and widespread health issues and economic disruptions , agencies have given priority to moving swiftly where possible to distribute funds and implement new programs , ” the report says .
“ As tradeoffs were made , however , agencies have made only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and accountability goals .
”

The Trump administration sent almost 1.1 million coronavirus relief payments totaling nearly $1.4 billion to Americans who had died, the Government Accountability Office says in a report published Thursday.
In their rush to send out more than 160 million emergency “economic impact payments” worth $269 billion — and to meet the CARES Act requirement that the payments be sent out as “rapidly as possible” — the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service used many of the procedures developed to send stimulus checks in 2008. As a result, while the IRS typically uses data such as the Social Security Administration’s death records to prevent improper payments, the agency did not filter out people who had died from the first three batches of coronavirus relief, accounting for 72% of payments disbursed as of the end of May.
The IRS was aware that some payments may go to people who had died, according to the report, and officials raised questions about that possibility with Treasury while the CARES Act was being drafted. But IRS lawyers initially determined that it did not have the legal authority to deny payments to people who had filed their tax returns, even if they had since died, according to the report. Treasury officials told the GAO that, once they learned that payments had been made to dead people, the department and IRS determined that the deceased aren’t entitled to coronavirus relief money.
The government filtered out payments to the dead starting with the fourth batch, and the IRS announced in early May that payments to dead or incarcerated people should be returned. The GAO says that the IRS does not have a plan in place to notify ineligible recipients of how to return the payments and recommended that the agency “should consider cost effective options” for such notifications. The IRS agreed with the recommendation. GAO also recommended that Congress allow the Social Security Administration to share its death records with Treasury and its Bureau of the Fiscal Service, which distributed the payments.
Why it matters: “The number of economic impact payments going to decedents highlights the importance of consistently using key safeguards in providing government assistance to individuals,” the GAO report says.
But the political significance of the report goes beyond efforts to root out improper payments. It comes as the administration and Congress consider another round of coronavirus payments and could affect that decision: “The news that so much money has gone to the dead could add to reluctance from some Republicans to agree to more direct relief payments,” The Washington Post’s Erica Werner writes.
The prospect of such a backlash has some advocates for additional coronavirus stimulus concerned. “[T]here's going to be more scrutiny on the $1 billion that ended up going to recently deceased people than on the $500 billion that went to corporations, isn't there?” tweeted Michael Linden, a fellow at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute.
Ernie Tedeschi, a former Treasury economist in the Obama administration, suggested that the broader context of the coronavirus relief effort really matters here. The improper checks amount to less than 1% of the total coronavirus relief payments. “This strikes me as a fairly *low* error rate, given that stimulus checks totaled almost $300 billion, and for the sake of speed were sent out automatically based on prior-year tax returns,” he tweeted.
Some low-income families got too little: “The report also includes new data showing that many low-income families were shortchanged on payments,” The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin reports. “Some 450,000 households that used a special IRS online tool for people who typically don’t file tax returns didn’t get the $500 payments for children that they should have. According to GAO, IRS is working to get the money to those households by the end of July.”
PPP problems: The finding of $1.4 billion in improper payments is just one part of a sweeping 400-page report on the federal response to the pandemic. The GAO also warns that the $660 billion Paycheck Protection Program is vulnerable to fraud because the Small Business Administration (SBA), in an effort to streamline the loan process and get money out quickly, allowed borrowers to self-certify that they were eligible. GAO also raises the possibility that people may be getting wages paid from PPP loans and enhanced unemployment benefits provided under the CARES Act at the same time.
GAO warns that “the limited safeguards and lack of timely and complete guidance and oversight planning have increased the likelihood that borrowers may misuse or improperly receive loan proceeds.” The report calls on the SBA to develop plans to and address potential fraud in the small business rescue program. It also calls out the SBA for failing to provide critical information, including details of loan data, though the SBA pushed back on that criticism, saying it provided 420 pages of documents and made officials available for interviews with the GAO.
Waiting for spending data: GAO also says that total federal spending data on the $2.6 trillion appropriated for coronavirus relief efforts are not yet available because the White House Office of Management and Budget told federal agencies they did not have to report coronavirus-related obligations and expenditures until July. “It is unfortunate that the public will have waited more than 4 months since the enactment of the CARES Act for access to comprehensive obligation and expenditure information about the programs funded through these relief laws,” the report says.
The bottom line: The government sought to respond to the coronavirus pandemic with unprecedented speed and fiscal power. Transparency and accountability about those efforts still need more work, GAO says. “Consistent with the urgency of responding to serious and widespread health issues and economic disruptions, agencies have given priority to moving swiftly where possible to distribute funds and implement new programs,” the report says. “As tradeoffs were made, however, agencies have made only limited progress so far in achieving transparency and accountability goals.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-25--More Job Losses Suggest Economy Will Need Another Boost

Nearly 1.5 million people filed for state unemployment benefits last week , the Department of Labor announced Thursday , bringing the 14-week total for first-time claims to about 47 million .
The latest data shows that new unemployment claims continue to move lower – but just barely .
Initial claims peaked at 6.9 million in late March and have fallen every week since , but the latest figure of 1.48 million was higher than expected and marks the 14th week in a row that more than 1 million people have made a claim for state unemployment benefits .
The aggregate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to state initial claims , about 730,000 people applied last week for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance ( PUA ) , a temporary program created by Congress for workers who ordinarily do not qualify for unemployment payments .
Taken together , that brings the week ’ s total of first-time jobless claims to about 2.2 million .
Joseph Brusuelas , chief economist at the consulting firm RSM , said Thursday that by his calculation , more than 2 million people have filed for unemployment aid of some kind every week for the past 10 weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improvement in the job market appears to have slowed , said Bloomberg ’ s Katia Dmitrieva , even though it ’ s clear that some businesses are rehiring .
“ It looks like jobless claims declines have stalled .
Signals a few things : huge churn in labor market ( hiring vs. firing ) , and that second wave of layoffs in white collar jobs and non-restaurant/retail.
” The job market is “ not really improving , ” said Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute .
“ I do think that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are continuing to see an absolute hemorrhaging of jobs , ” Shierholz told The Washington Post .
“ Just record levels of people.
” Implications for the next stimulus package : Some economists said the data shows that the economy will need more stimulus from Congress .
“ If one was looking for confirmation , on whether further aid for the unemployed and the economy is necessary , its sitting out in plain sight , ” said RSM ’ s Brusuelas .
“ Aid for those negatively affected by the pandemic expires on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on confirmation is setting up as the most significant fiscal cliff in American economic history .
”

Nearly 1.5 million people filed for state unemployment benefits last week, the Department of Labor announced Thursday, bringing the 14-week total for first-time claims to about 47 million.
The latest data shows that new unemployment claims continue to move lower – but just barely. Initial claims peaked at 6.9 million in late March and have fallen every week since, but the latest figure of 1.48 million was higher than expected and marks the 14th week in a row that more than 1 million people have made a claim for state unemployment benefits.
The aggregate numbers are considerably worse. In addition to state initial claims, about 730,000 people applied last week for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), a temporary program created by Congress for workers who ordinarily do not qualify for unemployment payments.
Taken together, that brings the week’s total of first-time jobless claims to about 2.2 million.
Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the consulting firm RSM, said Thursday that by his calculation, more than 2 million people have filed for unemployment aid of some kind every week for the past 10 weeks.
Worries about a stall: The improvement in the job market appears to have slowed, said Bloomberg’s Katia Dmitrieva, even though it’s clear that some businesses are rehiring. “It looks like jobless claims declines have stalled. Signals a few things: huge churn in labor market (hiring vs. firing), and that second wave of layoffs in white collar jobs and non-restaurant/retail.”
The job market is “not really improving,” said Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute. “I do think that people are getting hired back, but we are continuing to see an absolute hemorrhaging of jobs,” Shierholz told The Washington Post. “Just record levels of people.”
Implications for the next stimulus package: Some economists said the data shows that the economy will need more stimulus from Congress. “If one was looking for confirmation, on whether further aid for the unemployed and the economy is necessary, its sitting out in plain sight,” said RSM’s Brusuelas. “Aid for those negatively affected by the pandemic expires on July 31 which due to those waiting on confirmation is setting up as the most significant fiscal cliff in American economic history.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-24--Cities Plan to Slash Spending as Coronavirus Devastates Local Budgets

Hundreds of cities , towns and villages in the U.S. plan to reduce spending significantly as they respond to budget shortfalls resulting from the coronavirus crisis , and many are already cutting back , according to a new report from the National League of Cities .
In a survey of 1,100 municipalities , the group found that more than 700 plan to delay or cancel road repair projects , critical infrastructure upgrades , and the purchase of new equipment .
About 800 cities said they are cutting spending on services , including police , fire , sanitation and recreation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to furlough or lay off workers .
The NLC estimates that local budgets will see a shortfall of $ 134 billion in 2020 , and $ 360 billion between 2020 and 2022 .
The reduced spending will have a powerful negative effect on small businesses and the quality of life , NLC said , especially in smaller municipalities .
A call for additional federal assistance : The CARES Act in March created a $ 150 billion fund intended to assist states , territories , tribal areas and local governments .
But many smaller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fund and so far only 36 municipalities , all with populations over 500,000 , have received aid , worth a total of $ 7.9 billion .
The NLC called for new legislation that would allow smaller cities to receive aid directly , and for the Treasury to start specifically targeting smaller municipalities .
“ Without direct appropriations to cities , we fear that funds for these municipalities will never reach their intended targets , ” the group said .

Hundreds of cities, towns and villages in the U.S. plan to reduce spending significantly as they respond to budget shortfalls resulting from the coronavirus crisis, and many are already cutting back, according to a new report from the National League of Cities.
In a survey of 1,100 municipalities, the group found that more than 700 plan to delay or cancel road repair projects, critical infrastructure upgrades, and the purchase of new equipment. About 800 cities said they are cutting spending on services, including police, fire, sanitation and recreation. And about a third said they expect to furlough or lay off workers.
The NLC estimates that local budgets will see a shortfall of $134 billion in 2020, and
$360 billion between 2020 and 2022. The reduced spending will have a powerful negative effect on small businesses and the quality of life, NLC said, especially in smaller municipalities.
A call for additional federal assistance: The CARES Act in March created a $150 billion fund intended to assist states, territories, tribal areas and local governments. But many smaller cities were excluded from benefiting directly from the fund and so far only 36 municipalities, all with populations over 500,000, have received aid, worth a total of $7.9 billion. The NLC called for new legislation that would allow smaller cities to receive aid directly, and for the Treasury to start specifically targeting smaller municipalities. “Without direct appropriations to cities, we fear that funds for these municipalities will never reach their intended targets,” the group said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-29--Covid-19 Drug Remdesivir Gets Long-Awaited Price

Gilead Sciences has announced the pricing for its Covid-19 drug remdesivir .
The company will charge governments in developed countries , including portions of the U.S. government , $ 390 a vial , or $ 2,340 for a typical five-day treatment course using six vials of the drug .
A longer course of treatment would cost $ 4,290 .
The government price will apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs , but not to programs including Medicare and Medicaid that don ’ t directly purchase drugs , according to The Wall Street Journal .
The price for private insurance companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 520 a vial , or $ 3,120 for a five-day course of treatment .
Longer treatment would run $ 5,720 .
In an open letter explaining the decision , Gilead Chairman & CEO Daniel O ’ Day said the company had carefully considered its pricing .
“ In normal circumstances , we would price a medicine according to the value it provides , ” O ’ Day wrote .
He added that early study results showed that remdesivir shortened recovery time by an average of four days , and reducing the time patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would translate to hospital savings of approximately $ 12,000 per patient .
“ We have decided to price remdesivir well below this value , ” O ’ Day wrote .
Too high ?
Too low ?
“ There will be room for outsiders to argue the price is too high — and too low , ” writes Matthew Herper at STAT .
“ The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review ( ICER ) , a nonprofit which sets benchmarks for what it thinks are fair prices in the U.S. , said that remdesivir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 5,080 per treatment course .
But it also said that , given recent studies showing that dexamethasone , a cheap and ubiquitous steroid , could save lives among ventilated patients , a fair price might be as low as $ 2,520 .
That would mean that governments would be getting a good deal , but perhaps not private insurers in the U.S. ” Peter Bach , director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , told STAT that remdesivir could lengthen some hospital stays , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they get a full course .
“ This is entirely predictable , ” Bach said .
“ They take the highest number anybody has floated , they cut down a bit from there , and they say now they ’ re the good guys.
” The Department of Health and Human Service announced an agreement on Monday to secure more than 500,000 treatment courses of remdesivir through September .
Clarification : This article has been updated to clarify the U.S. government pricing of remdesivir .

Gilead Sciences has announced the pricing for its Covid-19 drug remdesivir. The company will charge governments in developed countries, including portions of the U.S. government, $390 a vial, or $2,340 for a typical five-day treatment course using six vials of the drug. A longer course of treatment would cost $4,290. The government price will apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs, but not to programs including Medicare and Medicaid that don’t directly purchase drugs, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The price for private insurance companies will be one third higher, $520 a vial, or $3,120 for a five-day course of treatment. Longer treatment would run $5,720.
In an open letter explaining the decision, Gilead Chairman & CEO Daniel O’Day said the company had carefully considered its pricing. “In normal circumstances, we would price a medicine according to the value it provides,” O’Day wrote. He added that early study results showed that remdesivir shortened recovery time by an average of four days, and reducing the time patients spend in the hospital by that much would translate to hospital savings of approximately $12,000 per patient. “We have decided to price remdesivir well below this value,” O’Day wrote.
Too high? Too low? “There will be room for outsiders to argue the price is too high — and too low,” writes Matthew Herper at STAT. “The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), a nonprofit which sets benchmarks for what it thinks are fair prices in the U.S., said that remdesivir would be cost-effective at as much as $5,080 per treatment course. But it also said that, given recent studies showing that dexamethasone, a cheap and ubiquitous steroid, could save lives among ventilated patients, a fair price might be as low as $2,520. That would mean that governments would be getting a good deal, but perhaps not private insurers in the U.S.”
Peter Bach, director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told STAT that remdesivir could lengthen some hospital stays, because patients may not be discharged until they get a full course. “This is entirely predictable,” Bach said. “They take the highest number anybody has floated, they cut down a bit from there, and they say now they’re the good guys.”
The Department of Health and Human Service announced an agreement on Monday to secure more than 500,000 treatment courses of remdesivir through September.
Read more at STAT.
Clarification: This article has been updated to clarify the U.S. government pricing of remdesivir.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-29--Millions of Taxpayers Face ‘Extreme Delays’ in Getting Refunds: IRS Watchdog

The novel coronavirus pandemic has resulted in some serious backlogs at the Internal Revenue Service , the National Taxpayer Advocate writes in a new report to Congress .
Noting that the IRS has done a “ tremendous job ” under the constraints of the virus and the closings it caused , National Taxpayer Advocate Erin M. Collins nevertheless warns that millions of taxpayers are likely to be affected by the backlog of work that resulted from the closure of the agency ’ s offices starting in late March .
“ The spread of COVID-19 brought much of the country to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely true of the IRS ’ s operations — and right in the middle of the filing season no less , ” Collins , who took over the job on March 30 , says in her first report .
“ Despite the IRS ’ s best efforts , there have been notable adverse taxpayer impacts.
” The IRS brought thousands of workers back to their offices this month , and more are set to return in July , but digging out will take a while .
Collins also says that IRS closures made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whether in person or over the phone , and it will take time for customer service operations to be restored to full capacity .
Millions of taxpayers will have to wait for refunds : Taxpayers who filed paper returns are facing “ extreme delays ” in having their returns processed after the IRS suspended the processing of those returns at the end of March , the report says .
While the vast majority of individual tax returns are filed electronically , the IRS projects more than 10 million paper returns will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those returns are still sitting unopened .
The agency had an estimated 10 million pieces of unopened mail as of mid-May , and the IRS estimated that it had a backlog of 4.7 million paper filings .
As of May 22 , the number of processed paper returns was down 75 % from the same time last year , compared with a 9 % drop in the number of e-filed returns processes .
“ Taxpayers who filed a 2019 paper return and are entitled to refunds may be in for a long wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although the IRS is reopening some of its core operations , it is not clear when it can open and log all the returns sitting in mail facilities.
” Collins adds that some taxpayers who had their returns mistakenly flagged by IRS filters designed to root out identity theft and other fraud are also experiencing “ lengthy delays ” in getting their refunds .
The Taxpayer Advocate Service has said that some of the filters have false positive rates of more than 50 % .
Some coronavirus relief payments also delayed : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive some or all of their “ economic impact payments ” may have to wait until next year .
“ To date , the IRS has taken the position that most taxpayers who did not receive their full payments will have to wait until they file their 2020 income tax returns to claim the amounts as credits against their 2020 tax liabilities , even though there is no legal constraint on the IRS ’ s ability to issue additional EIP amounts as advance refunds during 2020 , ” the report says .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive their EIPs harms the taxpayers and is inconsistent with congressional intent.
” 965,000 coronavirus payments to dead people : The report says the IRS sent about 965,000 payments to deceased taxpayers and was aware that 837,000 of those people had died but did not program its systems to exclude the dead .
( A Government Accountability Office report last week put the number of payments sent to dead people at nearly 1.1 million . )
The taxpayer advocate says that in cases where the IRS sent payments to people it knew had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend its resources pursuing enforcement actions against a decedent ’ s estate or a family member.
” IRS notices with deadlines that have passed : More than 20 million IRS notices could not be mailed in April and May .
The IRS has begun sending out those letters , but the report says “ some collection notices bear old dates and include response deadlines that often have passed.
” The IRS is enclosing an insert in its mailings with updated deadlines , but some taxpayers may not see those notices and think they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by 65 % : The IRS said at the end of March that it would suspended most new audits .
From April 1 to June 1 , the total number of new audits started dropped by 65 % compared to the same period in 2019 .
Corporate audits fell by 71 % .
Ongoing audits could also be delayed .
“ Unfortunately , the taxpayers currently under examination may find that their examinations are taking longer to complete — not only because of the large amount of mail to work through but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processing functions time to sort the examination mail from the other types of mail accumulated , ” the report says .

The novel coronavirus pandemic has resulted in some serious backlogs at the Internal Revenue Service, the National Taxpayer Advocate writes in a new report to Congress.
Noting that the IRS has done a “tremendous job” under the constraints of the virus and the closings it caused, National Taxpayer Advocate Erin M. Collins nevertheless warns that millions of taxpayers are likely to be affected by the backlog of work that resulted from the closure of the agency’s offices starting in late March.
“The spread of COVID-19 brought much of the country to a grinding halt, and that was largely true of the IRS’s operations — and right in the middle of the filing season no less,” Collins, who took over the job on March 30, says in her first report. “Despite the IRS’s best efforts, there have been notable adverse taxpayer impacts.”
The IRS brought thousands of workers back to their offices this month, and more are set to return in July, but digging out will take a while. Collins also says that IRS closures made it harder for taxpayers to get assistance, whether in person or over the phone, and it will take time for customer service operations to be restored to full capacity.
Millions of taxpayers will have to wait for refunds: Taxpayers who filed paper returns are facing “extreme delays” in having their returns processed after the IRS suspended the processing of those returns at the end of March, the report says. While the vast majority of individual tax returns are filed electronically, the IRS projects more than 10 million paper returns will be filed this tax year.
Many of those returns are still sitting unopened. The agency had an estimated 10 million pieces of unopened mail as of mid-May, and the IRS estimated that it had a backlog of 4.7 million paper filings. As of May 22, the number of processed paper returns was down 75% from the same time last year, compared with a 9% drop in the number of e-filed returns processes. “Taxpayers who filed a 2019 paper return and are entitled to refunds may be in for a long wait,” the report says. “Although the IRS is reopening some of its core operations, it is not clear when it can open and log all the returns sitting in mail facilities.”
Collins adds that some taxpayers who had their returns mistakenly flagged by IRS filters designed to root out identity theft and other fraud are also experiencing “lengthy delays” in getting their refunds. The Taxpayer Advocate Service has said that some of the filters have false positive rates of more than 50%.
Some coronavirus relief payments also delayed: The report says that individuals who did not receive some or all of their “economic impact payments” may have to wait until next year. “To date, the IRS has taken the position that most taxpayers who did not receive their full payments will have to wait until they file their 2020 income tax returns to claim the amounts as credits against their 2020 tax liabilities, even though there is no legal constraint on the IRS’s ability to issue additional EIP amounts as advance refunds during 2020,” the report says. “Making taxpayers wait until next year to receive their EIPs harms the taxpayers and is inconsistent with congressional intent.”
965,000 coronavirus payments to dead people: The report says the IRS sent about 965,000 payments to deceased taxpayers and was aware that 837,000 of those people had died but did not program its systems to exclude the dead. (A Government Accountability Office report last week put the number of payments sent to dead people at nearly 1.1 million.) The taxpayer advocate says that in cases where the IRS sent payments to people it knew had died, the agency should “not spend its resources pursuing enforcement actions against a decedent’s estate or a family member.”
IRS notices with deadlines that have passed: More than 20 million IRS notices could not be mailed in April and May. The IRS has begun sending out those letters, but the report says “some collection notices bear old dates and include response deadlines that often have passed.” The IRS is enclosing an insert in its mailings with updated deadlines, but some taxpayers may not see those notices and think they missed the response deadlines.
New audits down by 65%: The IRS said at the end of March that it would suspended most new audits. From April 1 to June 1, the total number of new audits started dropped by 65% compared to the same period in 2019. Corporate audits fell by 71%. Ongoing audits could also be delayed. “Unfortunately, the taxpayers currently under examination may find that their examinations are taking longer to complete — not only because of the large amount of mail to work through but also because it will take the mail processing functions time to sort the examination mail from the other types of mail accumulated,” the report says.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-29--Drug Pricing Bill Hits the Skids

Drug Pricing Bill Hits the Skids

A bipartisan effort to control drug prices appears to be falling apart this week .
In the pages of The Wall Street Journal Monday , Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) accused Democrats of walking away from the negotiations over the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act .
Introduced by Grassley and Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) in September , the bill would cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries while reducing spending by $ 100 billion over 10 years .
But Grassley accused Democrats of now being more interested in making “ an election-year talking point ” about high drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pharma lobbyists and “ Republicans who sit on their hands ” also get some of the blame for the lack of progress on the bill , Grassley said .
Wyden , who will no longer co-sponsor the legislation , placed the blame on Republicans , saying that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) did not support the bill .
“ Democrats have not walked away from the table on drug pricing — Republicans never showed up in the first place , ” Wyden said , adding that “ McConnell and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Pharma to join our effort ” to lower drug prices .

A bipartisan effort to control drug prices appears to be falling apart this week.
In the pages of The Wall Street Journal Monday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) accused Democrats of walking away from the negotiations over the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. Introduced by Grassley and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) in September, the bill would cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries while reducing spending by $100 billion over 10 years. But Grassley accused Democrats of now being more interested in making “an election-year talking point” about high drug costs than in lowering prices.
Big Pharma lobbyists and “Republicans who sit on their hands” also get some of the blame for the lack of progress on the bill, Grassley said.
Wyden, who will no longer co-sponsor the legislation, placed the blame on Republicans, saying that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not support the bill. “Democrats have not walked away from the table on drug pricing — Republicans never showed up in the first place,” Wyden said, adding that “McConnell and many other Senate Republicans are too afraid of Big Pharma to join our effort” to lower drug prices.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-29--House Dems Pass Obamacare Expansion, Seeking to Draw Contrast With Trump

The Democratic-led House on Monday passed a bill to bolster Obamacare — and ramp up the political pressure on President Trump on the issue of health care as coronavirus cases surge across many U.S. states .
The legislation aims to strengthen and expand the Obama health care law by increasing subsidies to make premiums more affordable and increasing federal funding to encourage states that have not yet expanded Medicaid to do so .
It would cap what people pay for premiums on exchange plans at 8.5 % of their income and allow the government to directly negotiate the prices of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House , largely along party lines , sends the Patient Protection Affordable Care Enhancement Act to the Senate , where it is expected to die .
The White House has threatened to veto the bill if it gets to the president ’ s desk .
But the legislation gives Democrats another chance to attack Trump ’ s record on health care — an issue they hope to make central to this election much as they did in 2018 , and it does so days after the administration filed a brief urging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its entirety , including the law ’ s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions .
Overturning the health care law would take away health insurance coverage from about 20 million people .
The administration ’ s support for the legal challenge to the law has sparked strong condemnation from Democrats and criticism from some Republicans concerned that their party is once again being tied to the elimination of Obamacare , especially as Covid-19 case counts continue to rise .
No Trump administration replacement plan : Trump on Saturday tweeted that “ Obamacare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he “ will ALWAYS PROTECT PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS , ALWAYS , ALWAYS , ALWAYS !
!
!
” But while the president pledged to come up with “ a far better and much less expensive alternative , ” his administration has yet to release a detailed replacement plan .
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said Sunday that the administration doesn ’ t expect to issue a plan until after the Supreme Court rules on the Obamacare challenge .
The high court is reportedly likely to hear the case around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its ruling could take months longer .
“ We have made very clear that if the Supreme Court strikes down all or a large part of Obamacare because its constitutionally or statutorily infirm , we will work with Congress to create a program that genuinely protects individuals with pre-existing conditions , '' Azar told CNN on Sunday .
That ’ s asking voters to trust that the GOP will come up with an acceptable plan — a familiar request that has many analysts skeptical .
“ Mr .
Trump claims that he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other popular elements of Obamacare .
But he has no plan to do so , ” The Washington Post editorial board said Sunday .
“ His position is for health-care chaos.
” White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany reportedly told “ Fox & Friends ” on Monday that the burden should be on Democrats to work with the administration to come up with a replacement plan if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare .
Asked if it is politically detrimental to pursue the invalidation of Obamacare , McEnany said : “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they say is this : If Democrats passed an unconstitutional law several years ago , then it 's on Democrats to come forward with a solution .
Democrats got us into this quagmire to begin with .
And their untenable solution of government takeover of health care is not the answer .
”

The Democratic-led House on Monday passed a bill to bolster Obamacare — and ramp up the political pressure on President Trump on the issue of health care as coronavirus cases surge across many U.S. states.
The legislation aims to strengthen and expand the Obama health care law by increasing subsidies to make premiums more affordable and increasing federal funding to encourage states that have not yet expanded Medicaid to do so. It would cap what people pay for premiums on exchange plans at 8.5% of their income and allow the government to directly negotiate the prices of certain drugs.
The 234-179 vote in the House, largely along party lines, sends the Patient Protection Affordable Care Enhancement Act to the Senate, where it is expected to die. The White House has threatened to veto the bill if it gets to the president’s desk. But the legislation gives Democrats another chance to attack Trump’s record on health care — an issue they hope to make central to this election much as they did in 2018, and it does so days after the administration filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare in its entirety, including the law’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions.
Overturning the health care law would take away health insurance coverage from about 20 million people. The administration’s support for the legal challenge to the law has sparked strong condemnation from Democrats and criticism from some Republicans concerned that their party is once again being tied to the elimination of Obamacare, especially as Covid-19 case counts continue to rise.
No Trump administration replacement plan: Trump on Saturday tweeted that “Obamacare is a joke!” and said he “will ALWAYS PROTECT PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS,ALWAYS!!!” But while the president pledged to come up with “a far better and much less expensive alternative,” his administration has yet to release a detailed replacement plan. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said Sunday that the administration doesn’t expect to issue a plan until after the Supreme Court rules on the Obamacare challenge. The high court is reportedly likely to hear the case around the time of the November election, and its ruling could take months longer.
“We have made very clear that if the Supreme Court strikes down all or a large part of Obamacare because its constitutionally or statutorily infirm, we will work with Congress to create a program that genuinely protects individuals with pre-existing conditions," Azar told CNN on Sunday.
That’s asking voters to trust that the GOP will come up with an acceptable plan — a familiar request that has many analysts skeptical. “Mr. Trump claims that he would maintain protections for people with preexisting conditions and other popular elements of Obamacare. But he has no plan to do so,” The Washington Post editorial board said Sunday. “His position is for health-care chaos.”
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany reportedly told “Fox & Friends” on Monday that the burden should be on Democrats to work with the administration to come up with a replacement plan if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare. Asked if it is politically detrimental to pursue the invalidation of Obamacare, McEnany said: “The American public looks at this and what they say is this: If Democrats passed an unconstitutional law several years ago, then it's on Democrats to come forward with a solution. Democrats got us into this quagmire to begin with. And their untenable solution of government takeover of health care is not the answer.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-29--Trump’s Border Wall Loses One Legal Challenge, Wins Another

The Supreme Court said Monday that it will not take up a challenge brought by several environmental groups to President Trump ’ s border wall .
As part of its effort to fast-track the construction of barriers in several states along the border with Mexico , the Trump administration has waived dozens of environmental , health and safety laws .
Environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife sued in January , charging that the Department of Homeland Security had exceeded its authority in granting the waivers .
A lower court rejected the challengers ’ claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision Monday brings the suit to an end .
Appeals court backs congressional power of the purse : Trump ’ s signature border effort suffered a setback Friday , however , when the 9th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the administration lacked the authority to use Pentagon funds to help pay for construction of the wall .
Responding to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2019 , the appeals panel said that the administration violated the Constitution when it transferred $ 2.5 billion in funds that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Department of Defense .
“ These funds were appropriated for other purposes , and the transfer amounted to ‘ drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the Appropriations Clause , ’ ” Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the majority .
“ Therefore , the transfer of funds here was unlawful.
” Robert Tsai , a constitutional scholar at American University , told The Hill that the decision pushes back against Trump ’ s effort to seize control over the power of the purse , shaped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national emergency .
“ This decision is an important win for democratic accountability and a huge blow to President Trump ’ s pretensions to unilateral power over the purse .
The Ninth Circuit read federal law closely and found that the shift of funds was not for a military purpose and that the needs he cited were not unforeseen — in other words , that the president has fabricated an emergency to complete his pet project.
” It ’ s not clear what effect the decision , which will likely come before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high court ruled last year that the administration could begin using the Pentagon funds while challenges worked their way through the court system .

The Supreme Court said Monday that it will not take up a challenge brought by several environmental groups to President Trump’s border wall.
As part of its effort to fast-track the construction of barriers in several states along the border with Mexico, the Trump administration has waived dozens of environmental, health and safety laws. Environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife sued in January, charging that the Department of Homeland Security had exceeded its authority in granting the waivers. A lower court rejected the challengers’ claim, and the high court’s decision Monday brings the suit to an end.
Appeals court backs congressional power of the purse: Trump’s signature border effort suffered a setback Friday, however, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the administration lacked the authority to use Pentagon funds to help pay for construction of the wall. Responding to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2019, the appeals panel said that the administration violated the Constitution when it transferred $2.5 billion in funds that had been appropriated by Congress for use by the Department of Defense.
“These funds were appropriated for other purposes, and the transfer amounted to ‘drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the Appropriations Clause,’” Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the majority. “Therefore, the transfer of funds here was unlawful.”
Robert Tsai, a constitutional scholar at American University, told The Hill that the decision pushes back against Trump’s effort to seize control over the power of the purse, shaped in part by his declaration of a national emergency. “This decision is an important win for democratic accountability and a huge blow to President Trump’s pretensions to unilateral power over the purse. The Ninth Circuit read federal law closely and found that the shift of funds was not for a military purpose and that the needs he cited were not unforeseen — in other words, that the president has fabricated an emergency to complete his pet project.”
It’s not clear what effect the decision, which will likely come before the Supreme Court, may have. The high court ruled last year that the administration could begin using the Pentagon funds while challenges worked their way through the court system.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-26--Deficits Could Average $2 Trillion a Year Over the Next Decade: Report

The massive fiscal response to the coronavirus crisis will play a big role in driving federal deficits to an average of $ 2 trillion a year for the next 10 years , according to new projections from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget .
“ Both the economic crisis itself and the federal government ’ s aggressive response have massively expanded deficits , ” CRFB said this week .
“ This borrowing is largely appropriate as deficit spending can help offset the negative economic effects of a recession and spread the costs of emergencies over time.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the pandemic will drive up long-term deficits , CRFB said , and accelerate the growth of the national debt .
Some key points from the report : • The response to the coronavirus crisis will increase the deficit by $ 5.7 trillion over 10 years , bringing the total deficit to $ 20 trillion over that time period .
• The deficit will come to 17.9 % of GDP this year , and average 6.3 % of GDP each year from 2021 to 2030 .
• The deficit will exceed the size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal 118 % of GDP by 2030 and 220 % of GDP by 2050 .
• Under an alternative scenario in which various temporary tax cuts are extended and Congress passes another $ 1 trillion stimulus package – both of which seem likely – the deficit would hit 131 % of GDP by 2030 and 269 % of GDP by 2050 .

The massive fiscal response to the coronavirus crisis will play a big role in driving federal deficits to an average of $2 trillion a year for the next 10 years, according to new projections from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
“Both the economic crisis itself and the federal government’s aggressive response have massively expanded deficits,” CRFB said this week. “This borrowing is largely appropriate as deficit spending can help offset the negative economic effects of a recession and spread the costs of emergencies over time.”
But the huge increase in spending in response to the pandemic will drive up long-term deficits, CRFB said, and accelerate the growth of the national debt.
Some key points from the report:


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-26--Trump Says Politics Played a Role in Defense Contract Award

Visiting the Fincantieri Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin Thursday , President Trump said that the defense company ’ s procurement of a $ 5.5 billion contract to build new frigates was based in part on political considerations .
Describing the frigates as the “ fastest , most advanced , and most maneuverable combat ships anywhere on the ocean , ” Trump added , “ I hear the maneuverability is one of the big factors that you were chosen for the contract .
The other is your location in Wisconsin , if you want to know the truth.
” Robert Mackey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comments could give competing firms that lost out on the contract grounds to file a complaint with the Government Accountability Office ’ s Procurement Law Division , charging that the contract was awarded on political grounds .
In a freewheeling , politically charged speech , Trump also took credit for the appearance of new navy ships .
“ I ’ ve changed designs , ” he said .
“ I looked at it .
I said , ‘ That ’ s a terrible-looking ship .
Let ’ s make it beautiful .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and maybe less.
’ I said , ‘ This is not a good-looking ship .
Let ’ s change the design of it.
’ And I got people in and we looked at different designs.
” Some defense experts expressed doubts about Trump ’ s claim to have intervened in the design of the new warship , and Marcus Weisgerber of Defense One said that it wasn ’ t clear what the president was referring to .
The new frigate is reportedly based on the design of an existing warship used by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a smaller scale , Trump told his audience that the defense contractor had given him a “ beautiful model ” of a ship , which he said is “ like a yacht with missiles on it .
”

Visiting the Fincantieri Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin Thursday, President Trump said that the defense company’s procurement of a $5.5 billion contract to build new frigates was based in part on political considerations.
Describing the frigates as the “fastest, most advanced, and most maneuverable combat ships anywhere on the ocean,” Trump added, “I hear the maneuverability is one of the big factors that you were chosen for the contract. The other is your location in Wisconsin, if you want to know the truth.”
Robert Mackey of The Intercept said that Trump’s comments could give competing firms that lost out on the contract grounds to file a complaint with the Government Accountability Office’s Procurement Law Division, charging that the contract was awarded on political grounds.
In a freewheeling, politically charged speech, Trump also took credit for the appearance of new navy ships. “I’ve changed designs,” he said. “I looked at it. I said, ‘That’s a terrible-looking ship. Let’s make it beautiful. It’ll cost you the same and maybe less.’ I said, ‘This is not a good-looking ship. Let’s change the design of it.’ And I got people in and we looked at different designs.”
Some defense experts expressed doubts about Trump’s claim to have intervened in the design of the new warship, and Marcus Weisgerber of Defense One said that it wasn’t clear what the president was referring to. The new frigate is reportedly based on the design of an existing warship used by the Italian Navy.
More concretely and on a smaller scale, Trump told his audience that the defense contractor had given him a “beautiful model” of a ship, which he said is “like a yacht with missiles on it.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-26--Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court to End Obamacare

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act in a legal brief filed by the Justice Department late Thursday .
The 82-page brief reiterates the administration ’ s support for a suit filed by Republican officials in Texas and 17 other states that claims that the ACA became invalid in its entirety when the individual mandate – the tax penalty for not purchasing health insurance – was zeroed out by Congress in 2017 .
“ The entire ACA thus must fall with the individual mandate , ” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a midnight deadline .
“ The individual mandate is no longer a valid exercise of Congress ’ s legislative authority in light of Congress ’ s elimination of the penalty for noncompliance.
” A political gamble .
Although the Trump administration ’ s decision to stick to its guns on Obamacare repeal may please conservatives who have vehemently opposed the health law since its passage in 2010 , success could be costly .
If the court agrees with the suit and invalidates the ACA , it could cost more than 20 million Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular protections for those with pre-existing conditions , while sowing chaos in parts of the health care market that have been affected by the law .
All that would occur in the middle of a pandemic that has already killed more than 120,000 people and caused a severe recession that has stripped millions of their employer-based health insurance .
The White House said that the coronavirus played no role in its stance on the issue .
“ A global pandemic does not change what Americans know — Obamacare has been an unlawful failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Critics pounce .
Democrats were quick to highlight the tension between the growing health crisis and the administration ’ s effort to eliminate health care for millions of people .
“ President Trump and the Republicans ’ campaign to rip away the protections and benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the coronavirus crisis is an act of unfathomable cruelty , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement .
Even some Republicans think the approach is misguided , given the context .
GOP strategist Joel White told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ pretty dumb to be talking about how we need to repeal Obamacare in the middle of a pandemic.
” More reliance on the ACA markets .
A report Thursday from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows that hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed Americans have already turned to Obamacare for health coverage .
About 487,000 people signed up for coverage during a special enrollment period after losing their jobs in 2020 , an increase of 46 % compared to 2019 .
April was the biggest month for new signups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 than the year before .
What ’ s next .
The court hasn ’ t said when it will hear the case , but oral arguments could take place in the fall , ahead of the election .

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act in a legal brief filed by the Justice Department late Thursday.
The 82-page brief reiterates the administration’s support for a suit filed by Republican officials in Texas and 17 other states that claims that the ACA became invalid in its entirety when the individual mandate – the tax penalty for not purchasing health insurance – was zeroed out by Congress in 2017.
“The entire ACA thus must fall with the individual mandate,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in the brief, which was filed shortly before a midnight deadline. “The individual mandate is no longer a valid exercise of Congress’s legislative authority in light of Congress’s elimination of the penalty for noncompliance.”
A political gamble. Although the Trump administration’s decision to stick to its guns on Obamacare repeal may please conservatives who have vehemently opposed the health law since its passage in 2010, success could be costly. If the court agrees with the suit and invalidates the ACA, it could cost more than 20 million Americans their health care coverage and eliminate broadly popular protections for those with pre-existing conditions, while sowing chaos in parts of the health care market that have been affected by the law. All that would occur in the middle of a pandemic that has already killed more than 120,000 people and caused a severe recession that has stripped millions of their employer-based health insurance.
The White House said that the coronavirus played no role in its stance on the issue. “A global pandemic does not change what Americans know — Obamacare has been an unlawful failure,” spokesperson Judd Deere said Friday.
Critics pounce. Democrats were quick to highlight the tension between the growing health crisis and the administration’s effort to eliminate health care for millions of people. “President Trump and the Republicans’ campaign to rip away the protections and benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the coronavirus crisis is an act of unfathomable cruelty,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.
Even some Republicans think the approach is misguided, given the context. GOP strategist Joel White told The New York Times that it’s “pretty dumb to be talking about how we need to repeal Obamacare in the middle of a pandemic.”
More reliance on the ACA markets. A report Thursday from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services shows that hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed Americans have already turned to Obamacare for health coverage. About 487,000 people signed up for coverage during a special enrollment period after losing their jobs in 2020, an increase of 46% compared to 2019. April was the biggest month for new signups, which were 139% higher in 2020 than the year before.
What’s next. The court hasn’t said when it will hear the case, but oral arguments could take place in the fall, ahead of the election.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-26--Partisan Split on Coronavirus Threat Is Widening: Poll

The stark and widening partisan split in perceptions of the coronavirus pandemic is both astonishing and sadly predictable at this point .
A new national survey released Thursday by the Pew Research Center finds that 61 % of Republicans say that “ the worst is behind us ” when it comes to the virus , while 38 % believe “ the worst is still to come.
” Just 23 % of Democrats say we ’ re past the worst of the pandemic , while 76 % say the worst is still ahead .
The Republican optimism likely reflects the messaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who continue to try to put a positive spin on progress against the virus , even as case counts surge in the South and West , state health departments report record numbers of new infections and several states pause their reopening plans .
“ We did slow the spread .
We did flatten the curve .
We ’ re in a much better place , ” Vice President Mike Pence said Friday in the first White House coronavirus task force briefing in nearly two months .
The partisan divide extends to views about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pew finds : “ Republicans are now much less likely to say an additional stimulus package is necessary than they were in early April , while Democrats continue to overwhelmingly say more economic assistance is needed.
” Overall , 71 % of Americans say another coronavirus relief package is needed , down from 77 % in April .
“ Notably , ” Pew says , “ the decrease has come entirely among Republicans , who are now divided over the need for more economic stimulus ( 51 % say it will be necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be needed ) .
In April , two-thirds of Republicans ( 66 % ) said an additional stimulus would be needed .
Democrats continue to be overwhelmingly supportive of additional economic stimulus ( 87 % say it will be needed , unchanged from April ) .
” The survey also finds that , while just 25 % of Americans say the economy is in excellent or good shape , Republicans are about five times more likely than Democrats to say it is doing well ( 46 % vs. 9 % ) .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , renters and businesses weather the financial fallout of the virus ; • 76 % favor sending more financial aid to state and local governments , though there ’ s a partisan split on this issue , with 91 % of Democrats supporting the idea compared to 58 % of Republicans ; • 60 % favor extending the $ 600 in additional federal unemployment benefits beyond the end of July 31 , with Democrats ( 775 ) far more likely to support the idea than Republicans ( 39 % ) ; The Pew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adults .
It has an overall margin of sampling error of 1.8 percentage points .
Read more at the Pew Research Center .

The stark and widening partisan split in perceptions of the coronavirus pandemic is both astonishing and sadly predictable at this point.
A new national survey released Thursday by the Pew Research Center finds that 61% of Republicans say that “the worst is behind us” when it comes to the virus, while 38% believe “the worst is still to come.” Just 23% of Democrats say we’re past the worst of the pandemic, while 76% say the worst is still ahead.
The Republican optimism likely reflects the messaging of President Trump and his administration, who continue to try to put a positive spin on progress against the virus, even as case counts surge in the South and West, state health departments report record numbers of new infections and several states pause their reopening plans. “We did slow the spread. We did flatten the curve. We’re in a much better place,” Vice President Mike Pence said Friday in the first White House coronavirus task force briefing in nearly two months.
The partisan divide extends to views about how to respond to the virus, Pew finds: “Republicans are now much less likely to say an additional stimulus package is necessary than they were in early April, while Democrats continue to overwhelmingly say more economic assistance is needed.”
Overall, 71% of Americans say another coronavirus relief package is needed, down from 77% in April. “Notably,” Pew says, “the decrease has come entirely among Republicans, who are now divided over the need for more economic stimulus (51% say it will be necessary, 47% say it will not be needed). In April, two-thirds of Republicans (66%) said an additional stimulus would be needed. Democrats continue to be overwhelmingly supportive of additional economic stimulus (87% say it will be needed, unchanged from April).”
The survey also finds that, while just 25% of Americans say the economy is in excellent or good shape, Republicans are about five times more likely than Democrats to say it is doing well (46% vs. 9%).
As for specific aid measures:
88% of Americans support helping homeowners, renters and businesses weather the financial fallout of the virus;
76% favor sending more financial aid to state and local governments, though there’s a partisan split on this issue, with 91% of Democrats supporting the idea compared to 58% of Republicans;
60% favor extending the $600 in additional federal unemployment benefits beyond the end of July 31, with Democrats (775) far more likely to support the idea than Republicans (39%);
53% support a temporary cut in payroll taxes.
The Pew survey was conducted June 16-22 among 4,708 adults. It has an overall margin of sampling error of 1.8 percentage points.
Read more at the Pew Research Center.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-26--The $600 Unemployment Boost Is Working – for Now

New data released by the Commerce Department on Friday highlight how the $ 600 a week in enhanced unemployment benefits provided as part of the government ’ s coronavirus response have helped offset lost wages and stabilize personal incomes during the pandemic .
“ Compensation of employees , a measure which includes wage and salary disbursements as well as employer benefits , fell 8.3 % in the three months through May , according to monthly Commerce Department figures on personal income and spending .
But compensation of employees , plus government unemployment-insurance benefits , rose 2.3 % over the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payouts last month.
” Personal income fell by 4.2 % in May , the most since 2013 , after soaring 10.8 % the month before as the government sent out millions of $ 1,200 coronavirus relief payments and unemployment benefits helped cushion the damage from pandemic shutdowns .
But while overall income fell , personal income from unemployment insurance rose to nearly $ 1.3 trillion in May , up $ 825.3 billion from April , and the $ 600 federal boost to benefits made up $ 691.9 billion of the increase , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment benefits to gig workers and other not typically eligible for benefits accounted for $ 101.5 billion .
Those benefits likely helped fuel a record rebound in consumer spending last month , though Americans also dipped into their savings , which decreased by $ 1.9 trillion .
Spending rose by 8.2 % in May after record drops of 6.6 % in March and 12.6 % in April .
It remains 11 % below pre-pandemic levels .
The fiscal cliff ahead : The question is whether the rebound in consumer spending will be sustainable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and expectations that incomes will fall if the $ 600 in weekly benefits expires as scheduled next month and millions of people see their unemployment checks cut sharply .
Economists worry that consumer spending and the economic recovery could take a hit if government support efforts are removed and millions of people lose their unemployment checks or see them sharply reduced .
“ Economists estimate that some 26 million people , two-thirds of whom do not qualify for the regular 26-week state unemployment insurance benefits , would be left without income , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debating whether and how to provide additional support to workers who have lost their jobs .
Many economists say the government will need to do more to avoid more widespread economic pain in August .
`` It is clear that the major force in keeping things from falling apart is the enhanced unemployment compensation , '' Joel Naroff , chief economist at Naroff Economics in Holland , Pennsylvania , told Reuters .
`` Without action , income could crater in August and spending will follow . ''

New data released by the Commerce Department on Friday highlight how the $600 a week in enhanced unemployment benefits provided as part of the government’s coronavirus response have helped offset lost wages and stabilize personal incomes during the pandemic.
Bloomberg News’s Matthew Boesler reports:
“Compensation of employees, a measure which includes wage and salary disbursements as well as employer benefits, fell 8.3% in the three months through May, according to monthly Commerce Department figures on personal income and spending. But compensation of employees, plus government unemployment-insurance benefits, rose 2.3% over the same period, thanks to a surge in payouts last month.”
Personal income fell by 4.2% in May, the most since 2013, after soaring 10.8% the month before as the government sent out millions of $1,200 coronavirus relief payments and unemployment benefits helped cushion the damage from pandemic shutdowns. But while overall income fell, personal income from unemployment insurance rose to nearly $1.3 trillion in May, up $825.3 billion from April, and the $600 federal boost to benefits made up $691.9 billion of the increase, according to Bloomberg. A federal expansion of unemployment benefits to gig workers and other not typically eligible for benefits accounted for $101.5 billion.
Those benefits likely helped fuel a record rebound in consumer spending last month, though Americans also dipped into their savings, which decreased by $1.9 trillion. Spending rose by 8.2% in May after record drops of 6.6% in March and 12.6% in April. It remains 11% below pre-pandemic levels.
The fiscal cliff ahead: The question is whether the rebound in consumer spending will be sustainable, given the surge in coronavirus cases and expectations that incomes will fall if the $600 in weekly benefits expires as scheduled next month and millions of people see their unemployment checks cut sharply. Economists worry that consumer spending and the economic recovery could take a hit if government support efforts are removed and millions of people lose their unemployment checks or see them sharply reduced.
“Economists estimate that some 26 million people, two-thirds of whom do not qualify for the regular 26-week state unemployment insurance benefits, would be left without income,” Reuters Lucia Mutikani reports.
Lawmakers are debating whether and how to provide additional support to workers who have lost their jobs. Many economists say the government will need to do more to avoid more widespread economic pain in August. "It is clear that the major force in keeping things from falling apart is the enhanced unemployment compensation," Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economics in Holland, Pennsylvania, told Reuters. "Without action, income could crater in August and spending will follow."


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-30--Military Contractors Hide the True Cost of War: Report

Since the 9/11 terror attacks , the Pentagon has relied on private contractors to handle a huge array of tasks , ranging from laundry and dining services to transportation and security at military bases overseas .
Conservative think tanks and some lawmakers have long encouraged the arrangement , touting the efficiency and cost-savings theoretically associated with private enterprise , but critics have charged that military contractors are models of waste and bloat .
A new study from the Costs of War project at Brown University comes down firmly in the latter camp , arguing that contractors in what it calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a surge in spending , while systematically hiding the true costs of the nation ’ s war-fighting efforts .
According to the report from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown , more than half of last year ’ s defense budget was spent on contractors .
The $ 370 billion total in 2019 rivals the peak level seen at the height of the “ Global War on Terror ” in 2008 , when the Pentagon spent about $ 380 billion .
And annual spending on contractors is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2001 , before the 9/11 attacks .
Those contracts pay for services and personnel that cost more than they would if the Department of Defense simply did them itself , the report claims , due in large part to a lack of competition .
Nearly half of all Pentagon contracts were classified as “ non-competitive ” in 2019 , the report says , and even some supposedly competitive contracts were written on a “ cost-type ” basis , which provides no incentives to keep costs low .
“ Between 2008 and 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) spent over $ 1.2 trillion on such cost-type contracts , none of which were subject to the cost-reducing pressures of private markets , ” the report says .
“ Other contracts include lifetime service agreements and sole-supplier contracts , which effectively create monopolies.
” The use of contractors also helps hide the full human cost of the war .
There were 35,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East in 2019 , but also 52,000 contractors -- and together those figures produce a higher total than is oftentimes discussed in the media .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ died in Afghanistan since 2001 , but 8,000 contractors have died as well , more than doubling the gruesome tally .
“ By hiding the full human cost , military contracting makes war more politically acceptable and less publicly opposed , ” the report says .
For more details , see the Watson Institute report here , and an analysis by The Washington Post here .

Since the 9/11 terror attacks, the Pentagon has relied on private contractors to handle a huge array of tasks, ranging from laundry and dining services to transportation and security at military bases overseas. Conservative think tanks and some lawmakers have long encouraged the arrangement, touting the efficiency and cost-savings theoretically associated with private enterprise, but critics have charged that military contractors are models of waste and bloat. A new study from the Costs of War project at Brown University comes down firmly in the latter camp, arguing that contractors in what it calls the “camo economy” have led to a surge in spending, while systematically hiding the true costs of the nation’s war-fighting efforts.
According to the report from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown, more than half of last year’s defense budget was spent on contractors. The $370 billion total in 2019 rivals the peak level seen at the height of the “Global War on Terror” in 2008, when the Pentagon spent about $380 billion. And annual spending on contractors is more than twice as high as it was in 2001, before the 9/11 attacks.
Those contracts pay for services and personnel that cost more than they would if the Department of Defense simply did them itself, the report claims, due in large part to a lack of competition. Nearly half of all Pentagon contracts were classified as “non-competitive” in 2019, the report says, and even some supposedly competitive contracts were written on a “cost-type” basis, which provides no incentives to keep costs low.
“Between 2008 and 2019, the Department of Defense (DoD) spent over $1.2 trillion on such cost-type contracts, none of which were subject to the cost-reducing pressures of private markets,” the report says. “Other contracts include lifetime service agreements and sole-supplier contracts, which effectively create monopolies.”
The use of contractors also helps hide the full human cost of the war. There were 35,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East in 2019, but also 52,000 contractors -- and together those figures produce a higher total than is oftentimes discussed in the media. Similarly, about 7,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2001, but 8,000 contractors have died as well, more than doubling the gruesome tally. “By hiding the full human cost, military contracting makes war more politically acceptable and less publicly opposed,” the report says.
For more details, see the Watson Institute report here, and an analysis by The Washington Post here.


thefiscaltimes--2020-06-30--Unemployment Payments Top $100 Billion in June

With one day in the month to go , the U.S. Treasury Department has paid out $ 108.5 billion in @ @ @ @ @ June — the most so far during the coronavirus crisis , according to Bloomberg News @ @ @ @ @ month , from $ 4.2 billion in March to $ 48.4 billion in April and @ @ @ @ @ .
Even so , payments are still falling short of the estimated total cost of @ @ @ @ @ analysis by Bloomberg , due to an enormous backlog that is still being cleared up @ @ @ @ @ some dating back to the beginning of the crisis .
The $ 600 per week @ @ @ @ @ makes up a substantial chunk of the payments , and if Congress allows that temporary @ @ @ @ @ end of July , the Treasury ’ s monthly outlay for could start shrinking .
@ @ @ @ @ , however , the monthly tally could continue to grow into the fall .

With one day in the month to go, the U.S. Treasury Department has paid out $108.5 billion in unemployment benefits so far in June — the most so far during the coronavirus crisis, according to Bloomberg News.
Payments have risen every month, from $4.2 billion in March to $48.4 billion in April and $93.7 billion in May. Even so, payments are still falling short of the estimated total cost of claims, according to an analysis by Bloomberg, due to an enormous backlog that is still being cleared up by state unemployment offices, some dating back to the beginning of the crisis.
The $600 per week federal boost to unemployment benefits makes up a substantial chunk of the payments, and if Congress allows that temporary enhancement to expire at the end of July, the Treasury’s monthly outlay for could start shrinking. If the benefit is renewed, however, the monthly tally could continue to grow into the fall.