ReportWire

Tag: Government Shutdown

  • A look at what happened in the US government this week

    [ad_1]

    A look at what happened in the US government this week

    A MAJOR MEETING ABOUT VACCINES IN THE US. ADVISERS FOR THE CDC VOTING TO CHANGE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ONE CHILDHOOD VACCINE AND POSTPONE A VOTE ABOUT ANOTHER. JOINING US NOW, DOCTOR SCOTT HADLAND, CHIEF OF ADOLESCENT MEDICINE AT MASS. GENERAL BRIGHAM FOR CHILDREN. DOCTOR HADLAND, THANKS FOR JOINING. JOINING US. THANKS FOR HAVING ME. DOCTOR, LET’S START WITH THE SHOTS THAT PROTECT CHILDREN FROM MEASLES, MUMPS, RUBELLA AND CHICKENPOX. I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE. I’M GUESSING YOU CAN JOIN THIS GROUP. WE ALL HAD CHICKEN POX AS A KID. KIDS DON’T GET IT TODAY BECAUSE OF THIS VACCINE. SO WHAT DOES THIS PANEL WANT DOCTORS TO DO DIFFERENTLY? WELL THAT’S RIGHT. SO YOU KNOW, THE MEASLES, MUMPS AND RUBELLA OR MMR VACCINE IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME AND IS VERY COMMONLY USED. THERE’S ALSO THE CHICKENPOX VACCINE OR THE VARICELLA VACCINE THAT HAS ALSO BEEN AROUND FOR MANY YEARS, IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. AND RECOGNIZING THAT SOME PARENTS WANTED TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF VACCINES THAT A CHILD GETS AT THE SAME TIME. SO RATHER THAN GETTING, SAY, TWO SHOTS, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THERE IS HAS BEEN THIS FORMULATION CALLED THE MMR VACCINE, WHICH IS A COMBINATION OF ALL OF THESE VACCINES, VACCINES TOGETHER. AND SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT THE CDC HAS VOTED NOW TO ELIMINATE THIS SHOT, TO MAKE THIS SHOT NO LONGER ONE THAT IS RECOMMENDED UNDER THE AGE OF FOUR. THESE VACCINES, MMR AND THE VARICELLA VACCINE SEPARATE ARE VERY SAFE. AND ACTUALLY WHAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHILDREN IN THIS COUNTRY RECEIVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE. BUT I WORRY, BECAUSE THIS PANEL’S RECOMMENDATION AND THE CHANGING MIGHT LEAVE SOME FAMILIES TO BELIEVE THAT THESE VACCINES SEPARATELY ARE NOT SAFE, WHEN VERY MUCH THEY ARE. THEY’RE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. SO IT MUDDIES THE WATERS. YEAH. THAT’S RIGHT. WELL, IT CONFUSES IT CONFUSES PEOPLE. YOU’RE SAYING. SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION. WHAT HAPPENS FROM HERE. RIGHT. SO THIS COMES FROM A BRAND NEW VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT’S BEEN ASSEMBLED AT THE CDC. THAT ACTUALLY INCLUDES MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS. SOME HAVE SORT OF STATED THAT NUMEROUS OF THEM ARE MORE SKEPTICAL OF VACCINES THAN THE PREVIOUS PANEL THAT EXISTED. THIS PANEL’S RECOMMENDATION IS NOW GOING TO GO TO THE NEW ACTING CDC DIRECTOR, JIM O’NEILL, FOR APPROVAL. RECALL THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENT DIRECTOR OF THE CDC, DOCTOR SUSAN MENORAHS, WHO WAS IN THE POSITION FOR LESS THAN A MONTH AND WAS RECENTLY REMOVED FROM THAT POSITION. ALL RIGHT, DOCTOR HADLAND, AS YOU KNOW, GOVERNOR MAURA HEALEY HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS HAS SAID THIS STATE AND MANY OTHER STATES IN NEW ENGLAND AND THE NORTHEAST WILL MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT VACCINE POLICY. SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT WHATEVER THE CDC DECIDES HERE, IT WON’T ACTUALLY MATTER? AS A PRACTICAL MATTER ON THE GROUND IN MASSACHUSETTS? RIGHT. YEAH. SO THE ISSUE IS THAT THE CDC’S RECOMMENDATION IS USUALLY THE ONE THAT INSURERS LISTEN TO. MEANING THAT VACCINES ARE COVERED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY’RE IN LINE WITH THE CDC’S RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SO GOVERNOR HEALEY HAS, I THINK, APPROPRIATELY STEPPED IN AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HERE IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS THAT VACCINES ARE COVERED WHEN FAMILIES WANT THEM, THAT INSURERS NEED TO COVER THE COST OF THESE VACCINES AND ALLOW FAMILIES TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEM. SO IN THAT SENSE, YES, FAMILIES WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO VACCINES. THEY WILL BE COVERED. WHAT IS TRICKY ABOUT THE CURRENT TIME, THOUGH, IS THAT THIS SORT OF CHAOS THAT IS OCCURRING IN THIS REVISITING OF WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SCIENCE AROUND THESE VERY SAFE AND EFFECTIVE VACCINES IS, I THINK, GOING TO LEAVE SOME FAMILIES SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS. AND SO THIS GUIDANCE FROM THE STATE IS GOING TO BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO HELP CLARIFY. ALL RIG

    Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show was suspended after comments about Charlie Kirk. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates. Kirk’s alleged killer appeared in court as new details from the investigation were released. The White House announced that a framework deal has been reached with China to keep TikTok operational in the U.S. The Senate rejected two proposals to avert a shutdown before the Oct. 1 deadline. And a CDC panel made new recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Here are the top stories involving the U.S. government this past week.Kimmel suspended”Jimmy Kimmel Live!” has been suspended indefinitely by ABC, following his comments about Charlie Kirk’s death.The decision came just hours after Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr expressed outrage over the comments, adding, “Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.”President Donald Trump said he supported Kimmel’s suspension and that he would like to see fellow late-night hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers also taken off the air.On Friday, Trump suggested his administration should revoke the licenses of broadcast TV stations that he said are “against” him. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, denounced Carr’s comments prior to Kimmel’s suspension, describing it as “mafioso” and warning that the federal government being involved in policing speech is “unbelievably dangerous.”Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Fallon opened their late-night shows Thursday using a mix of humor and solidarity with Kimmel.Video below: “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” has been suspended indefinitelyFed rate cutThe Federal Reserve reduced interest rates by a quarter of a percent, citing a cooling labor market, with potential implications for credit card, car, and home loan rates.Get the Facts on how the rate cut could impact your wallet.In related news, an appeals court rejected Trump’s bid to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The administration is asking the Supreme Court to review the case.Additionally, the Senate approved one of Trump’s top economic advisers, Stephen Miran, for a seat on the Federal Reserve’s governing board.Video below: Federal Reserve cuts interest rates amid labor market concernsIn other newsTyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk, is being charged with seven counts, including aggravated murder, and could face the death penalty.Robinson appeared in court for the first time since being arrested.Authorities released new text messages from Robinson that seemingly show him confessing to the murder. The White House announced earlier this week that it reached a framework deal with China to keep TikTok operational in the U.S. Trump added on Friday that he talked to China’s leader, Xi Jinping, and that they were working to finalize everything soon.Despite the House passing a GOP-backed funding bill earlier in the day, the Senate on Friday rejected it, as well as a Democratic-backed bill, increasing the odds of a government shutdown on Oct. 1.The CDC’s vaccine advisory committee voted to recommend individual decision-making for COVID vaccinations. The panel also recommended new restrictions on the combination vaccine for chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella, suggesting that children under 4 should receive separate shots for chickenpox and the MMR vaccineFormer CDC Director Susan Monarez, who was recently fired from her role, told lawmakers that she was asked to pre-approve vaccine recommendations without seeing the science first.The military carried out two more fatal strikes this week on boats allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela.FBI Director Kash Patel testified in front of Congress this week, leading to intense clashes with Democrats over his handling of the Kirk investigation and the Jeffrey Epstein files, as well as the reports of general uneasiness at the agency.A federal prosecutor in Virginia whose monthslong mortgage fraud investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James has not resulted in criminal charges resigned Friday under pressure from the Trump administration.Trump signed a proclamation that will require a new, $100,000 annual fee for H-1B visa applications.Trump says he plans to designate antifa as a “major terrorist organization.”Former BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer said firing her was a “dangerous” step for the U.S. economy. Video below: CDC vaccine advisory recommendations

    Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show was suspended after comments about Charlie Kirk. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates. Kirk’s alleged killer appeared in court as new details from the investigation were released. The White House announced that a framework deal has been reached with China to keep TikTok operational in the U.S. The Senate rejected two proposals to avert a shutdown before the Oct. 1 deadline. And a CDC panel made new recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

    Here are the top stories involving the U.S. government this past week.


    Kimmel suspended

    Video below: “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” has been suspended indefinitely

    Fed rate cut

    Video below: Federal Reserve cuts interest rates amid labor market concerns

    In other news

    Video below: CDC vaccine advisory recommendations

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A look at what happened in the US government this week

    [ad_1]

    A look at what happened in the US government this week

    A MAJOR MEETING ABOUT VACCINES IN THE US. ADVISERS FOR THE CDC VOTING TO CHANGE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ONE CHILDHOOD VACCINE AND POSTPONE A VOTE ABOUT ANOTHER. JOINING US NOW, DOCTOR SCOTT HADLAND, CHIEF OF ADOLESCENT MEDICINE AT MASS. GENERAL BRIGHAM FOR CHILDREN. DOCTOR HADLAND, THANKS FOR JOINING. JOINING US. THANKS FOR HAVING ME. DOCTOR, LET’S START WITH THE SHOTS THAT PROTECT CHILDREN FROM MEASLES, MUMPS, RUBELLA AND CHICKENPOX. I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE. I’M GUESSING YOU CAN JOIN THIS GROUP. WE ALL HAD CHICKEN POX AS A KID. KIDS DON’T GET IT TODAY BECAUSE OF THIS VACCINE. SO WHAT DOES THIS PANEL WANT DOCTORS TO DO DIFFERENTLY? WELL THAT’S RIGHT. SO YOU KNOW, THE MEASLES, MUMPS AND RUBELLA OR MMR VACCINE IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME AND IS VERY COMMONLY USED. THERE’S ALSO THE CHICKENPOX VACCINE OR THE VARICELLA VACCINE THAT HAS ALSO BEEN AROUND FOR MANY YEARS, IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. AND RECOGNIZING THAT SOME PARENTS WANTED TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF VACCINES THAT A CHILD GETS AT THE SAME TIME. SO RATHER THAN GETTING, SAY, TWO SHOTS, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THERE IS HAS BEEN THIS FORMULATION CALLED THE MMR VACCINE, WHICH IS A COMBINATION OF ALL OF THESE VACCINES, VACCINES TOGETHER. AND SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT THE CDC HAS VOTED NOW TO ELIMINATE THIS SHOT, TO MAKE THIS SHOT NO LONGER ONE THAT IS RECOMMENDED UNDER THE AGE OF FOUR. THESE VACCINES, MMR AND THE VARICELLA VACCINE SEPARATE ARE VERY SAFE. AND ACTUALLY WHAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHILDREN IN THIS COUNTRY RECEIVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE. BUT I WORRY, BECAUSE THIS PANEL’S RECOMMENDATION AND THE CHANGING MIGHT LEAVE SOME FAMILIES TO BELIEVE THAT THESE VACCINES SEPARATELY ARE NOT SAFE, WHEN VERY MUCH THEY ARE. THEY’RE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. SO IT MUDDIES THE WATERS. YEAH. THAT’S RIGHT. WELL, IT CONFUSES IT CONFUSES PEOPLE. YOU’RE SAYING. SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION. WHAT HAPPENS FROM HERE. RIGHT. SO THIS COMES FROM A BRAND NEW VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT’S BEEN ASSEMBLED AT THE CDC. THAT ACTUALLY INCLUDES MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS. SOME HAVE SORT OF STATED THAT NUMEROUS OF THEM ARE MORE SKEPTICAL OF VACCINES THAN THE PREVIOUS PANEL THAT EXISTED. THIS PANEL’S RECOMMENDATION IS NOW GOING TO GO TO THE NEW ACTING CDC DIRECTOR, JIM O’NEILL, FOR APPROVAL. RECALL THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENT DIRECTOR OF THE CDC, DOCTOR SUSAN MENORAHS, WHO WAS IN THE POSITION FOR LESS THAN A MONTH AND WAS RECENTLY REMOVED FROM THAT POSITION. ALL RIGHT, DOCTOR HADLAND, AS YOU KNOW, GOVERNOR MAURA HEALEY HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS HAS SAID THIS STATE AND MANY OTHER STATES IN NEW ENGLAND AND THE NORTHEAST WILL MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT VACCINE POLICY. SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT WHATEVER THE CDC DECIDES HERE, IT WON’T ACTUALLY MATTER? AS A PRACTICAL MATTER ON THE GROUND IN MASSACHUSETTS? RIGHT. YEAH. SO THE ISSUE IS THAT THE CDC’S RECOMMENDATION IS USUALLY THE ONE THAT INSURERS LISTEN TO. MEANING THAT VACCINES ARE COVERED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY’RE IN LINE WITH THE CDC’S RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SO GOVERNOR HEALEY HAS, I THINK, APPROPRIATELY STEPPED IN AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HERE IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS THAT VACCINES ARE COVERED WHEN FAMILIES WANT THEM, THAT INSURERS NEED TO COVER THE COST OF THESE VACCINES AND ALLOW FAMILIES TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEM. SO IN THAT SENSE, YES, FAMILIES WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO VACCINES. THEY WILL BE COVERED. WHAT IS TRICKY ABOUT THE CURRENT TIME, THOUGH, IS THAT THIS SORT OF CHAOS THAT IS OCCURRING IN THIS REVISITING OF WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SCIENCE AROUND THESE VERY SAFE AND EFFECTIVE VACCINES IS, I THINK, GOING TO LEAVE SOME FAMILIES SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS. AND SO THIS GUIDANCE FROM THE STATE IS GOING TO BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO HELP CLARIFY. ALL RIG

    Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show was suspended after comments about Charlie Kirk. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates. Kirk’s alleged killer appeared in court as new details from the investigation were released. The White House announced that a framework deal has been reached with China to keep TikTok operational in the U.S. The Senate rejected two proposals to avert a shutdown before the Oct. 1 deadline. And a CDC panel made new recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Here are the top stories involving the U.S. government this past week.Kimmel suspended”Jimmy Kimmel Live!” has been suspended indefinitely by ABC, following his comments about Charlie Kirk’s death.The decision came just hours after Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr expressed outrage over the comments, adding, “Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.”President Donald Trump said he supported Kimmel’s suspension and that he would like to see fellow late-night hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers also taken off the air.On Friday, Trump suggested his administration should revoke the licenses of broadcast TV stations that he said are “against” him. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, denounced Carr’s comments prior to Kimmel’s suspension, describing it as “mafioso” and warning that the federal government being involved in policing speech is “unbelievably dangerous.”Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Fallon opened their late-night shows Thursday using a mix of humor and solidarity with Kimmel.Video below: “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” has been suspended indefinitelyFed rate cutThe Federal Reserve reduced interest rates by a quarter of a percent, citing a cooling labor market, with potential implications for credit card, car, and home loan rates.Get the Facts on how the rate cut could impact your wallet.In related news, an appeals court rejected Trump’s bid to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The administration is asking the Supreme Court to review the case.Additionally, the Senate approved one of Trump’s top economic advisers, Stephen Miran, for a seat on the Federal Reserve’s governing board.Video below: Federal Reserve cuts interest rates amid labor market concernsIn other newsTyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk, is being charged with seven counts, including aggravated murder, and could face the death penalty.Robinson appeared in court for the first time since being arrested.Authorities released new text messages from Robinson that seemingly show him confessing to the murder. The White House announced earlier this week that it reached a framework deal with China to keep TikTok operational in the U.S. Trump added on Friday that he talked to China’s leader, Xi Jinping, and that they were working to finalize everything soon.Despite the House passing a GOP-backed funding bill earlier in the day, the Senate on Friday rejected it, as well as a Democratic-backed bill, increasing the odds of a government shutdown on Oct. 1.The CDC’s vaccine advisory committee voted to recommend individual decision-making for COVID vaccinations. The panel also recommended new restrictions on the combination vaccine for chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella, suggesting that children under 4 should receive separate shots for chickenpox and the MMR vaccineFormer CDC Director Susan Monarez, who was recently fired from her role, told lawmakers that she was asked to pre-approve vaccine recommendations without seeing the science first.The military carried out two more fatal strikes this week on boats allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela.FBI Director Kash Patel testified in front of Congress this week, leading to intense clashes with Democrats over his handling of the Kirk investigation and the Jeffrey Epstein files, as well as the reports of general uneasiness at the agency.A federal prosecutor in Virginia whose monthslong mortgage fraud investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James has not resulted in criminal charges resigned Friday under pressure from the Trump administration.Trump signed a proclamation that will require a new, $100,000 annual fee for H-1B visa applications.Trump says he plans to designate antifa as a “major terrorist organization.”Former BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer said firing her was a “dangerous” step for the U.S. economy. Video below: CDC vaccine advisory recommendations

    Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show was suspended after comments about Charlie Kirk. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates. Kirk’s alleged killer appeared in court as new details from the investigation were released. The White House announced that a framework deal has been reached with China to keep TikTok operational in the U.S. The Senate rejected two proposals to avert a shutdown before the Oct. 1 deadline. And a CDC panel made new recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

    Here are the top stories involving the U.S. government this past week.


    Kimmel suspended

    Video below: “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” has been suspended indefinitely

    Fed rate cut

    Video below: Federal Reserve cuts interest rates amid labor market concerns

    In other news

    Video below: CDC vaccine advisory recommendations

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government shutdown looms after GOP funding bill fails in Senate

    [ad_1]

    A Republican measure to keep the government funded until Nov. 21 stumbled in the Senate after clearing the House, leaving lawmakers without a clear path forward to avoid a funding lapse at the end of the month. Caitlin Huey-Burns explains what’s at stake.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • If ACA enhanced subsidies end, would premiums rise 75%?

    [ad_1]

    With federal government funding set to run out Oct. 1 unless Congress passes an extension, Democrats are seeking to leverage government shutdown fears to persuade Republicans to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that would otherwise expire at the end of the year.

    Most Republicans want to pass a “clean” resolution to extend the federal spending deadline; this type of bill would keep the government running at current spending levels and allow added time for more debate about proposed federal spending changes. Some Republicans also oppose the ACA subsidies as too expensive for taxpayers and say they were intended as a pandemic-era policy that has outlived its purpose. Some Republican lawmakers, though, agree that the subsidies should be extended and have worked on crafting legislation to do that. 

    Democrats, who are relatively powerless as the congressional minority, see the moment as an opportunity to attach a key legislative priority — ACA subsidy extension — to must-pass legislation. Democratic lawmakers say the expiration of enhanced subsidies for people who obtain health insurance through Affordable Care Act marketplaces would stick millions of Americans with additional costs.

    House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., the second-highest ranking House Democrat, said in a Sept. 12 X post, “Republicans are spiking health insurance premiums by 75% for everyday Americans” if they don’t extend the enhanced subsidies.

    Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., used the same figure Sept. 9. And AHIP, an insurance industry group, also cited the 75% figure in an article in which it urged passage of subsidy extensions. 

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    The 75% cost increase figure has been cited by KFF, a health care think tank. But it needs more context.

    Clark’s office did not respond to an inquiry.

    What are enhanced subsidies?

    People who use the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces can buy health insurance from providers at various levels of coverage and varying premium costs. Most purchasers obtain subsidies, as long as they meet the income guidelines. 

    In 2021, then-President Joe Biden signed legislation that made Affordable Care Act subsidies more generous, by reducing the maximum amount purchasers would have to pay for premiums and enabling households whose incomes were higher than 400% of the federal poverty level to receive subsidies. Previously, the subsidies were capped at 400% of the poverty limit for a household, which in 2024 was $60,240.

    Congress renewed these enhanced subsidies in 2022 through the end of 2025, so they are now poised to expire.

    The subsidies proved popular; the number of people receiving them increased from 12 million in 2020 to 21.4 million in 2024, according to KFF’s analysis of federal data. About three-quarters of those receiving subsidies in 2024 were households with incomes at 250% or less of the federal poverty level, or about $37,650.

    Where did the 75% figure originate?

    Using 2024 federal data, KFF calculated the average annual premiums for enrollees who received enhanced subsidies. The government paid $5,727 of the total premium under the original Affordable Care Act subsidy rules. Another $888 came from the beneficiary’s pocket.

    The enhanced subsidy provision covered the final portion, $705. If the enhanced subsidy disappeared and the enrollee had to pay both the $888 and the $705 amounts, that would total $1,593. That’s about 79% more than the same person was paying with the enhanced subsidies in place — which is close to the 75% figure that Clark and Murphy cited.

    The Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ nonpartisan number-crunching arm, has projected that a failure to extend the subsidies would increase the uninsured population by 2.2 million in the first year and by an average of 3.8 million each year from 2026 to 2034.

    CBO also projected that if the enhanced subsidies were to expire, premiums would increase by 4.3% in the first year, because of a decline in the number of people who get coverage, leaving fewer enrollees to pick up the costs. Premiums would increase by an annual average of 7.9% from 2026 to 2034.

    There are nuances to note.

    • Enrollees wouldn’t see a 75% increase in “premiums,” as Clark phrased it. Their increase would stem from a combination of premium increases and reduced subsidies. However, for consumers, that distinction would matter little; by KFF’s calculations, they would still be paying 79% more out of pocket, regardless of the reason. 

    • The 79% figure is an average increase; the figure varies by state. Enrollees in Hawaii would have the lowest increase, 49%, while those in Wyoming would have the highest, 195%. There is also substantial variation based on the number of people in a family and their ages.

    Our ruling

    Clark said, “Republicans are spiking health insurance premiums by 75% for everyday Americans” if they don’t extend enhanced ACA subsidies. 

    If the Republican-controlled Congress does not extend Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies before they expire at the end of this year, enrollees would have to pay more.

    KFF analysis of federal data found that the average increase in out-of-pocket coverage cost would be 79%, with state-by-state average increases ranging from 49% to 195%.

    This cost increase would come from a combination of insurance premium increases and the disappearance of subsidies, rather than from “spiking health insurance premiums” alone.

    The statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate it Mostly True.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans unveil a bill to fund the government through Nov. 21. Democrats call it partisan

    [ad_1]

    House Republicans unveiled on Tuesday a stopgap spending bill that would keep federal agencies funded through Nov. 21, daring Democrats to block it knowing that the fallout would likely be a partial government shutdown that would begin Oct. 1, the start of the new budget year.The bill would generally fund agencies at current levels, with a few limited exceptions, including an extra $88 million to boost security for lawmakers and members of the Supreme Court and the executive branch. The proposed boost comes as lawmakers face an increasing number of personal threats, with their concerns heightened by last week’s assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.The House is expected to vote on the measure by Friday. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he would prefer the Senate take it up this week as well. But any bill will need some Democratic support to advance through the Senate, and it’s unclear whether that will happen.Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries have been asking their Republican counterparts for weeks for a meeting to negotiate on the bill, but they say that Republicans have refused. Any bill needs help from at least seven Democrats in the Senate to overcome procedural hurdles and advance to a final vote.The two Democratic leaders issued a joint statement saying that by “refusing to work with Democrats, Republicans are steering our country toward a shutdown.””The House Republican-only spending bill fails to meet the needs of the American people and does nothing to stop the looming healthcare crisis,” Schumer and Jeffries said. “At a time when families are already being squeezed by higher costs, Republicans refuse to stop Americans from facing double-digit hikes in their health insurance premiums.”Republicans say it’s Democrats who are playing politics by insisting on addressing health coverage concerns as part of any government funding bill. In past budget battles, it has been Republicans who’ve been willing to engage in shutdown threats as a way to focus attention on their priority demands. That was the situation during the nation’s longest shutdown, during the winter of 2018-19, when President Donald Trump was insisting on federal funds to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall.This time, however, Democrats are facing intense pressure from their base of supporters to stand up to Trump. They have particularly focused on the potential for skyrocketing health care premiums for millions of Americans if Congress fails to extend enhanced subsidies, which many people use to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchange. Those subsidies were put in place during the COVID crisis, but are set to expire.Some people have already received notices that their premiums — the monthly fee paid for insurance coverage — are poised to spike next year. Insurers have sent out notices in nearly every state, with some proposing premium increases of as much as 50%.Johnson called the debate over health insurance tax credits a December policy issue, not something that needs to be solved in September.”It’ll be a clean, short-term continuing resolution, end of story,” Johnson told reporters. “And it’s interesting to me that some of the same Democrats who decried government shutdowns under President Biden appear to have no heartache whatsoever at walking our nation off that cliff right now. I hope they don’t.”Thune said Republicans are simply providing what Schumer has always requested in the past when Democrats were in the majority — “a clean funding resolution to fund the government.” He said that if the House passes the measure and Trump is prepared to sign it, then “it will be only the Democrat leader that is standing between this country and a government shutdown and all that means.”

    House Republicans unveiled on Tuesday a stopgap spending bill that would keep federal agencies funded through Nov. 21, daring Democrats to block it knowing that the fallout would likely be a partial government shutdown that would begin Oct. 1, the start of the new budget year.

    The bill would generally fund agencies at current levels, with a few limited exceptions, including an extra $88 million to boost security for lawmakers and members of the Supreme Court and the executive branch. The proposed boost comes as lawmakers face an increasing number of personal threats, with their concerns heightened by last week’s assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    The House is expected to vote on the measure by Friday. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he would prefer the Senate take it up this week as well. But any bill will need some Democratic support to advance through the Senate, and it’s unclear whether that will happen.

    Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries have been asking their Republican counterparts for weeks for a meeting to negotiate on the bill, but they say that Republicans have refused. Any bill needs help from at least seven Democrats in the Senate to overcome procedural hurdles and advance to a final vote.

    The two Democratic leaders issued a joint statement saying that by “refusing to work with Democrats, Republicans are steering our country toward a shutdown.”

    “The House Republican-only spending bill fails to meet the needs of the American people and does nothing to stop the looming healthcare crisis,” Schumer and Jeffries said. “At a time when families are already being squeezed by higher costs, Republicans refuse to stop Americans from facing double-digit hikes in their health insurance premiums.”

    Republicans say it’s Democrats who are playing politics by insisting on addressing health coverage concerns as part of any government funding bill. In past budget battles, it has been Republicans who’ve been willing to engage in shutdown threats as a way to focus attention on their priority demands. That was the situation during the nation’s longest shutdown, during the winter of 2018-19, when President Donald Trump was insisting on federal funds to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

    This time, however, Democrats are facing intense pressure from their base of supporters to stand up to Trump. They have particularly focused on the potential for skyrocketing health care premiums for millions of Americans if Congress fails to extend enhanced subsidies, which many people use to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchange. Those subsidies were put in place during the COVID crisis, but are set to expire.

    Some people have already received notices that their premiums — the monthly fee paid for insurance coverage — are poised to spike next year. Insurers have sent out notices in nearly every state, with some proposing premium increases of as much as 50%.

    Johnson called the debate over health insurance tax credits a December policy issue, not something that needs to be solved in September.

    “It’ll be a clean, short-term continuing resolution, end of story,” Johnson told reporters. “And it’s interesting to me that some of the same Democrats who decried government shutdowns under President Biden appear to have no heartache whatsoever at walking our nation off that cliff right now. I hope they don’t.”

    Thune said Republicans are simply providing what Schumer has always requested in the past when Democrats were in the majority — “a clean funding resolution to fund the government.” He said that if the House passes the measure and Trump is prepared to sign it, then “it will be only the Democrat leader that is standing between this country and a government shutdown and all that means.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why a Government Shutdown Really Might Happen This Time

    [ad_1]

    Will things go dark on October 1?
    Photo: Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg/Getty Images

    To a lot of people, the prospect of a government shutdown whenever federal funding is on the brink of being interrupted is like the threat of an apocalyptic earthquake: something often discussed but rarely experienced. Somehow or other, even in a time of vast partisan polarization, the politicians find ways to keep the government operating, in part because no one wants to get blamed for the human suffering and widespread inconveniences associated with a shutdown.

    We’re facing another “shutdown crisis” at the end of this month as the stopgap spending bill enacted in March expires on September 30. And though we’re just a couple of weeks away from the fish-or-cut-bait moment, Republicans and Democrats are not even negotiating over a temporary, much less permanent, resolution. Democrats are acutely aware that a spending bill to keep the government open is their only point of leverage in a Congress where nearly every other kind of business is conducted via special rules that prohibit Senate filibusters. On this and only this occasion, Republicans need Democratic votes. But in a nearly identical situation in March, the GOP offered zero concessions to get those votes, and after lots of empty talk about resistance, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer rounded up enough votes from his party to help Republicans break a brief filibuster and have their way.

    The palpable fury of Democratic activists at Schumer’s “surrender,” and six more months of Trump power grabs with the connivance of the Republican Congress, have made Democrats far more willing to risk blame for a shutdown unless they get real concessions. They seem to have largely agreed on an extension of soon-to-expire Obamacare premium subsidies needed to head off huge insurance-cost spikes for millions of Americans as the minimum trophy they must secure before agreeing to keep the government open. But Republicans, who are divided on the Obamacare subsidies, have adopted the tack of offering (or demanding) a “clean CR,” a simple extension of current government spending levels until November 20, allegedly to give Congress more time to work out individual appropriations bills that will set funding levels for the next year. That means no concessions or even “sweeteners” for Democrats for the time being.

    So the big question now is whether Democrats will go for a short-term “clean CR” on grounds they really haven’t “caved,” they’ve just given themselves more time to put pressure on the people running the country. But for the moment, the two parties in Congress are talking past each other with each side accusing the other of an unwillingness to negotiate.

    There are additional irritants at play that didn’t exist back in March. The serial defiance of Congress’s spending power by the Trump administration has actually intensified as OMB director Russell Vought asserts the power to withhold previously approved funding for programs the administration doesn’t like. And while the authoritarian nature of Trump 2.0 was already becoming evident in March, it’s now an established fact that the president is pushing all known boundaries to presidential power to the breaking point with (so far) cooperation from the U.S. Supreme Court. The other recent development that may make it harder than ever for Democrats to cut any bipartisan spending deal is Trump’s big push to tip the scales in the 2026 midterm elections by getting red states like Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Florida, and South Carolina to redraw congressional maps that were supposed to last a decade in order to give the GOP more House seats (with a retaliatory re-redistricting occurring in California and perhaps some other blue states).

    There’s a new wild card in the deck after last week’s assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. In an Oval Office address, the president essentially blamed the murder on “the radical left,” a term he uses interchangeably with “Democrats,” and threatened unspecific but drastic action to avenge Kirk’s death. Will this further poison any negotiations between Republicans and Democrats? Will it make Democrats more determined to make a stand, or more fearful of inadvertently giving Donald Trump a pretext for even more authoritarian conduct? Compared with the current atmosphere, the gut check for Democrats in March was child’s play.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Epstein Files Will Turn the Shutdown Fight Into a Problem for Republicans

    [ad_1]

    What could go wrong here?
    Photo: Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images

    On September 23, the federal government will be exactly one week away from shutting down absent congressional action.

    There’s another thing about that date you should know: It’s when Democrat Adelita Grijalva will almost certainly be elected to the House seat in Arizona that was made vacant by her father’s death earlier this year. As soon as she is sworn in, she’s expected to join every other House Democrat in signing on to what’s known as a “discharge petition” that will bring the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bill to force the Department of Justice to immediately release all the files in its possession, to the House floor for a vote. With four Republicans already signed on, this should bring the total number of petitioners to 218, a majority, giving Speaker Mike Johnson and the congressional leadership no choice but to give it a vote. The timing couldn’t be much worse, particularly for Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

    The government-shutdown negotiations will be complex and time consuming, but the dynamics generally favor Republicans. They’ll be in a position to draft the measure that will be the vehicle for avoiding a shutdown and can make it as tempting or repellent to Democrats as they choose, depending on how they want the crisis to end. And that’s assuming they want it to end without a shutdown that many of them would happily greet. Democrats will be in a position to kill another spending bill with a Senate filibuster, or to cut a bipartisan deal if one is on offer, or to “cave” again and earn the fury of the party base. Some Democrats think an agreement to extend the Obamacare premium subsidies due to expire at the end of the year would be a sufficient trophy, for instance. The White House will dictate the GOP strategy during the government-shutdown talks, and Republicans will fall in line. That’s an asset Democrats can only envy, and it’s why they probably aren’t going to “win” the spending negotiations.

    The Epstein files legislation, however, unites Democrats and divides Republicans, precisely at the time Republican solidarity will be more essential than ever. Word is that the White House is already putting the screws to the four House Republicans who have signed the discharge petition. One of them, Thomas Massie, who is co-sponsoring the bill with Democrat Ro Khanna, is a professional troublemaker who has already crossed Trump in the past and survived a MAGA primary challenge. Two of the other three, Lauren Boebert and her frenemy Marjorie Taylor Greene, have longstanding ties to the QAnon conspiracy crowd for whom cabals of sexual predators are the keys to understanding all world affairs. And the fourth, Nancy Mace, is running for governor of South Carolina and accusing one of her rivals of going easy on sexual-abuse offenders, including her own former fiancé. These four will be nearly impossible to move on the Epstein bill and Republicans can’t use too much force without risking their support for the spending measures needed to keep Democrats on the defensive and out of power.

    Successful discharge petitions are so rare that the precise rules for dealing with them are a bit murky. Johnson could probably exercise some delaying tactics prior to the vote and, even if it passes, getting the Justice Department to comply over Trump’s objections would be difficult to put it mildly. Only Trump himself probably knows exactly how much damaging material is in danger of floating into the atmosphere like radioactive fallout. But after all these months when everything Trump did was described as a “distraction” from the Epstein files by those who were certain it was deadly for him, the Epstein files themselves are proving to be the biggest distraction of all.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Government shutdown deadline only weeks away: What’s ahead? – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Congress only has a few weeks to avoid a government shutdown, but leaders of both parties are still a long way from agreeing on a stopgap spending bill to keep federal workers on the job.

    For all the latest developments in Congress, follow WTOP Capitol Hill correspondent Mitchell Miller at Today on the Hill.

    Congress only has a few weeks to avoid a government shutdown, but leaders of both parties are still a long way from agreeing on a stopgap spending bill to keep federal workers on the job.

    Lawmakers need to approve legislation by Sept. 30, when a current funding measure runs out, ahead of the start of the next fiscal year on Oct. 1.

    One of the few things that Republicans and Democrats do agree upon is that they will need to pass a continuing resolution, since there is not enough time to approve all 12 appropriation bills.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune has pointed out that the Senate managed to pass three major appropriations bills before the August recess.

    That’s a departure over the past seven years, when not a single appropriations bill was approved during the summer months by the upper chamber.

    Still, Thune acknowledged, “There’s a lot more to do.”

    Lawmakers in the House and Senate didn’t give themselves much time to work on a short-term spending bill, since they only returned from their summer break last week.

    Leaders prepare for shutdown blame game

    Leaders of both parties are already laying the political groundwork for assigning blame if they can’t reach an agreement before the shutdown deadline.

    “The only way to avoid a shutdown on Sept. 30 is to work in a bipartisan way,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said recently on the Senate floor. “But Republicans are once again threatening to go at it alone, which will lead our country straight into a shutdown — a Republican-caused shutdown.”

    Schumer said a shutdown can be avoided if there are negotiations on a bipartisan bill.

    But Thune, in turn, has warned Democrats about making what the GOP sees as unreasonable demands.

    “I hope … our Democrat colleagues will resist the calls from within for a shutdown and work with us to fund the government,” Thune said.

    Many Democrats criticized Schumer earlier this year, arguing that he caved to President Donald Trump and Republicans, without taking a firm stand, before Democratic lawmakers voted for a continuing resolution that avoided a shutdown.

    Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Democratic leaders have been meeting regularly to make sure they are on the same page with their strategy for addressing any type of showdown.

    What if a shutdown takes place?

    If lawmakers are unable to beat the deadline, a partial government shutdown will begin Wednesday, Oct. 1.

    A shutdown would not halt federal law enforcement operations, which have ramped up during the surge against crime in D.C.

    Federal workers considered nonessential would likely be furloughed, so they would not work and not get paid.

    But under legislation that was sponsored by Virginia’s U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine and passed in 2019, federal workers would receive back pay for any lost wages during the shutdown.

    While Kaine and Virginia U.S. Sen. Mark Warner have proposed legislation to secure pay for federal contract workers during a shutdown, that has not been passed by Congress.

    Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits would still be processed.

    Most shutdowns over the years have lasted only a few days, before Congress acted.

    But during Trump’s first term, a partial government shutdown lasted for nearly 35 days, which was the longest shutdown in the country’s history.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Mitchell Miller

    Source link

  • Inside Congress’ warring factions over how to fund the government

    [ad_1]

    Battle lines are emerging on Capitol Hill in the fight to avert a government shutdown in three weeks — and it’s not just Republicans vs. Democrats.

    On one side, fiscal hawks are joining with the White House to keep federal agencies running on static funding levels, ideally into January or longer. On the other, Democrats and some top Republicans want to punt no further than November to buy congressional negotiators more time to cut a cross-party compromise on fresh funding totals for federal programs.

    In the end, the standoff could hinge on Speaker Mike Johnson’s appetite for trying to pass a funding package backed by President Donald Trump but not Democrats, as he did in the spring — and whether Senate Democrats once again capitulate rather than see government operations grind to a halt on Oct. 1.

    “They jammed us last time,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a top appropriator, said in an interview. “And I am encouraging my Republican friends who want to do appropriations to understand that that won’t work this time.”

    Even more irate after Trump’s latest move to unilaterally cancel almost $5 billion in foreign aid through a so-called pocket rescission, Democrats are warning there will be a funding lapse if Republicans don’t negotiate with them. And while they’re being cautious not to box themselves in with ultimatums on funding totals or specific policy demands, they’re starting to flex their muscles by floating concessions Republicans could make in exchange for support across the aisle.

    That includes making a deal by the end of the year to head off the expiration of enhanced health insurance subsidies that would result in premium hikes come January for millions of Americans.

    There are glimmers of bipartisan talks happening behind the scenes: Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently discussed passing a short-term spending patch until November or December, though no decisions were made.

    And top House and Senate appropriators are gelling behind a hybrid approach: attempting a bill with a full year of updated funding levels for the USDA, the Department of Veterans Affairs and congressional operations, tied to a short-term extension for other agencies, to allow for more negotiations.

    But there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about a bipartisan funding deal coming together, with Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator, putting the odds of a shutdown at “50-50, perhaps higher.”

    As of late last week, the top Senate leaders — Republican John Thune and Democrat Chuck Schumer — haven’t yet spoken about the upcoming funding deadline, in a further sign that cross-party talks are still nascent.

    Meanwhile, House hard-liners, backed by some of their conservative Senate counterparts, appear to be digging in to demand a lengthy stopgap bill, rather than a short-term patch meant to facilitate a more comprehensive bipartisan funding measure down the road. One Republican, granted anonymity to share the conservative strategy, said fiscal hawks want a funding patch “to 2026” or for the entirety of the coming fiscal year “if we can get it.”

    Continually running the government on stopgaps is part of White House budget director Russ Vought’s strategy to shrink federal spending as he roots for the government funding process to be “less bipartisan.”

    Those kick-the-can funding bills give the White House more leeway to shift cash while depriving Democrats of any increases in non-defense funding and GOP defense hawks the military budget increases they seek. Then, using party-line measures like the domestic-policy megabill and the $9 billion clawbacks package Congress cleared this summer, Republicans can add or subtract funding without needing to rely on the votes of Senate Democrats.

    The White House predicts that Trump’s more recent, unilateral cancellation of $4.9 billion will only help build support among GOP fiscal hawks for a “clean” continuing resolution, or CR, that simply drags out current funding levels for weeks or months more. In this scenario, Democrats will have to fall in line, a White House official told reporters late last month after Trump nixed the foreign aid funding.

    It’s very hard for me to believe that they’re going to oppose a clean CR that would cause them to be responsible for a government shutdown,” said the official, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

    The Senate’s top Democratic appropriator, Patty Murray of Washington, warned it won’t work for Republicans to blame Democrats: If the GOP goes it alone, she said last week, “well, then, that is a Republican shutdown.”

    Democrats are also still grappling with how the pocket rescission will factor into their government funding demands. Schatz called it a “point of friction” but added, “I’m not prepared to articulate any red lines to you.”

    Notwithstanding the administration’s latest attempt to revoke funding, setting static spending levels through next September would be a nonstarter for many members of both parties. For Democrats, going into next year with a stopgap bill would force them to give up their biggest point of leverage — another end-of-the-year government funding deadline — to try to get a deal on extending the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits that will expire Dec. 31.

    On the GOP side, some conservatives view a full-year stopgap bill as locking in spending levels set under President Joe Biden, while defense hawks warn that it undermines the military. Those GOP divisions would make it harder, if not impossible, for Johnson and the White House to try to repeat their go-it-alone playbook from the spring.

    Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said he didn’t think a full-year, flat-funded spending bill would come to fruition: “We can talk about it all we want, we always do. Same plot, different actors.”

    Passage of a lengthy funding patch would especially sting for Republicans appropriators, who are quietly trying to retain relevance amid Trump’s escalating assault on Congress’ power through tactics to shift, freeze and cancel funding that lawmakers previously approved.

    House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole, who consistently refrains from criticizing the president, told his underlings last week that the best way for lawmakers to protect Congress’ power of the purse is to negotiate a bipartisan funding agreement now, rather than fall back on a continuing resolution.

    “The way to be successful is, get a deal done. That’s what we need to do,” the Oklahoma Republican told fellow appropriators during a recent markup. “But please don’t have any illusions that we’re cavalierly surrendering our power.”

    Still, Cole hasn’t received the blessing of his leadership to begin cross-party negotiations.

    “We are in discussions now with the administration, with the Senate, about how to proceed,” he said. “We don’t have any final goal or deadline. But I would prefer to get this done sooner rather than later, and I don’t want another CR.”

    Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government Shutdown May Be Averted … By Obamacare?

    [ad_1]

    Is legislation from the obscure backbench House Republican Jen Kiggans the key to avoiding a government shutdown?
    Photo: Michael Brochstein/ZUMA/Reuters

    At midnight on September 30, the government funding patch Congress enacted in March will expire. That means major federal functions will shut down if Congress and Donald Trump don’t intervene. The time frame for keeping the government open is actually shorter than that, since the House and Senate plan to be in recess for the Rosh Hashanah holiday on the week of September 22.

    Unlike the budget-reconciliation procedure that led to the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill, appropriations measures can be filibustered in the Senate, so Republicans need Democratic votes to keep the government open. And the congressional minority is not particularly inclined to cooperate on another bipartisan spending patch as Democratic activists were incensed by their leaders’ cave on spending back in March. At a minimum, Democrats will need significant trophies if they are to supply the seven or eight Senate votes needed to quash a filibuster.

    The most obvious trophy would be Trump agreeing to put the kibosh on his Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought’s provocative efforts to cancel previously appropriated spending by executive fiat, which has made Vought a devil figure to people on both sides of the aisle in Congress (not that the Republicans will say anything publicly). In the unlikely event the president did rein in Vought, that might not be enough to tempt Democrats into a spending deal since the threat of a government shutdown is their only bit of leverage for the foreseeable future. Senator Elizabeth Warren has suggested she would only vote for a spending bill if Republicans agreed to scrap the Medicaid cuts in the OBBBA, which is about as likely as Rand Paul joining the Democratic Socialists.

    There is one thing that could lure Democrats into voting to keep the government open: a bipartisan effort to extend the tax credits (set to expire at the end of the year) that make Obamacare premiums affordable for a lot of middle-class Americans who get their health insurance from the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. As Punchbowl News reports, Republicans are nervous about the spikes in premiums, which will happen as early as November 1 (when open enrollment for Obamacare policies begins) if Congress doesn’t act to extend the subsidies:

    Letting the premium subsidies lapse could lead to more than 4 million people losing health insurance, according to the CBO. Longtime Trump pollster John McLaughlin recently said the issue would be the party’s “greatest midterm threat.”

    Inflation and rising costs of living are already a looming political liability for the GOP heading into 2026. Republicans are also under heavy fire for the Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. So the Obamacare cliff could make those problems worse.

    Let’s be clear: Republicans are in charge of Washington, so if premiums go up or huge chunks of Americans lose their health-care coverage entirely, the GOP will get the blame. They privately acknowledge that.

    On the other hand, most Republicans hate Obamacare, and for the House Freedom Caucus types who wield so much influence in the party right now, the idea of working with Democrats to salvage premium subsidies is anathema to everything they believe. It is theoretically possible, however, to discern a potential bipartisan coalition to get this done, and it could be a crucial lubricant for negotiations on a more general spending patch as well. There’s even a legislative vehicle in place, per Punchbowl News:

     A group of vulnerable House Republicans and moderate Democrats is introducing a bill that would extend the subsidies for a year, pushing the deadline beyond the midterms. This could cost around $24 billion, based on the CBO’s estimate last year.

    Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) is leading the bill along with GOP Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Rob Bresnahan (Pa.), Carlos Gimenez (Fla.), David Valadao (Calif.), Young Kim (Calif.), Jeff Hurd (Colo.), Tom Kean (N.J.) and Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.). Democratic Reps. Tom Suozzi (N.Y.) and Jared Golden (Maine) have signed on, too.

    As a sign of the GOP Zeitgeist, Representative Jen Kiggans professes to dislike the Obamacare subsidies but argues they should be carefully phased out rather than abruptly terminated. So in any potential deal the length of the extension could be a big sticking point. And if extending the subsidies indeed becomes the glue that could seal a spending patch, there remain a host of disagreements over the length of the patch and whether any spending reductions accompany it.

    Aside from the partisan dynamics in the House and Senate, the entire health-care industry is mobilizing a lobbying blitz to save the subsidies, which are of particular concern to the health insurers that pocket them. Their efforts should keep things bubbling in Congress even if Democrats and Republicans are loathe to reach a deal. It’s possible Democrats will insist on at least a brief government shutdown to show “the base” they are willing to fight Trump’s power grabs. But the unlikely topic of Obamacare could yet provide a bit of bipartisanship amid the chaos and authoritarianism of Trump’s Washington. Some Democrats who might otherwise consider a deal could look out their windows and see National Guard troops patrolling and balk at any accommodation of the GOP.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • GOP duo unveils plan to force Congress to ‘face consequences’ as shutdown looms

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    FIRST ON FOX: A pair of congressional Republicans are determined to keep the government open and willing to force their colleagues to stay in Washington, D.C., to get it done.

    Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, plan to introduce legislation that would keep lawmakers in town until a short-term government funding extension, known as a continuing resolution (CR), or spending bills are passed to avert a partial government shutdown.

    TRUMP’S FOREIGN AID CLAWBACK RATTLES SENATE AHEAD OF FUNDING FIGHT

    Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., pictured in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Anna Moneymaker)

    Congress still does not have a plan in place to ward off a shutdown by the Sept. 30 deadline, and both sides of the aisle have already started the annual blame game as to which party would own the partial closure.

    So far, the Senate has advanced a trio of spending bills, while the House has passed only two — although lawmakers in the lower chamber were gearing up to advance the Energy and Water appropriations bill on Thursday.

    Lankford said in a statement to Fox News Digital that as the nation’s debt creeps beyond $37 trillion, “Congress cannot keep avoiding the hard choices to fix it.”

    GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, EPSTEIN FILES, DC CRIME: CONGRESS RETURNS TO MOUNTAIN OF DRAMA

    Representative Jodey Arrington

    Rep. Jodey Arrington, chair of the House Budget Committee, speaks during a House Budget Committee meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on May 18, 2025.  (Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    “Shutting down the government does not fix the debt problem, it just makes it worse,” he said. “The best way to finish negotiating the hard issue is to keep Congress in Washington until the budget is finished. That puts the pressure on lawmakers, not on families and important services.”

    If Congress fails to get a deal in place to keep the government open, the duo’s bill would trigger an automatic CR “on rolling 14-day periods” that would stay in place until lawmakers either pass all 12 appropriations bills or strike a deal on a stopgap bill.

    The bill would also force Congress, their staff and members of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to stay in D.C. until the job is done.

    It would require that no motions to adjourn or recess could be made for longer than 23 hours, mandatory quorum calls each day to ensure attendance and no other legislation would be allowed to be considered until a CR or spending bills were passed.

    “In the real world, if you fail to do your job, there are consequences,” Arrington said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Yet, when Congress fails to pass appropriations on time, the burden falls squarely on hardworking Americans — taxpayers, seniors, and our men and women in uniform.”

    Meanwhile, appropriators in the House and Senate are working to find a path forward on a deal.

    WHITE HOUSE MOVE TO CANCEL $4.9B FOREIGN AID WITH ‘POCKET RESCISSION’ BLASTED AS ILLEGAL

    Thune speaks to reporters

    Reporters surround Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he moves between his office and the Senate chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Aug. 1, 2025 in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he hoped the CR would originate in the House, based off negotiations between House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole, R-Okla., and Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine.

    “My hope would be that whatever that CR looks like, it’s clean, and that it enables us to buy some time to get a regular appropriations process done,” he said.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    But the White House’s move last week to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid funding through a “pocket rescission” has some Republicans worried that it could jeopardize the bipartisan nature of the appropriations process in the Senate, where Democrats will be needed to keep the government open.

    So far, it appears that Senate Democrats aren’t ready to totally buck their Republican counterparts, but are demanding that they be involved in negotiations to craft a CR.

    “If House Republicans, however, go a different route and try and jam through a partisan CR without any input from Democratic members of Congress, and they suddenly find they don’t have the votes they need from our caucus to fund the government, well, then that is a Republican shutdown,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Breaking down the looming government shutdown battle

    [ad_1]

    Congress’ month-long summer recess is over and lawmakers are back in session, returning to what has become familiar territory: a looming government funding deadline. Caitlin Huey-Burns explains.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House move to cancel $4.9B foreign aid with ‘pocket rescission’ blasted as illegal

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle panned the White House’s move to cancel billions in foreign aid funding as illegal, and warned that it could have dire consequences on the fast-approaching deadline to fund the government.

    The White House on Thursday notified Congress of the administration’s intent to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid funding through a “pocket rescission.”

    “Last night, President Trump CANCELED $4.9 billion in America Last foreign aid using a pocket rescission,” the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said on X. “[President Donald Trump] will always put AMERICA FIRST!”

    ‘BAIT AND SWITCH’: SCHUMER WARNS OF BITTER FUNDING FIGHT OVER GOP CUTS PLAN

    The White House on Thursday notified Congress of the administration’s intent to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid funding through a “pocket rescission.” (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc)

    The pocket rescissions package obtained by Fox News Digital includes cuts to a variety of foreign aid programs over several fiscal years that the administration argued did not comport with Trump’s agenda.  

    Included are roughly $520 million in cuts to Contributions to International Organizations account, over $390 million in cuts to the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities account, $322 million from the Democracy Fund, $445 million from the Peacekeeping Operations account and over $3 billion from Development Assistance.

    The rescissions process allows the president to make a request to Congress to cancel already approved funding within a 45-day period. Lawmakers successfully went through that exercise earlier this year when they approved $9 billion to be slashed from public broadcasting and foreign aid.

    TRUMP SIGNS $9B RESCISSIONS PACKAGE INTO LAW, REVOKING FUNDING FOR FOREIGN AID, NPR

    Susan Collins

    Sen. Susan Collins addresses the press at Washington Crossing Inn on Nov. 6, 2022, in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania.  (Mark Makela/Getty Images)

    However, a pocket rescission is designed to skirt that 45-day window by coming so close to the end of a fiscal year that lawmakers wouldn’t have time to weigh in. And the White House’s maneuver is already giving Senate Republicans and Democrats heartburn.

    Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a statement that the move was an “apparent attempt to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval.”

    She also argued that the Government Accountability Office found that under the Impoundment Control Act, the law that governs rescissions, this style of pocket rescission was illegal.

    “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,” she said.

    “Instead of this attempt to undermine the law, the appropriate way is to identify ways to reduce excessive spending through the bipartisan, annual appropriations process,” Collins continued. “Congress approves rescissions regularly as part of this process.”

    Fox News Digital reached out to the OMB and the White House for comment but did not immediately hear back.

    TRUMP SENDS $9.4 BILLION DOGE CUTS PROPOSAL TO CONGRESS, TARGETING NPR, PBS

    Schumer press conference

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., joined by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., right, speak to reporters following closed-door party meetings at the Capitol in Washington on June 17, 2025.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

    Lawmakers will also have to grapple with how the pocket rescissions will affect negotiations to keep the government open. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., already warned that further attempts to claw back congressionally approved funding would be a bridge too far for Democrats.

    Prior to the announcement, Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., imploring both to meet with them to discuss the looming Sept. 30 deadline. 

    In the letter, they specifically asked if more rescissions were coming.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Now, Schumer charged that the “unlawful ‘pocket rescission’ package is further proof President Trump and Congressional Republicans are hellbent on rejecting bipartisanship and ‘going it alone’ this fall.”

    “As the country stares down next month’s government funding deadline on September 30th, it is clear neither President Trump nor Congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown,” Schumer said in a statement.

    “In fact, it seems Republicans are eager to inflict further pain on the American people, raising their health care costs, compromising essential services and further damaging our national security,” he continued. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Republicans move to avoid government shutdown amid intraparty opposition

    House Republicans move to avoid government shutdown amid intraparty opposition

    [ad_1]

    Washington — House Republicans will fast-track a short-term spending bill after sidestepping the lower chamber’s Rules Committee as the bipartisan measure to keep the government open faced opposition from the panel’s conservative members. 

    House Republicans are expected to bring up the three-month funding bill for a floor vote under a procedure known as suspension of the rules, meaning it will need a two-thirds majority for passage. It puts House Speaker Mike Johnson in a position of, once again, needing to rely on Democrats to pass legislation. 

    The plan is to bring up the bill for a vote on Wednesday, according to House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican. 

    The House Rules Committee was set to vote on approving the measure for a floor vote on Monday night, but nixed the rule vote after Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said they would not support it. Had the measure come up for a floor vote under a rule, it would have needed a simple majority to pass. 

    “Republicans need Democrats in order to keep the government open,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the committee’s top Democrat. 

    House conservatives have for months pushed the lower chamber to pass the dozen individual appropriations bills that fund the government. The short-term bill, they argue, sets up Congress to pass a massive spending bill, called an “omnibus,” at the end of the year as lawmakers are eager to ditch Washington for the holidays. 

    “I would encourage people not to vote for this,” Massie said. “Why do we want to set up a shutdown crisis the week before Christmas? Why would we even want to set up a shutdown crisis next spring? We shouldn’t. We should fund the whole thing for a year.” 

    Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, unveiled the latest plan Sunday after the House last week rejected his initial plan that paired a six-month funding bill with a measure requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. 

    The new plan would fund the government at current levels through Dec. 20, punting the fight over spending to after the November election. But it also risks spoiling lawmakers’ December holidays if they can’t reach another agreement to extend funding into next year. 

    In a letter to his colleagues, Johnson said Sunday the three-month measure is “the only option that remains.” 

    “Our legislation will be a very narrow, bare-bones [continuing resolution] including only the extensions that are absolutely necessary,” he wrote, adding that it prevents “the Senate from jamming us with a bill loaded with billions in new spending and unrelated provisions.” 

    While continuing resolutions usually don’t alter funding levels, the three-month bill includes about $230 million in additional funding for the Secret Service, which comes after a second assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump. The voting measure that was part of the six-month funding legislation, which Democrats opposed, is no longer attached. 

    “While this is not the solution any of us prefer, it is the most prudent path forward under the present circumstances,” Johnson wrote. “As history has taught and current polling affirms, shutting the government down less than 40 days from a fateful election would be an act of political malpractice.” 

    Trump had called for a government shutdown if lawmakers could not get the voting measure, known as the SAVE Act, passed, despite it already being illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Johnson signaled Friday that Trump could soften his calls for a shutdown, saying the former president “understands the situation that we’re in.”

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both from New York, praised the bipartisan negotiations that resulted in the funding agreement. Schumer said in a statement Sunday that he was hopeful that Congress could pass the legislation this week. 

    “This agreement could have very easily been reached weeks ago, but speaker Johnson and House Republicans chose to listen to Donald Trump’s partisan demands, instead of working with us from the start,” Schumer said Monday on the Senate floor. 

    and

    contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Spending deal averts a possible federal shutdown and funds the government into December – WTOP News

    Spending deal averts a possible federal shutdown and funds the government into December – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Congressional leaders announced an agreement Sunday on a short-term spending bill that will fund federal agencies for about three months, averting a possible partial government shutdown when the new budget year begins Oct. 1 and pushing final decisions until after the November election.

    FILE – Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., walks to a meeting at the Capitol in Washington, Sept. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)(AP/Jose Luis Magana)

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional leaders announced an agreement Sunday on a short-term spending bill that will fund federal agencies for about three months, averting a possible partial government shutdown when the new budget year begins Oct. 1 and pushing final decisions until after the November election.

    Lawmakers have struggled to get to this point as the current budget year winds to a close at month’s end. At the urging of the most conservative members of his conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., had linked temporary funding with a mandate that would have compelled states to require proof of citizenship when people register to vote.

    But Johnson could not get all Republicans on board even as the party’s presidential nominee, Donald Trump, insisted on that package. Trump said Republican lawmakers should not support a stop-gap measure without the voting requirement, but the bill went down to defeat anyway, with 14 Republicans opposing it.

    Bipartisan negotiations began in earnest shortly after that, with leadership agreeing to extend funding into mid-December. That gives the current Congress the ability to fashion a full-year spending bill after the Nov. 5 election, rather than push that responsibility to the next Congress and president.

    In a letter to Republican colleagues, Johnson said the budget measure would be “very narrow, bare-bones” and include “only the extensions that are absolutely necessary.”

    “While this is not the solution any of us prefer, it is the most prudent path forward under the present circumstances,” Johnson wrote. “As history has taught and current polling affirms, shutting the government down less than 40 days from a fateful election would be an act of political malpractice.”

    Rep. Tom Cole, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, had said on Friday that talks were going well.

    “So far, nothing has come up that we can’t deal with,” said Cole, R-Okla. “Most people don’t want a government shutdown and they don’t want that to interfere with the election. So nobody is like, ‘I’ve got to have this or we’re walking.’ It’s just not that way.”

    Johnson’s earlier effort had no chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate and was opposed by the White House, but it did give the speaker a chance to show Trump and conservatives within his conference that he fought for their request.

    The final result — government funding effectively on autopilot — was what many had predicted. With the election just weeks away, few lawmakers in either party had any appetite for the brinksmanship that often leads to a shutdown.

    Now a bipartisan majority is expected to push the short-term measure over the finish line. Temporary spending bills generally fund agencies at current levels, but some additional money was included to bolster the Secret Service, replenish a disaster relief fund and aid with the presidential transition, among other things.

    Copyright
    © 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

    [ad_2]

    WTOP Staff

    Source link

  • Republicans’ threats of a government shutdown are losing ground

    Republicans’ threats of a government shutdown are losing ground

    [ad_1]

    As a potential government shutdown looms over the upcoming Presidential election, many citizens are curious to know how likely the shutdown is.

    A government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass new funding legislation before the previous one expires. The current legislation expires on September 30, 2024. If the government cannot agree to a new funding bill before the deadline, it will shut down on October 1. During a shutdown, all non-essential government functions cease, and millions of government employees face furloughs. Although vital functions will remain, a shutdown disrupts numerous government functions and services, ranging from National Parks to air travel.

    Threats of government shutdowns aren’t uncommon at all. It’s fairly routine for the possibility of a government shutdown to arise every time Congress seemingly can’t agree to a new spending bill. Usually, the disagreements are eventually resolved. The most recent government shutdown was over five years ago. However, things are a bit different this time as the threat of a shutdown occurs right before a presidential election, with Republicans threatening the shutdown unless their voting legislation is passed.

    How likely is a government shutdown?

    Congress’s passage of a new spending bill has been complicated by Republicans using it as an opportunity to pass an anti-immigration voting bill. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has paired the spending bill with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, also known as the SAVE Act. The bill would force voters to prove their U.S. citizenship to vote. Republicans want to push this bill because of their false belief that immigrants are illegally voting in U.S. elections. The phenomenon is exceedingly rare because noncitizens voting in elections is already illegal, and there are already effective laws in place to protect against voter fraud.

    The SAVE Act is an unnecessary law that could encourage discrimination against marginalized groups and create barriers for citizens to vote, as not every American has easy access to documents that prove their citizenship. Most Democrats oppose the bill, making it unlikely to pass the Senate. However, Donald Trump backs the bill and is egging Republicans on to cause the government shutdown unless they get their way.

    Despite the conflict, a government shutdown doesn’t appear very likely. House Republicans have proven rational on the topic and are not open to shutting down the government over Johnson’s bill. At least six House Republicans have stated that they will not vote in support of Johnson’s bill. Given that Democrats also oppose the bill, it appears likely the Save Act will fail in the House, which will help evade the government shutdown.

    At the same time, there is a slight chance the bill could pass the House, and Johnson could continue refusing to compromise. Another concern is Trump attempting to interfere and influence the GOP due to his desperation to pass the bill. Still, with Johnson’s bill quickly losing Republican support and the Speaker facing pressure to compromise to avoid a government shutdown, it’s likely that a shutdown will be averted.


    The Mary Sue is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Ulatowski

    Source link

  • New government spending bill bans U.S. embassies from flying Pride flag

    New government spending bill bans U.S. embassies from flying Pride flag

    [ad_1]

    Tucked in the massive government funding package signed Saturday by President Biden is a provision banning the flying of LGBTQ Pride flags over U.S. embassies. But even on the same day Mr. Biden signed the package, the White House vowed to work toward repealing the provision.

    The prohibition was one of many side issues included in the mammoth $1.2 trillion package to fund the government through September, which passed early Saturday shortly after a midnight deadline.

    As Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, a conservative Christian, scrambled for votes to get the bill passed in his chamber, he allegedly touted the Pride flag ban as a reason his party should support the bill, the Daily Beast reported.

    The White House said Saturday it would seek to find a way to repeal the ban on flying the rainbow flag, which celebrates the movement for LGBTQ equality.

    “Biden believes it was inappropriate to abuse the process that was essential to keep the government open by including this policy targeting LGBTQI+ Americans,” a White House statement said, adding that the president “is committed to fighting for LGBTQI+ equality at home and abroad.”

    The White House said that while it had not been able to block the flag proposal, it was “successful in defeating 50+ other policy riders attacking the LGBTQI+ community that Congressional Republicans attempted to insert into the legislation.”

    Pride flag U.S. embassy
    An American flag and a Pride flag are pictured on the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Russia, on June 30, 2022. 

    NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA/AFP via Getty Images


    The law signed by Mr. Biden says that no U.S. funding can be used to “fly or display a flag over a facility of the United States Department of State” other than U.S. or other government-related flags, or flags supporting prisoners of war, missing-in-action soldiers, hostages and wrongfully imprisoned Americans.

    But while such flags may not be flown “over” U.S. embassies, it does not speak to displaying them elsewhere on embassy grounds or inside offices, the Biden camp has argued.

    “It will have no impact on the ability of members of the LGBTQI+ community to serve openly in our embassies or to celebrate Pride,” the White House said, referencing the month, usually in June, when LGBTQ parades and other events are held.

    The Biden administration has strongly embraced LGBTQ rights. In a sharp change from the Trump administration, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has not only allowed but encouraged U.S. missions to fly the rainbow flag during Pride month.

    Blinken’s predecessor Mike Pompeo, an evangelical Christian, ordered that only the U.S. flag fly from embassy flagpoles.

    In 2015, former President Barack Obama’s administration lit up the White House in rainbow colors — delighting liberals and infuriating some conservatives — as it celebrated the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the United States.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • While You Were Sleeping, The Senate Averted a Government Shutdown

    While You Were Sleeping, The Senate Averted a Government Shutdown

    [ad_1]

    In the wee hours of Saturday morning, the Senate finally approved a mammoth $1.2 trillion spending package to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal year, successfully staving off a revolt of conservative Republicans.

    The 74-to-24 vote finished at around 2 in the morning, which was technically two hours after the midnight deadline to fund the government. Shortly after the Senate passed the deadline, the White House put out a statement saying that the Office of Management and Budget had ceased preparations for a government shutdown, citing “a high degree of confidence that Congress will imminently pass the relevant appropriations and the President will sign the bill on Saturday.”

    The bill caps a long, contentious process for funding the government during this fiscal year. It began over six months ago, in October 2023, and helped tank the political career of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Several temporary extensions were necessary in recent months to keep the government from entering a shutdown.

    The House narrowly reached the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the package Friday morning. A majority of the Republican caucus voted against the deal, with many hard-right Republicans calling it a capitulation to Democrats. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who came to power thanks to anger among right-wing House Republicans over McCarthy’s deal-cutting with Democrats to keep the government open, is now facing a similar revolt from his party.

    On Friday, Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene accused Johnson of “betrayal of the American people” and promised to begin the process of ousting him. “The Republican speaker of the House handed over every ounce of negotiating power to Chuck Schumer and the Democrats and went ahead and funded the government when this was our point of leverage,” Greene said.

    But Republicans will get to tout significant funding increases for immigration enforcement, as the funding bill will increase the number of Border Patrol Agents to 22,000. The legislation also eliminates funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which Israel has accused of participating in Hamas’ October 7 attack. Democrats, meanwhile, secured funding increases for early childhood education and cancer and Alzheimer’s research.

    “House Republicans achieved conservative policy wins, rejected extreme Democrat proposals, and imposed substantial cuts while significantly strengthening national defense,” Johnson said after the House vote, calling the bill “the best achievable outcome in a divided government.”

    Senate Majority Leader Schumer described the vote as “no small feat” on Saturday. “It’s been a very long and difficult day, but we have just reached an agreement to complete the job of funding the government,” he said after the vote. “It is good for the country that we have reached this bipartisan deal. It wasn’t easy, but tonight, our persistence has been worth it.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • U.S. Senate averts partial government shutdown with late-night legislative package

    U.S. Senate averts partial government shutdown with late-night legislative package

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Senate averts partial government shutdown with late-night legislative package – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The U.S. Senate passed an eleventh hour legislation package that thwarted a partial government shutdown. The $1.2 trillion package passed in a 74-24 vote.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House to vote on second funding package as lawmakers race to avoid shutdown

    House to vote on second funding package as lawmakers race to avoid shutdown

    [ad_1]

    Washington — The House is set to vote on a massive spending package on Friday to fully fund the government through September as the clock runs out to avert a partial government shutdown. 

    The $1.2 trillion package, which was unveiled less than 48 hours before the shutdown deadline, wraps six spending bills into one to fund about three-quarters of the government until the end of the fiscal year. Another package funding the rest of the government cleared Congress two weeks ago. 

    Passage in the House would move Congress one step closer to ending a fight over spending that has persisted six months into the fiscal year, one that has forced lawmakers to repeatedly rely on short-term funding extensions to keep the government operating since October. 

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, waived a self-imposed 72-hour rule that gives lawmakers time to read legislation before a vote in order to get it across the finish line and send it to the Senate, giving the upper chamber just hours before the clock strikes midnight. 

    Senate rules that allow a single lawmaker to object to expediting a bill’s passage could push a vote into Saturday. Republicans are also likely to demand votes on amendments in exchange for speeding up the process, as they did with the last funding bill. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, predicted the upper chamber could hold amendment votes as soon as Friday afternoon. 

    A brief lapse in funding over the weekend may not cause disruptions. When President Biden signed the first funding package hours after a similar shutdown deadline earlier this month, the Office of Management and Budget said agencies would not shut down and could continue their normal operations, since it was clear that a resolution was imminent.

    After delays caused by disputes over funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees released the second package in the early morning hours of Thursday. 

    Republicans and Democrats both claimed victories in the package that funds the departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, Labor and Health and Human Services, as well as foreign operations, financial services and the legislative branch. 

    Democrats touted funding for child care and education programs, medical research, mental health care and an extension of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, an initiative known as PEPFAR that is credited with saving 25 million lives worldwide. 

    “We had to work within difficult fiscal constraints — but this bipartisan compromise will keep our country moving forward,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democratic appropriator in the Senate, said in a statement. 

    Republicans highlighted funding for Border Patrol agents and more detention beds, as well as a ban on funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, the main humanitarian agency operating in Gaza, through March 2025.

    The bill also includes several conservative policy wins. It prevents the federal government from banning gas stoves, puts restrictions on which flags can be flown over U.S. diplomatic facilities and maintains a provision banning federal funds from covering abortion services.

    “House Republicans have achieved significant conservative policy wins, rejected extreme Democrat proposals, and imposed substantial cuts to wasteful agencies and programs while strengthening border security and national defense,” Johnson said in a statement.

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, told reporters on Thursday that an “overwhelming majority” of conservative policy riders did not make it into the bill. 

    Alan He contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link