Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump calls on Congress to pull back $15 billion in spending, including on CHIP
#1
Hey, gotta pay for those tax cuts for their buddies somehow.

I mean once the kids are born who cares about 'em?  Right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-calls-on-congress-to-pull-back-15-billion-in-spending-including-on-childrens-health-insurance-program/2018/05/07/9427de18-5216-11e8-a551-5b648abe29ef_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2e6f479f73bf

Quote:President Trump is sending a plan to Congress that calls for stripping more than $15 billion in previously approved spending, with the hope that it will temper conservative angst over ballooning budget deficits.

Almost half of the proposed cuts would come from two accounts within the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that White House officials said expired last year or are not expected to be drawn upon. An additional $800 million in cuts would come from money created by the Affordable Care Act in 2010 to test innovative payment and service delivery models.

Those are just a handful of the more than 30 programs the White House is proposing to Congress for “rescission,” a process of culling back money that was previously authorized. Once the White House sends the request to Congress, lawmakers have 45 days to vote on the plan or a scaled-back version of it through a simple majority vote.


If approved by Congress, the reductions would represent less than 0.4 percent of total government spending this year.


Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) said in an interview that conservatives were given assurances from the White House that this package would be the first of several, and he said lawmakers were anxious to get started on the cuts. “I hope it’s never painted that this is just symbolic or a political gesture,” Walker said. “We think it’s very legitimate.”

A senior administration official said Democrats should recognize that much of this package represents untapped accounts and that cutting the money would create savings without affecting operations.

 
[Trump’s spending cut is about 1 percent as large as his tax cut]

Democrats have said they are watching the process with skepticism. Many Democrats have called for expanding programs such as CHIP, not cutting them, and they are often fiercely protective of anything related to the Affordable Care Act.


“Let’s be honest about what this is: President Trump and Republicans in Congress are looking to tear apart the bipartisan [CHIP], hurting middle-class families and low-income children, to appease the most conservative special interests and feel better about blowing up the deficit to give the wealthiest few and biggest corporations huge tax breaks,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday.


White House officials insisted that the CHIP cuts would not affect access to health care, but they have already appeared to serve as a rallying cry for Democrats to mobilize opposition.

The package ran into trouble in the Senate before being officially released.


“One of the programs that reportedly is going to be cut is SCHIP, and that concerns me greatly,” said Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine), using the program’s former name. “I would have to have an awfully good reason given to me, and maybe there is one. I don’t know why there would be funds left in the SCHIP account, but that’s a program that I was an original co-sponsor of with Sens. [Orrin] Hatch and [Edward] Kennedy years ago and it matters a lot to me.”


Republicans have a very thin majority in the Senate and would probably need near-unanimous support from their caucus to pass the bill.


White House officials and GOP leaders said the package of proposed cuts could begin to signal to conservatives that they are now taking steps to reverse a free-spending fiscal approach they have embraced since Trump took office.


[Trump signs $1.3 trillion spending bill despite veto threat on Twitter]

Conservatives erupted in March after Trump signed a $1.3 trillion spending package that included a number of budget requests from Democrats, and they pushed for a rescission package to pare it back between $30 billion and $60 billion.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and others argued that that would amount to going back on a bipartisan deal.


The money the White House is proposing to cut in its new request has all been appropriated at least one year ago, and the plan would not touch the $1.3 trillion spending bill Trump signed in March. The White House is working on other proposed spending reduction packages that would try to claw back some of that money, the senior administration official said, and those proposals will come later this year. All told, officials are eyeing $25 billion in cuts.


The budget strategy for both parties is uncertain heading into the November midterm elections.


Republicans must agree to a new spending deal with Democrats by Sept. 30 to avoid triggering a government shutdown, something Trump said last week he would embrace if he does not get additional money to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.


Congress can “rescind” money it has previously authorized if it secures a majority of votes in the House and then the Senate using powers under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

The law has not been used in that way in roughly 20 years. The senior administration official said this is the biggest rescission request that has ever been sent to Congress.


The proposed cuts to CHIP would come in part from cutting $5 billion from the Children’s Health Insurance Fund, to help reimburse states for certain expenses. But the White House said the ability to use this money expired in September, meaning it can’t be legally used, even as it remains on the government’s balance sheet.


CHIP is a program created and reauthorized by Congress that provides health care to low-income children. Congress extended the program for six years several months ago.

The White House’s other proposed cut to CHIP is a $2 billion reduction would pare back the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, meant to ensure states have access to funds if there is a higher-than-expected enrollment, the senior administration official said. States are not expecting to see a jump in enrollment, though, in part because the economy is improving.


White House officials say these reductions could get bipartisan support because Democrats and Republicans supported cuts to the same accounts several months ago.


Other reductions would come from a range of areas. They include cutting $133 million for a railroad unemployment program that expired in 2012, the administration official said.


Successfully pushing these changes through Congress could placate conservatives and put Democrats on the spot about cutting spending. A number of Senate Democrats are running for reelection in states Trump won easily in 2016, and they will probably need support from Trump voters to win reelection.


Republicans control a large majority of votes in the House, but their margin in the Senate is razor thin. They might need support from Democrats to approve the spending cuts, depending on the health of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).


White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney had originally hoped to design a large rescission package, but he was urged by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to start with a narrower set of cuts and then follow up with more requests in a future package.


The March spending bill led to such outrage among Republicans that just hours before signing it into law, Trump said in a Twitter post that he might veto it. He backed down and said the spending agreement was a necessary compromise to secure more money for the Pentagon, but he vowed to never sign a bill like it again.


“After that last spending bill, we owe an apology to drunken sailors,” Walker said.


Walker is chairman of the Republican Study Committee, which represents a majority of the Republican Party.
He said the committee will host Mulvaney next week to discuss the proposed cuts and the path forward.


Trump has demanded that Congress give him the power to use a “line-item veto” on spending bills, which would mean he could simply eliminate any part of a spending package he did not want. Such as veto was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.


In his first 14 months in office, Trump has never enforced a veto threat on spending, and Democrats have repeatedly found ways to win spending priorities by holding out during negotiations.


Through a combination of spending increases and tax cuts, the White House and the GOP-led Congress have greatly expanded the budget deficit since Trump was elected.


The government spent $3.98 trillion and brought in $3.32 trillion in revenue last year, leaving a deficit of $665 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The deficit this year is projected to widen to $804 billion and then hit $981 billion in 2019. In 2020, the government will record deficits that exceed $1 trillion annually unless changes are made.


With rising interest rates, higher debt levels can prove incredibly costly. Republicans railed about government spending during the Obama administration, but they have been torn since Trump took office, as he has largely shown an indifference to spending restraint.


Last week, as aides prepared the package of spending cuts to offer Congress, Trump was demanding more spending, for example, to build a wall along the Mexico border.

Luckily they can cut from social net programs so Trump can have his military parade and wall.  Gotta focus on making america great again even if middle class and poor americans are the only ones paying for it.  Whatever
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#2
Quick question, CHIP was that program initially tied to the first shutdown avoidance bill, right?
Where the republicans came out and said, this is about children, what monsters wouldn't approve that bill?
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#3
(05-09-2018, 01:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: Quick question, CHIP was that program initially tied to the first shutdown avoidance bill, right?
Where the republicans came out and said, this is about children, what monsters wouldn't approve that bill?

winner winner

chicken dinner

then when the shutdown was still going on, Mitch blocked a bill letting the military keep getting paid no matter how long the shutdown lasted

just more proof the right should be labeled pro-fetus instead of pro life (since they dont care once its born)
People suck
#4
Not like this wasn’t predicted....by everyone with a functioning brain.

Step 1: Cut revenue
Step 2: Complain deficit is too high
Step 3: Make cuts to any program that helps the poor and powerless, because they don’t make large campaign donations
#5
(05-09-2018, 02:07 PM)Griever Wrote: winner winner

chicken dinner

then when the shutdown was still going on, Mitch blocked a bill letting the military keep getting paid no matter how long the shutdown lasted

just more proof the right should be labeled pro-fetus instead of pro life (since they dont care once its born)

Can I have the fish? This is more fishy than chicken, after all.

As for the labeling pro-fetus, that particular point I never got. And the reason is that I feel the republican side makes no secret about the unborn having "potential" to achieve something. Once they're born and can't achieve something, well, that's the survival of the fittest scheme that is part of these policies. I don't say that to slam republicans, I just think that's what they are advocating completely openly. It's about winners and losers and potential winners, while losers don't matter that much. American way and all.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#6
I'm all for cutting the safety nets for our nation's weakest members because handouts and free healthcare for the poor and children would be the first step towards being a Christian nation, and who wants that?
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#7
(05-09-2018, 01:59 PM)hollodero Wrote: Quick question, CHIP was that program initially tied to the first shutdown avoidance bill, right?
Where the republicans came out and said, this is about children, what monsters wouldn't approve that bill?

This was part of the Daca/wall/immigration/shutdown deal.

They offered to fund it for 5 years. Dems rejected. It obviously isn’t a priority for them so why not just cut it. They can always add it back when it becomes a priority for the dems again. If it ever does....
#8
(05-09-2018, 03:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They offered to fund it for 5 years.  Dems rejected.  It obviously isn’t a priority for them so why not just cut it. 

They did not reject the funding of CHIP.  They rejected the other terms of the agreement like wasting billions on a wall that will not accomplish anything.

The Republicans are holding health care for children in order to make ransom demands.

It is despicable. 
#9
(05-09-2018, 04:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They did not reject the funding of CHIP.  They rejected the other terms of the agreement like wasting billions on a wall that will not accomplish anything.

The Republicans are holding health care for children in order to make ransom demands.

It is despicable. 

Still doesn’t change the fact they rejected it.

When the democrats decide it’s important they can call ryan and pass the package. They Can help out daca as well, get chip, also strengthen the immigration policy ....(no chain migration, point system, and a wall).

Win-win-win for all. This should be any easy bipartisan pass.
#10
(05-09-2018, 04:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They did not reject the funding of CHIP.  They rejected the other terms of the agreement like wasting billions on a wall that will not accomplish anything.

The Republicans are holding health care for children in order to make ransom demands.

It is despicable. 

Actually the 2 go hand in hand.
Remember illegals having babies on US Soil. I guess they are all wealthy parents and not the ones on CHIP right??
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#11
(05-09-2018, 06:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Still doesn’t change the fact they rejected it.

When the democrats decide it’s important they can call ryan and pass the package. They Can help out daca as well, get chip, also strengthen the immigration policy ....(no chain migration, point system, and a wall).

Win-win-win for all. This should be any easy bipartisan pass.

Why not vote on each issue as a standalone bill instead of trying to package them together and play political games with the lives of the people?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
#12
(05-09-2018, 07:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why not vote on each issue as a standalone bill instead of trying to package them together and play political games with the lives of the people?

Where were you during the Obamacare debate lol. Or any of these omnibus spending bills.

I’m all for voting individually. But it seems you guys only want to do so when it’s a gop policy. Besides these are all related to Immigration anyway.
#13
(05-09-2018, 07:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Where were you during the Obamacare debate lol. Or any of these omnibus spending bills.

I’m all for voting individually. But it seems you guys only want to do so when it’s a gop policy. Besides these are all related to Immigration anyway.

I was against the ACA overall, but I have always been against this sort of thing. I'm also against omnibus spending bills, opting instead for actual budgets and normal order appropriations bills. This is one of those holder things from when I was more of a libertarian, but that was during the ACA days, so there is that.

As for them all being related, I can literally tie any policy issue to another issue. Every single one. I can tie Interior to Defense. That doesn't mean these things that can tangentially be related should be tied together in this way. It's political gamesmanship that puts the lives of citizens at risk.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
#14
(05-09-2018, 07:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was against the ACA overall, but I have always been against this sort of thing. I'm also against omnibus spending bills, opting instead for actual budgets and normal order appropriations bills. This is one of those holder things from when I was more of a libertarian, but that was during the ACA days, so there is that.

As for them all being related, I can literally tie any policy issue to another issue. Every single one. I can tie Interior to Defense. That doesn't mean these things that can tangentially be related should be tied together in this way. It's political gamesmanship that puts the lives of citizens at risk.

No ones life is at risk over chip.
#15
(05-09-2018, 08:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No ones life is at risk over chip.

You're wrong.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
#16
(05-09-2018, 08:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're wrong.

None of these gov policies are that Important. The chip People won’t die without it
#17
(05-09-2018, 08:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: None of these gov policies are that Important. The chip People won’t die without it

It must be nice to be so blissfully ignorant.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
#18
(05-09-2018, 08:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It must be nice to be so blissfully ignorant.

Who will die if we lose the chip program?
#19
(05-09-2018, 08:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Who will die if we lose the chip program?

I'm being as nice as I can be when I ask this

Do you know what the CHIP program is??
People suck
#20
(05-09-2018, 10:25 PM)Griever Wrote: I'm being as nice as I can be when I ask this

Do you know what the CHIP program is??

Ofc. My point is that it’s not the only thing between poor children and death.

It’s a good program, but none of this stuff is necessary. I support the program, it’s a shame the democrats didn’t when they had a chance to fund it for five years.





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)