Podcasts about budget act

A week ago, on April 5, 61-year-old Brett Estes took his own life by moving his wheelchair in front of a BART train.  He was a quadriplegic and a member of a Quad-Squad which was active in the disability movement.  Despite the kind, long-term help of a man named John, Brett had recently struggled with finding enough attendants. We don't know all the reasons behind this tragedy but this death raises the issue of our current, very-inadequate attendant-care system.  Another member of our community, Brian Larsen, also took his life a few years ago when he was unable to secure adequate attendant support.  California's IHSS, (In Home Supportive Services) system is failing severely disabled people. Our guest, Connie Arnold sees the problems in her own life and she's been attending state meetings, reading legal and policy regulations and generally working to improve IHSS for 35+ years. She graduated from UC Berkeley in 1984 with a degree in Social Welfare, and in 2009 from Sonoma State University (SSU) with a Master's degree in Health Services & Public Administration Policy. With her wide range of academic and professional expertise, Ms Arnold gives specific advice on how we can each play a part in saving lives and advocate for change.  You can reach her by emailing: IHSS underscore advocate at yahoo.com.k Connie Arnold MORE DETAILS:  Many people with disabilities living in the community are suffering because they cannot find competent, reliable, trustworthy, and stable non-relative IHSS care provider-attendants.  Attendants who can perform paramedical services are few and far between. The State of California makes every IHSS recipient the “employer” responsible for finding their own care providers, but the recipients do not set the terms of employment for wages, health benefits, and job incentives.  Currently, IHSS wages vary from county to county and is not a living wage. Under the IHSS program alone family members care for 72.1% of people with disabilities and they are often willing to work long hours for near minimum wages.  But when family and friends are ill, move away or age out, who takes their place?  This situation is especially obvious in the case of developmentally disabled people who live with elderly parents, but it affects people with all kinds of severe disabilities, including dementia, Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS), children with severe disabilities, and many others. If you have a severe disability you may quality for extra help through a Medi-Cal or HCBA waiver.  Here's how to apply: California Department of Health Care (DHCS) Medi-Cal Waivers: https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/Pages/Medi-CalWaivers.aspx DHCS Home and Community-Based Alternative (HCBA) Waiver and scroll down to see which local agency serves your zip code: https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/ltc/Pages/Home-and-Community-Based-%28HCB%29-Alternatives-Waiver.aspx   Connie Arnold Currently, individuals requiring multiple daily attendants are struggling to live independently in the community. People who rely primarily on non-relative providers are most at-risk of being forced into institutions. This, despite the U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead decision which gave people with disabilities the right to live in the least restricted environment with supportive services.  Knowing what they know about the institutions, many severely disabled individuals consider alternative actions like suicide. Plus:  “Who's in Charge Here?” Commentary by Shelley Berman. Produced and hosted by Shelley Berman and Adrienne Lauby. With thanks to the Berkeley-Disabled E-group who sparked the attendant-shortage discussion.  To subscribe to the Berkeley Disabled e-group, send an email to:  berkeley-disabled+subscribe@googlegroups.com ——————————Want to Learn More?—————————— In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) – California State Association of Counties.  This group put a ceiling on IHSS wages so that they can be no higher than $1.25 an hour greater than minimum wage. More details about how wages and benefits are set. https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ihss_wages_and_bargaining_brief_september_2023.pdf. New rules related to attendant care, in the State Legislature but not passed yet:   AB1672 Haney. IHSS Employer-Employee Relations Act (2023-2024) “1.300.000 people lived in nursing home in 2020 at the onset of the Covid pandemic.  Nearly half of all nursing home residents were living with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's or other related dementia.  Related Legislation:  https://mcusercontent.com/e1181a52449c57d4180be5c2d/files/485d2355-f6cb-ed96-b7c5-6b395f82a7ca/EC_Bill_April_2024.pdf       “SEC. 2. FINDINGS.1 Congress finds the following: (1) According to the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 1,300,000 individuals resided in nursing homes in 2020 at the onset of the COVID–19 pandemic and nearly half of all        nursing home residents were living with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's or other related dementia.” ———————————————————————————————————————————————————– California Department of Social Services In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)* History of Major Program Changes 1973 IHSS Program The IHSS Program was created to enable elderly, blind and disabled individuals to live independently in the community. 1978-1981 Equity Assessment Project This was a three-year project conducted by UC Berkeley, in three counties (Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin). Historical needs assessment data was used to predict recipients' level of need for IHSS services. The project also permitted similar awards to individuals with similar needs, thus promoting equity (beginning of IHSS Assessment Uniformity). 1981 Domestic Services Standard – W&IC section 12310 The first state time-per-task standard, known as the Domestic Services Standard, was introduced. 1992 Non-Profit Consortiums and Public Authority – W&IC section 12301.6 Statute was added to allow a County Board of Supervisors to contract with a non-profit consortium, or to establish by ordinance, a public authority for the delivery of IHSS. Federal Funding Approved for the IHSS PCSP On November 2, 1992, a State Plan Ammendment was approved by the CMS allowing most IHSS services to be considered a Medi-Cal benefit under the new IHSS PCSP. 1993 PCSP The PCSP was implemented April 1, 1993. 1998 Expansion of PCSP Eligibility – W&IC section 18937 Statute was amended, expanding PCSP eligibility to include medically-needy aged, blind and disabled persons (previously, only categorically-eligible persons were eligible). Waivers for Personal Care Services – W&IC section 14132.97 The Waivers for Personal Care Services, as defined under the Medi-Cal Program, were required to be provided to persons meeting specified requirements. *Please refer to the first tab titled “Acronyms” for a full description of acronyms. 45 California Department of Social Services In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)* History of Major Program Changes 1999 State Plan Amendment Local Assistance 2015 May Revision On April 1, 1999, a State Plan Amendment was approved by CMS expanding PCSP eligibility to include income-ineligible recipients (i.e., recipients with a share of cost). Employer of Record – W&IC sections 12301.6, 12303.4, 12301.3, 12301.4, 12301.8 and 12302.25 Counties were required to act as or to establish an employer of record for IHSS providers for purposes of collective bargaining. Counties that had not established a public authority for the provision of IHSS services were required to establish an advisory committee to provide recommendations on modes and delivery of IHSS services. The IHSS Registry sales tax sub-account was also eliminated from the LRF and remaining funds were transferred to the GF. 2000 IHSS Non-federal Sharing Ratios and State Participation in Wages and Benefits – W&IC sections 12306.2 and 12306.3 This bill established the non-federal share to be paid by the state and counties for any increases in provider wages and benefits and associated taxes. Limits were also defined for state participation in increases to wages and benefits. Non-Public Authority Counties Effective January 1, 2001, participation in the non-federal portion of any county-implemented increase in IHSS provider wages, benefits and associated taxes was set at 65 percent state and 35 percent county. Wage increases were at county discretion and limited to no more than three percent above the statewide minimum wage. Public Authority Counties Participation in the nonfederal portion of any increases in wages, benefits and associated taxes that are negotiated by a public authority or a non-profit consortium was set at 65 percent state and 35 percent county participation. Increases in wages and benefits were subject to the following limits: The state would participate in wages up to $7.50 per hour and in individual health benefits up to $0.60 per hour for all public authority and non-profit consortium providers. The state would participate in total wages and health benefits up to $9.10 per hour if wages reached at least $7.50 per hour. Gradual increases to wage and benefits were allowed for these specified providers over the four years following FY 2000-01, up to total combined wages and health benefits of $12.10 per hour in the fourth year. State participation in subsequent year increases would only occur if wages had already reached $7.50 per hour and GF revenue had exceeded the previous FY's GF revenue by at least five percent. State participation in wage and benefit increases in any FY would be limited to a maximum increase of $1.00 per hour.Contract CountiesFunding was provided in FY 2000-01 for the increased state share of cost for existing contract counties that elected to increase their maximum allowable contract rates. (Wages and benefits for contract providers are negotiated between the contractor and their local unions).IHSS Advisory Committee – W&IC sections 12301.3 and 12301.4Each county that had not established a public authority was required to establish an advisory committee. The advisory committee in each county was also required to provide recommendations on certain modes of service to be utilized in the county for IHSS. The advisory committee membership would have to include one IHSS provider for a county that has an IHSS caseload of less than 500 and two IHSS providers for a county that has an IHSS caseload of more than 500. Reimbursement of the advisory committee's administrative costs was also allowed. 2004 Improve Quality of IHSS – W&IC sections 12301.21, 12305.7, 12305.71, 12305.72, 12305.8, 12305.81, 12305.82, 12305.83, 12317, 12317.1 and 12317.2 The CDSS, counties and DHCS were required to perform a number of activities that would focus on improving the quality of IHSS. The key provisions included: Ongoing statewide social worker training. State oversight and monitoring of county QA activities. Hourly task guidelines, with exception criteria to promote accurate and consistent assessments, to provide social workers a tool for conducting assessments and service authorizations. Fraud prevention and detection activities that include collaboration among agencies to prevent/detect fraud and to maximize recovery of overpayments. Annual error-rate studies and data-match activities.IPWThe IPW State Plan Amendment was approved, allowing most residual recipients to be served in this waiver program (i.e., services provided by a spouse and/or parent of a minor child, or to those receiving Restaurant Meal Allowance or Advance Pay). The IPW was approved for five years, from August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2009, and extended until September 30, 2009.2009 Key Provisions of Fraud – W&IC sections 12301.15, 12301.22, 12301.25, 12301.6, 12305.7, 12305.71, 12305.73, 12305.82, 12305.85 and 12305.86The CDSS, counties and DHCS were required to improve detection, referral, investigation and prosecution of fraud in the IHSS program, communication and to develop collaboration between state and county agencies. The key provisions included: Provider Orientation. Provider enrollment including fingerprinting and background checks, enrollment form andsigned agreement. Provider appeals. Fraud prevention protocols clarifying state/county roles and responsibilities including targeted mailings, unannounced home visits and county anti-fraud training. Policy guiding the use of Post Office boxes. Creation of the NOA to inform providers of recipient's authorized hours/services.*Please refer to the first tab titled “Acronyms” for a full description of acronyms. 48 California Department of Social Services In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)* History of Major Program Changes In FY 2009-10, CDSS approved county fraud plan funding for 45 counties to enable the development of the infrastructure necessary to support future fraud prevention operations. The IHSS Plus Option The IHSS Plus Option State Plan Amendment was approved on September 29, 2009, and the IHSS Plus Option became effective on October 1, 2009. The Social Security Act section 1915(i), Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services State Plan Option, was identified as the best replacement for the expiring IPW program. Statutory Reductions and Court Injunctions A minimum Functional Index Score threshold was created for IHSS Program services and this became the Oster I Lawsuit. The state financial participation rate for IHSS provider wages was capped at $10.10 effective July 1, 2010. This became the Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit. The “Share of Cost Buyout” program was eliminated. 2011 Statutory Reductions and Court Injunctions A 3.6 percent reduction in hours was implemented in February 2011 and a 20 percent reduction in hours was triggered by the Budget Act in December 2011. This became the Oster II Lawsuit and part of 2013 litigation settlement. Health Care Certificate Requirement The IHSS recipients were required to provide a Health Care Certificate from a licensed health care professional beginning August 2011. Changes to Provider Enrollment Background Checks Tier 1 – Specified Child Abuse, Elder Abuse and Fraud against government health care or supportive services. Tier 2 – Other items identified in a background check could be waived by the IHSS recipient.   2011, 2013 CFCO The ACA of 2010 (enacted March 23, 2010) established a new State Plan Option entitled CFCO. The CFCO provides home and community based attendant services and supports and also provides increased federal funding in the form of a six percent increase in the FMAP for CFCO eligible recipients. CDSS and DHCS submitted a State Plan Amendment to CMS on December 1, 2011. The State Plan Amendment was approved August 31, 2012, with implementation retroactive to December 1, 2011. On August 31, 2012, the federal CMS approved State Plan Amendment 11-034 for CFCO, allowing the state to obtain increased federal funding for eligible PCSP and IHSS Plus Option program recipients. The CMS approved State Plan Amendment 13-007 effective July 1, 2013, and updated eligibility language for compliance with the federal Social Security Act, section 1915(k)(1) and 42 CFR section 441.510. 2012-2013 CMIPS II Launched The CMIPS II launched in pilot counties Merced and Yolo in July 2012. In September 2012 San Diego joined the pilot. Extensive work and training has been conducted with counties/public authorities, labor organizations health benefit administrators and IHSS recipient/providers. In March 2013 group one launched eight additional counties followed by 20 additional counties in group two in May 2013. Group three (Los Angeles County) launched in August 2013 followed by the remaining 24 counties in group four in November 2013. 2013 Oster I, Oster II and Dominguez Lawsuits Settlement Process The IHSS Settlement Agreement, filed March 28, 2013, received preliminary approval on April 4, 2013. Court and legislative action was required by May 24, 2013. This lawsuit resulted in an eight percent reduction to IHSS Recipients hours effective July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. The reduction decreased to seven percent effective July 2014 and will be ongoing, unless action is taken to offset the reduction. CCI – SB 1008 (Chapter 33, Statutes of 2012) and SB 1036 (Chapter 45, Statutes of 2012) changed the following sections of California law related to the IHSS program: Government Code 6531.5; Government Code Title 23; W&IC sections 10101.1, 12306, 12306.1,12306.15, 12330, 14182, 14186, 14186.35 and 14186.36 The CCI, a Medi-Cal managed care plan, changed state statute related to the IHSS program. The CCI began phasing in the eight pilot counties April 2014. The implementation process, including stakeholder meetings, is ongoing. As the IHSS program moves eligible recipients into CCI, it will remain very similar to the current program. The CCI legislation requires the Cal Medi-Connect plan to administer IHSS in accordance with current IHSS program standards and requirements. The plan will ensure access to, provision of and payment for recipients who meet the eligibility criteria for IHSS. Key Provisions: The IHSS recipients will retain the responsibilities as the employer of the IHSS provider for the purposes of hiring, firing and supervising their provider, appealing any action relating to his or her application for or receipt of services and the ability to request a reassessment. IHSS providers will continue to adhere to the IHSS provider enrollment requirements set forth in existing statute. Care coordination teams will be established, as needed and subject to the consumer's consent, for individual care plan development. The teams will include county IHSS social workers, consumers and their representatives, managed care health plans and may include IHSS providers and others as applicable. CDSS will retain program administrative functions, in coordination with DHCS, including policy development, provider appeals and general exceptions, quality assurance and program integrity for the IHSS. The CCI shifts the responsibility of collective bargaining functions (wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment) from county Public Authority to a Statewide Authority. This shift will occur for each county when enrollment of dual eligibles into Cal Medi-Connect is complete. This establishes a new Advisory Committee for the Statewide Authority. Each county will be responsible for paying a MOE instead of paying a percentage of program costs. Each county's MOE is based on program expenditures for FY 2011-12, which was adjusted to reflect savings based on the additional six percent FMAP for CFCO eligible cases, county negotiated wage increases and an annual 3.5 percent inflation factor starting July 1, 2014. This MOE requirement applies to all 58 counties effective July 1, 2012, regardless of when the county will begin participating in the CCI. 2013 CCI (CONTINUED) Local Assistance 2015 May Revision The CDSS, in consultation with DHCS, shall certify any agency that is contracting with Cal Medi-Connect for the provision of IHSS. The CDSS shall also develop a written appeal process for any agency dissatisfied with the decision from CDSS regarding certification. As required by CCI, CDSS has, in consultation with stakeholders, developed voluntary provider training available January 2014. Three stakeholder workgroup meetings were held between May 29, 2013, and December 3, 2013. The workgroup meetings included at least one participant from each of the following groups: public authorities, providers, recipients, county representatives, recognized employee representatives and DHCS. On March 27, 2013, the Dual Demonstration MOU was approved to integrate dual eligible beneficiaries as a component of CCI. In an effort to ensure that data-sharing needs are identified and addressed prior to the implementation of the CCI in 2014, CDSS is holding data sharing stakeholder workgroups, the first of which took place November 30, 2012. A stakeholder workgroup has been established to develop the universal assessment process, including a universal assessment tool for home and community-based services. The first stakeholder workgroup meeting was held September 20, 2013. The W&IC sections 12300.7, 12306, 12306.1 and 12306.15 were amended and delinked CCI components to allow the mandatory enrollment of Medi-Cal and Medicare beneficiaries (dual eligibles) into Medi-Cal managed care, the integration of long-term supports and services into managed care plans and the commencement of the IHSS Statewide Public Authority to proceed separately from Cal MediConnect. FLSA Final Rules Concerning Domestic Workers – W&IC section 12300.41, 12301.1 and 12301.24 In September 2013, the United States Department of Labor issued its Final Rule concerning domestic workers under the FLSA. The regulations were scheduled to implement January 2015 containing several significant changes impacting the IHSS program, including more clearly defining the tasks that comprise “companionship services” and limiting exemptions for companionship services and live-in domestic service employees to the individual, family, or household using the services and not third-party employers. Under the final rule, CDSS is required to pay IHSS providers overtime wages and compensate providers for wait time during medical accompaniment and commute time between multiple recipients. CDSS is evaluating implementation options for compliance with FLSA regulations. Policy changes to IHSS provider workweek limitations and provider orientation were made. Statutes were amended and added to provide a limitation of the hours an IHSS provider can work in a week contingent upon implementation of the FLSA ruling. Providers cannot work more than 66 hours each week, less the seven percent reduction while it is in effect (61 Hours). The 66/61 hour limit is based on the statutory maximum hours (283) an IHSS recipient can receive, divided by 4.33 weeks per month. It allows payment to IHSS providers for travel time, limited to seven hours per week, when traveling directly between different recipients on the same day. The CDSS or a county may terminate a provider from the IHSS program if he/she continues to violate the overtime/travel time limitations. The legislation also established a three month grace period for IHSS provider overtime changes, in which providers will be compensated for overtime. Statute was amended to require onsite orientation, completion of the IHSS provider application prior to attendance, oral presentations and written material translated into the IHSS threshold languages in the county. Statute also permits presentations by representatives of recognized employee organizations in the county. 2014-15 FLSA Federal District Court Ruling In late December 2014, a federal district court ruled that a portion of the regulations exceeded the federal Department of Labor's authority and delayed implementation of the regulations. Under state law, the state's implementation of overtime, commute time, and wait time were also delayed pending further action by the federal court. On January 14, 2015, Judge Leon issued a ruling, vacating the Department of Labor's revised companionship services definition that was scheduled to go into effect on January 15, 2015. ———————————————————————————————– Thanks to Connie Arnold for these additional resources!   The post Attendant Crisis- Pushing Limits – April 12, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.

At least four gold bars that federal investigators recovered during their search of Sen. Bob Menendez's (D-NJ) home are directly linked to one of the men accused of bribing Menendez. A new California law slated to go into effect on January 1, 2024, will mandate stores that sell children's items to have a gender-neutral section, according to a state government website. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said former President Donald Trump would "absolutely" refuse to leave office if reelected. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) reported, December 1, that California will have a revenue shortage of $58 billion below Budget Act projections over the next two years. A man was arrested late last week for planning a “mass casualty event” at Tesla's headquarters in Texas during an event to celebrate the much anticipated release of the electric car company's new Cybertruck, according to law enforcement officials.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

California's Local Control Funding Formula or LCFF took a major step towards advancing equity.  But as LCFF was coming into existence 10 years ago, education and community leaders in the state's largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, recognized this new formula might not go far enough in helping to address deeply rooted inequities within its student population.  Through a unique partnership between the local community and school district, the groundbreaking Student Equity Need Index (SENI) was born. In 2024, the SENI turns ten. It's an example of a powerful partnership between students, parents, community advocates and school district leaders to drive resource equity. SENI is a research-based index that uses comprehensive academic and community-based indicators to rank schools from highest to lowest according to student need. With these rankings, LAUSD can more accurately understand the needs of its schools and equitably distribute funds to address them.  In many ways, the SENI is a more robust precursor to the state's new Equity Multiplier,  adopted in the 2023 Budget Act, which will target some additional funding directly to schools.In this episode, Pedro Salcido, Deputy Superintendent of Business Services and Operations for Los Angeles Unified School District, and Jessenia Reyes, Associate Director of K-12 Policy for the Equity Team at Catalyst California, take us deep inside the SENI.  They share with host Jason Willis how SENI was developed and how it evolved, the impact it has had to date, and how the district and community groups worked together and through some difficult tensions to build the system. While the SENI originated in California's largest school district, it's an exciting homegrown model that districts around the state can learn from and potentially customize to better address their communities' unique needs.About Our GuestsJessenia Reyes is the Associate Director of K-12 Policy at Catalyst California, a systems change nonprofit organization, and part of the Equity Alliance for L.A.'s Kids that includes Community Coalition in South LA, Inner-City Struggle in East LA, and the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, which advocated for the SENI.Pedro Salcido is the Deputy Superintendent of Business Services and Operations for Los Angeles USD, the state's largest school district and the second-largest in the nation.  Prior to his current role, Pedro served as Chief of Staff managing all District academic and nonacademic operations, activities and  initiatives, as well as serving as the Superintendent's principal liaison to the Board of Education. Among many other roles and accomplishments, he served as the leading staff member who developed and implemented the District's SENI, an equity-based funding allocation that today has grown to distribute nearly $700 million to the neediest schools in the district..LinksCatalyst California SENI page LAUSD SENI pageBudgeting for Educational Equity podcast is presented by CASBO and WestEd. We are grateful to the Sobrato Family Foundation for additional support. Our series is written and produced by Paul Richman and Jason Willis. Music and editing  by Tommy Dunbar. Alyssa Perez and Hannah Jarmolowski at WestEd provide research and develop written briefs that go along with many episodes.

Another unnecessary crisis averted. In this episode, Jen examines the debt ceiling crisis events of the past to show that the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 - which raised the debt ceiling - is not likely to reduce our government's debt but will likely ensure that our environment will be trashed for profit. She also examines the best path forward to ensure that the debt ceiling is never used for political leverage again. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the show notes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd275-debt-ceiling-2023-crisis-normalized Background Sources Congressional Dish Episodes CD261: Inflation Reduction Act CD257: PACT Act – Health Care for Poisoned Veterans CD151: AHCA – The House Version (American Health Care Act) CD049: Crisis… Postponed CD048: The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Debt Ceiling Overview “US debt ceiling - what it is and why there is one.” Natalie Sherman. Jun 2, 2023. BBC. “What Happens When the U.S. Hits Its Debt Ceiling?” Noah Berman. Last Updated May 25, 2023. Council on Foreign Relations. “A brief history of debt ceiling crises and the political chaos they've unleashed.” Raymond Scheppach. May 12, 2023. The Conversation. “Congress has revised the debt ceiling 78 times since 1960. An expert explains why.” Scott Simon and Lennon Sherburne. April 29, 2023. NPR. New Development Bank Ben Norton on Twitter New Development Bank on Twitter New Development Bank Website “BRICS New Development Bank de-dollarizing, adding Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe as members.” Ben Norton. Jun 8, 2023. Monthly Review Online. “NDB Board of Directors held its 40th meeting.” Jun 5, 2023. New Development Bank. Debt Limit History “The Debt Limit Through the Years.” Bipartisan Policy Center. “US government shutdown to end after Congress passes debt ceiling deal.” Paul Lewis and Dan Roberts. Oct 15, 2013. The Guardian. “S.& P. Downgrades Debt Rating of U.S. for the First Time.” Binyamin Appelbaum and Eric Dash. Aug 5, 2011. The New York Times. “Gingrich Vows No Retreat on Debt Ceiling Increase.” Clay Chandler. Sept 22, 1995. The Washington Post. 2023 Crisis “House Democrats Move to Force a Debt-Limit Increase as Default Date Looms.” Carl Hulse. May 2, 2023. The New York Times. “Can Congress Make an End-Run Around a Debt Limit Impasse? It's Tricky.” Carl Hulse and Jeanna Smialek. Apr 7, 2023. The New York Times. The Debt “2023 VAT Rates in Europe.” Cristina Enache. Jan 31, 2023. Tax Foundation. “National Debt: Definition, Impact, and Key Drivers.” Updated May 25, 2023. Investopedia. “Briefing Book: What is the Child Tax Credit?” Updated May 2021. Tax Policy Center. The Law H.R.3746: Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 Jen's Highlighted PDF CBO Estimate of Budgetary Effects Law Outline Division A: Limit Federal Spending Title I: Discretionary Spending Limits for Discretionary Category Sec. 101: Discretionary Spending Limits Sets spending caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 2024: Over $886 billion for defense Over $703 billion for non-defense Sec 102: Special Adjustments for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 If there is a continuing resolution in effect on or after January 1, 2024 for fiscal year 2024, or a continuing resolution for 2025 on or affect January 1, 2025, defense and non-defense spending will be sequestered, meaning a 1% across the board cut Title II: Budget Enforcement in the House of Representatives Explains how the House of Representatives must implement this law Title III: Budget Enforcement in the Senate Explains how the Senate must implement this law Division B: Save Taxpayer Dollars Title I: Rescission of Unobligated Funds Takes money back from accounts where it wasn't all spent including from: The Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Specifically their COVID vaccine activities and vaccine supply chains All the money except $7 billion for COVID testing and mitigation All of the SARS-CO-V2 genomic sequencing money except for $714 million All of the money for COVID global health programs International Disaster Assistance funds for the State Department National Institutes of Health - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Community health centers National Health Service Corps Nurse Corps Graduate level teaching health centers Mental health and substance use disorder training for health care professionals and public safety officers Grants for mental health for medical providers Funding for pediatric mental health care access Grants for survivors of sexual assault Child abuse prevention and treatment Medical visits at home for families State and local fiscal recovery funds Rural health care grants Restaurant revitalization fund Elementary and secondary school emergency relief funds Housing for people with disabilities Housing for the elderly Grants to Amtrak and airports Air carrier worker support and air transportation payroll support Title II: Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Sec. 251: Rescission of Certain Balances Made Available to the Internal Revenue Service Defunds the IRS by approximately $1.4 billion Title III: Statutory Administrative Pay-As-You-Go Requires agencies to submit plan to reduce spending in an equal or greater amount to every action they take that increases spending. This is easily waived and expires at the end of 2024.. Title IV: Termination of Suspension of Payments on Federal Student Loans: Resumption of Accrual of Interest and Collections Sec. 271: Termination of Suspension of Payments on Federal Student Loans; Resumption of Accrual of Interest and Collections At the end of September, people with Federal student loans will have to begin repayment of their loans, and the Secretary of Education is not allowed to implement an extension of the payment pause. Division C: Grow the Economy Title I: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Orders reports about work requirements for welfare payments Title II: SNAP Exemptions Sec. 311: Modification of Work Requirement Exemptions In order to receive food benefits for more than 3 months in a 3 year period, "able bodied" people have to work at least 20 hours per week or participate in a work program for 20 hours per week unless that person is under 18 or over 50 years old, medically unable to work, is a parent with dependent children, or is pregnant. This provision increases the work requirement age over the next few years so it becomes 55 years old. This provision adds homeless individuals, veterans or foster kids until they are 24 to the list of people exempt from the work requirements This provision expires and the qualifications revert back to what they used to be on October 1, 2030 Title III: Permitting Reform Sec. 321: Builder Act Changes the requirements for NEPA environmental studies to include "any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative..." and requires only "irreversible and irretrievable commitments of FEDERAL resources which would be involved in the proposed agency action should it be implemented" Adds circumstances when agencies will not have to produce environmental impact documents Requires environmental impact statements when the action has a "reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the HUMAN environment." Allows agencies to use "any reliable data source" and says the agency is "not required to undertake new scientific or technical research unless the new scientific or technical research is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs and time frame of obtaining it are not unreasonable." Assigns roles for "lead agencies" and "cooperating agencies" and says that the agencies will produce a single environmental document Sets a 150 page limit on environmental impact statements and 300 pages for a proposed agency action with "extraordinary complexity" Sets a 75 page limit on environmental assessments Requires lead agencies to allow a "project sponsor" to prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements under the supervision of the agency. The lead agency will "evaluate" the documents and "shall take responsibility for the contents." Environmental impact statements must be complete in under 2 years after the EIS is ordered by the agency Environmental assessments must be completed in 1 year The agency may extend the deadlines Project sponsors are given the right to take government agencies to court for failure to meet a deadline Sec. 324: Expediting Completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline "Congress hereby ratifies and approves all authorizations, permits, verifications, extensions, biological opinions, incidental take statements, and any other approvals or orders issued pursuant to Federal law necessary for the construction and initial operation at full capacity of the Mountain Valley Pipeline." Gives the Secretary of the Army 21 days after enactment of this law to issue "all permits or verifications necessary to complete the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline across the waters of the United States" "No court shall have jurisdiction..." to review "...any approval necessary for the construction and initial operation at full capacity of the Mountain Valley Pipeline... including any lawsuit pending in a court as of the date of enactment of this section." Division D: Increase the Debt Limit Sec. 401: Temporary Extension of Public Debt Limit Suspends the debt limit until January 1, 2025 On January 2, 2025, the debt limit will automatically increase to whatever amount the debt level is at the end of the suspension Audio Sources Senate Session June 1, 2023 Highlighted Transcript Senate Session Parts 1 & 2 May 31, 2023 Highlighted Transcript Meeting: H.R. 3746 - Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 May 30, 2023 House Committee on Rules Watch it on YouTube Clips 22:50 Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): I should note for my colleagues that Democrats could have raised the debt limit last year when they controlled the House of Representatives. 35:30 Rep. Ron Estes (R-KS): The Fiscal Responsibility Act finally ends the federal student loan moratorium and the so-called interest pause, effective August 31, 2023. For every month borrowers were allowed to skip payments, $4.3 billion were added to the American taxpayers debt. 41 months later, the moratorium has cost American taxpayers approximately $176 billion. 1:01:15 Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): The President put forward a budget months ago. Chairman Smith, do you know when the President submitted his budget to the United States Congress? Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): I don't remember but it was -- Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): It was March 9th. Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): It was late. It was due February 1st. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): Oh, I'm glad you noted that. Chairman Smith, when did the Republicans submit their budget? Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): You would need to ask the budget committee. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO): I would need to ask the budget committee. Mr. Estes. When did the Republicans submit their budget? [Pause] Only in the Rules Committee, by the way, could a witness lay blame at the president for being a few weeks late in submitting his budget when his party hasn't submitted a budget, period. 1:06:45 Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA): We also run the risk that we will one day not be the reserve currency of the world. The reason why our interest rates are so low comparatively, is because we are a safe haven for investment for the rest of the world. These sort of antics increasingly bring that into doubt whether or not folks will get their money, the folks who are lending to us. 1:24:15 Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM): Now, Standard and Poor's, they downgraded our credit rating. Have they increased that credit rating? Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA): No. There are three credit agencies Standard and Poor's, which was the one that downgraded us in 2011, never reversed their downgrade. And frankly my concern and the worry right now is that the other two credit agencies will now follow suit, given the events of the last couple of months, which obviously look very much like 2011 all over again. 1:50:55 Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA): I continue to be stunned by the fact that when I look at this deal, which focuses on discretionary funding, that the people who seem to be asked to do the most or to absorb the hits the most are the people that least can afford it. The military budget is part of this discretionary budget, it's over 50% of the discretionary budget. The United States spends more on national defense than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan and Ukraine combined. And yet, if this moves forward, we see an increase in defense spending. I mentioned in my opening remarks, I don't know how many of you saw the 60 minutes piece the other day, I mean, we all know, of the cost overruns in the Department of Defense. I mean, the idea that we're spending $10,000 for a $300 oil switch. I mean, it's been there for a long time, and yet, we seem unable to want to grapple with that waste and those cost overruns. I don't know if it's the defense lobbyists or the campaign contributions or whatever it is, but somehow, when it comes to the military budget, you know, not only are we not holding them accountable, but you know, we say we're going to increase it even more, even more, we'll give you more. 2:57:40 Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX): Look, I'm for NEPA reforms 100%. We need them for road projects, transportation, particularly for our energy industry. But my concern here that we've got language that none of us have fully reviewed, going through the committees of jurisdiction that has been adopted, that I've got colleagues texting me and saying they're not 100% sure if that language is good or bad for the purpose intended. I've got colleagues on both sides of the aisle that have raised those questions. And so the purpose intended, of course, is to streamline projects, whatever those projects may be. But I've got a text right here from GOP colleagues saying, Well, I'm not so sure that these will actually do what we think they will do, to streamline said projects. And in fact, a former high up in the administration, in the Energy Department under the Trump administration, just validated that concern by one of my colleagues. Yet we are putting forward this measures saying some grand improvement with respect to NEPA, that that's somehow something we should be applauding when it's not the full package of H.R. 1, which had gone through committee. And importantly, the one thing that I think is 100% clear, is that this bill fails to include even the most basic reform to President Biden's unreliable energy subsidies that were put forward in the so called inflation Reduction Act for the wealthy, elites, corporations, and the Chinese Communist Party just to be blunt. And frankly, it ensures that permitting reform will likely benefit renewables the most. Basically, if you're a government that is subsidizing the crap out of something, in this case, unreliable energy, giving massive subsidies to billion dollar corporations, giving significant subsidies to families that make over 100,000, 300,000 for EVs, because you're chasing your your dreams of, you know, a fossil fuel-less world. You're going to absolutely decimate our grid because you're not going to have the projects being developed for the gas and the coal nuclear that are actually required to keep your grid functioning. But yeah, that's what we're doing and I just for the life of me can't understand why we're applauding that. 3:15:50 Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO): So we've been asking for the IRS to give us a plan of how they wanted to spend the additional $80 billion that they had. They finally gave that to Congress about six weeks, eight weeks ago. They broke down how they're spending the $80 billion: $1.4 billion of it was for hiring more agents and what the bill before you does, it eliminates that $1.4 billion for this year. House Session May 25, 2023 Highlighted Transcript House Session, Morning Hour, Parts 1 & 2 May 24, 2023 Highlighted PDF How the Pentagon falls victim to price gouging by military contractors May 21, 2023 60 Minutes The Rich Get Richer, Deficits Get Bigger: How Tax Cuts for the Wealthy and Corporations Drive the National Debt May 17, 2023  Senate Budget Committee Witnesses: Bobby Kogan, Senior Director, Federal Budget Policy, Center for American Progress Bruce Bartlett, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, United States Department of Treasury Samantha Jacoby, Senior Tax Legal Analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Dr. Adam Michel, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute Scott Hodge, President Emeritus & Senior Policy Advisor, Tax Foundation Clips 32:25 Bobby Kogan: Today I intend to make two points. First, without the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, the ratio of debt to GDP would be declining indefinitely. And second, our rising debt ratio is due entirely to these tax cuts and not to spending increases. Throughout this testimony, When I say spending, I mean primary spending, that is spending excluding interest on the federal debt, and every mention of revenues, spending deficits, and debt means those amounts as a percent of GDP. Okay, according to CBO primary deficits are on track to stabilize at roughly 4% over 30 years, high enough to cause the debt to rise indefinitely. The common refrain that you will hear, that I heard when I staffed this committee, and that unfortunately, I expect to hear today, is that rising debt is due to rising spending. Revenues have been roughly flat since the 1960s and while spending was also roughly flat until recently, demographic changes and rising healthcare costs are now pushing the costs up. These facts are true. Our intuitions might reasonably tell us that if revenues are flat, and spending is rising, then the one changing must be to blame. But our intuitions are wrong. In CBO's periodic long term projections earlier this century, spending was projected to continue rising, but despite this CBO routinely projected long term debt stability, It projected revenues to keep up with this rising spending, not due to tax increases, but due to our tax code bringing in more as our country and the people in it prospered. That prosperity results in both higher revenue collection and higher real after tax income for the people whose incomes are growing, it is a win win. In other words, we used to have a tax system that would fully keep pace with rising spending. And then the Bush tax cuts were enacted and expanded, and then on a bipartisan basis eventually made largely permanent in 2013. Under the law dictating CBO and OMB's baseline construction, temporary changes in tax law are assumed to end as scheduled. In practice this meant that CBO is projection showed the Bush tax cuts ending on schedule with the tax code then reverting to prior law. 2012 was therefore the last year in which CBO is projections reflected the Bush tax cuts expiring. Yes, CBO's 2012 long term projections showed rising spending, but it also showed revenues exceeding spending for all 65 years of its extended baseline with indefinite surpluses, CBO showed debt declining indefinitely. But ever since the Bush tax cuts were made permanent CBO has showed revenues lower than spending and has projected debt to rise indefinitely. And since then, the Trump tax cuts further reduced revenues. Without the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and the Trump tax cuts, debt would be declining indefinitely, regardless of your assumptions about the alternative minimum tax. Two points explain this. The first employs a concept called the fiscal gap, which measures how much primary deficit reduction is required to stabilize the debt. The 30 year fiscal gap is currently 2.4% of GDP, which means that on average primary deficits over 30 years would need to be 2.4% of GDP lower for the debt in 2053 to be equal to what it is now. The size of the Bush tax cuts their extensions and the Trump tax cuts under current law over the next 30 years is 3.8% of GDP. Therefore, mathematically and unequivocally without these tax cuts, debt would be declining as a percent of GDP, not rising. 41:45 Bruce Bartlett: The reason I changed my mind about taxes and decided that we needed tax increases happened on a specific day that I'm sure Senator Grassley remembers, if nobody else. And that was the day in November of 2003, when the Medicare Part D legislation passed, and I was just, you know, at the time, I thought the reason Republicans, and I was a Republican in those days, were put on this earth was to control entitlement programs. And I was appalled that an entirely new entitlement program was created that was completely unfunded. It raised the deficit forever by about 1% of GDP. And I thought a dedicated tax should have been enacted, along with that program, which I didn't oppose and don't oppose. In fact, I benefit from it at my age. But I just think that we need proper funding. And that was when I first started saying we needed to raise taxes, because we just can't cut discretionary spending enough to fix the problem. And I think this is the error of the House budget, which cuts almost entirely domestic discretionary spending, doesn't even touch defense, and I just think that's extraordinarily unrealistic and an unserious approach to our deficit problem. We simply have to do something about entitlements. If you're going to control spending, control the budget on the spending side, I don't think we're going to do that. I think we need a new tax. I have advocated a value added tax for many years, as a supplement to our existing tax system. It creates, you can raise a lot of revenue from it every virtually every industrialized country has one. The money could be used to fix things in the tax code, as a tax reform measure. Once upon a time in the 70s, and even the 80s, it was considered the sine qua non of Republican tax policy, because it's a consumption based tax system, a flat tax, and now many Republicans are in favor of something called the Fair Tax which is very similar except that it won't work. Administratively it's poorly designed. The Value Added Tax will work and that's why it should be a better approach to these problems. 49:15 Samantha Jacoby: Wealthy people who get their income from investments accumulate large gains as those assets go up in value over time, but they won't owe income tax unless they sell their assets. And if they never sell, no one will ever pay income tax on those gains. That's arguably the biggest flaw in the tax code. Policymakers should consider a tax like President Biden's budget proposal to enact a minimum tax on very wealthy households. This would treat unrealized capital gains, which is the primary source of income for many wealthy households, as taxable income instead of letting income accrue tax free across generations. 54:15 Dr. Adam Michel: Keeping government small is the best way to ensure that the American people can continue to prosper. 58:45 Scott Hodge: There are many elements of the tax code that benefit the wealthy and big corporations, I absolutely agree, and the inflation Reduction Act is the most recent example of corporate welfare in the tax code. 1:01:00 Samantha Jacoby: So the the 2017 law, it dramatically changed the way that foreign profits are taxed of multinationals. And so what happens now is large corporations who have big, big foreign profit centers, lots of foreign profits overseas, they pay a lower tax rate on those foreign profits than they do on their domestic profits or purely domestic businesses pay. 1:02:55 Bruce Bartlett: And one of the things I tried to do in my prepared testimony is look at what has actually happened in the seven years since then. And very few studies, I know, some of the tests, the footnotes and my colleagues testimony or to our projections based on studies were done in 2017, 2018. I tried to find things that were written more recently, perhaps, or preferably, I should say, in the academic literature, which I think is more substantive and more dependable. And I looked at peer reviewed journals, and the data that I could find showed no macroeconomic impact whatsoever. It didn't raise growth, it didn't lower growth. And I think I concluded in that -- Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): It did shift wealth, correct? Bruce Bartlett: Excuse me? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): It did shift wealth. Bruce Bartlett: Oh, absolutely. No question about that. But I'm more interested in the macroeconomic effect on investment and growth and employment. And I would just close by saying that if a tax cut had no positive impact, then it can't have any negative impact if you get rid of it. Now, you may not want to for other reasons.... 1:05:25 Bobby Kogan: Right. So our demographic changes and rising healthcare costs are the reason that spending is increasing. If you break spending into two categories, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, everything else, including the everything else entitlements, the everything else is shrinking as a percent of GDP and it's the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that are growing. And they are growing not because they are getting more, they're doing more, it's not because we're giving more and more to seniors, and to extremely poor people, but because it costs more to do the same. And that is the rising that is the demographics is changing the ratio of non workers to workers and there's also the rising health care costs. And so what this means is that if you want to spend less, you are necessarily saying that future seniors should be getting less of a benefit than they're currently getting. That's the only way to do it. Since that's the portion of the budget that's growing, if you want to cut that, you have to say that the current amount that we're doing for Social Security recipients, the current amount that we're doing for seniors, the current amount that we're doing for people on Medicaid is too much, and future people should be having less. That's the only way to do it. And, you know, the very nice thing that I had though, ii my testimony, we used to have a tax system that despite that rising, we keep up with that, and now we don't. 1:15:50 Bruce Bartlett: Well, first of all, I think in terms of tax shelters and tax evasion and extreme levels of tax avoidance, the problem isn't so much with the law as with the enforcement. And as you know, it's been the policy of Republicans to slash the budget of the IRS in real terms, for many years, which is a way of giving, privatizing tax avoidance to rich people and the rich individuals have the greatest power and ability to evade taxation. And I think it was really wonderful that the Congress increased the IRS budget, and I think it's just the height of absurdity that one of the major elements of the House Republican proposal is to slash the IRS budget again, even though the CBO has said this is a revenue losing proposition. 2:06:40 Bruce Bartlett: I think there's absolutely no question that the debt limit is unconstitutional, and not just under the 14th Amendment, section four, but under the general powers of the President. I mean, one of the things that I will point out is that the debt limit is a very serious national security issue. A huge percentage of the national debt that is owned by foreigners is owned by foreign central banks. They are not going to be happy if their assets are suddenly worth a great deal less than they thought they were. I think the President has full power within his inherent authority to simply declare the debt limit null and void. And I would point out that it's not a simple question of whether you just break the debt limit. I think a lot of people, even on this committee, forget the impoundment part of the Budget Act of 1974, which says the President must spend the money that is appropriated by law, he doesn't have the choice not to, which is what some Republicans seem to think that he can do. And he lacks that power. So I would agree that the President has that power. I wish he would use it. I wish it as sincerely as anything I believe in life. Thank you. Senate Session May 16, 2023 Highlighted PDF House Session May 16, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session May 15, 2023 Highlighted PDF House Session May 10, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session, Parts 1 & 2 May 19, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session May 9, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session May 4, 2023 Highlighted PDF Senate Session, Parts 1 & 2 May 2, 2023 Highlighted PDF Music Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Editing Pro Podcast Solutions Production Assistance Clare Kuntz Balcer

Some experts argue that the first and most important place for congressional reform is its power of the purse. With regular order a distant memory, annual budget proceedings failing to live up to the basic framework of the 1974 Budget Act, the ever-expanding role of the president in spending decisions, and regular threats of federal government shutdowns, some fear the legislative branch has lost its ability to oversee and control our nation's finances.Senator James Lankford joined us to discuss these issues and some of his specific solutions including the recently passed bipartisan "Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act" and his proposed "End Government Shutdowns Act." Thereafter, our panel of experts discussed those ideas and much more.Featuring:- Hon. James Lankford, United States Senator from Oklahoma- G. William Hoagland, Senior Vice President, Bipartisan Policy Center- Matthew B. Lawrence, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law- Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow - Governance Studies, Brookings Institution- Moderator: Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

Political Scientist John Dearborn's new book, Power Shifts: Congress and Presidential Representation (U Chicago Press, 2021), weaves together three connected threads in the course of his analysis: the role and capacity of ideas to make political change, the evolution of the position and understanding of the President of the United States as a representative of the citizens of the United States, and the way in which congressional legislation also works to shift the constitutional or institutional relationship between Congress and the President. This is a propulsive book, which is not necessarily the norm for academic publications, and Dearborn keeps the reader engaged through fascinating details about legislation that Congress passes in the midst of the 20th century that not only sets up policy outcomes but also provides the president with the power to create those outcomes. Dearborn then traces the ways, in the latter part of the 20th century, in which Congress attempts to wrangle some of that power back from the president, or to develop its own power to rival or parallel the president's power. Power Shifts focuses on this concept of the president as a national representative, which was not necessarily the idea that the Founders had for the president at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Some thought was given to how this national office would operate, but because of the way that the president is elected, at a remove from the people, the idea that the president was the voice or tribune of the people was not the key concept in the design of the presidency. Dearborn takes the reader through the evolution of this concept during the 19th and 20th century, highlighting how the presidents made claim to this particular role, while noting that it became clear that the veto power was not sufficient to reflect the voice of the people. During a number of decades in the midst of the 20th century, Congress builds up the presidency as an institution, formalizing presidential agenda-setting capacities and giving the presidency the organizational capacity to function as the center of the governmental structure and as the representative of all of the people. In examining several congressional acts, including the Budget Act of 1921, the Reorganization Act of 1939, and other particular constructions by Congress, Power Shifts examines how these creations centered presidential representation as the key to the design for these legislative moves. In the second part of the book, Dearborn explores the period of congressional resurgence in the 1970s and 1980s, and how Congress created connected legislation that sought to pull some of these powers away from the president, or at least provide Congress with sufficient capacity to challenge the president in a number of different arenas. And again, the arguments around the legislation dive into the question of whether the president is operating as a national representative, with a focus on the best interests of the people and the country. Shaina Boldt assisted with this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Political Scientist John Dearborn's new book, Power Shifts: Congress and Presidential Representation (U Chicago Press, 2021), weaves together three connected threads in the course of his analysis: the role and capacity of ideas to make political change, the evolution of the position and understanding of the President of the United States as a representative of the citizens of the United States, and the way in which congressional legislation also works to shift the constitutional or institutional relationship between Congress and the President. This is a propulsive book, which is not necessarily the norm for academic publications, and Dearborn keeps the reader engaged through fascinating details about legislation that Congress passes in the midst of the 20th century that not only sets up policy outcomes but also provides the president with the power to create those outcomes. Dearborn then traces the ways, in the latter part of the 20th century, in which Congress attempts to wrangle some of that power back from the president, or to develop its own power to rival or parallel the president's power. Power Shifts focuses on this concept of the president as a national representative, which was not necessarily the idea that the Founders had for the president at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Some thought was given to how this national office would operate, but because of the way that the president is elected, at a remove from the people, the idea that the president was the voice or tribune of the people was not the key concept in the design of the presidency. Dearborn takes the reader through the evolution of this concept during the 19th and 20th century, highlighting how the presidents made claim to this particular role, while noting that it became clear that the veto power was not sufficient to reflect the voice of the people. During a number of decades in the midst of the 20th century, Congress builds up the presidency as an institution, formalizing presidential agenda-setting capacities and giving the presidency the organizational capacity to function as the center of the governmental structure and as the representative of all of the people. In examining several congressional acts, including the Budget Act of 1921, the Reorganization Act of 1939, and other particular constructions by Congress, Power Shifts examines how these creations centered presidential representation as the key to the design for these legislative moves. In the second part of the book, Dearborn explores the period of congressional resurgence in the 1970s and 1980s, and how Congress created connected legislation that sought to pull some of these powers away from the president, or at least provide Congress with sufficient capacity to challenge the president in a number of different arenas. And again, the arguments around the legislation dive into the question of whether the president is operating as a national representative, with a focus on the best interests of the people and the country. Shaina Boldt assisted with this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Political Scientist John Dearborn's new book, Power Shifts: Congress and Presidential Representation (U Chicago Press, 2021), weaves together three connected threads in the course of his analysis: the role and capacity of ideas to make political change, the evolution of the position and understanding of the President of the United States as a representative of the citizens of the United States, and the way in which congressional legislation also works to shift the constitutional or institutional relationship between Congress and the President. This is a propulsive book, which is not necessarily the norm for academic publications, and Dearborn keeps the reader engaged through fascinating details about legislation that Congress passes in the midst of the 20th century that not only sets up policy outcomes but also provides the president with the power to create those outcomes. Dearborn then traces the ways, in the latter part of the 20th century, in which Congress attempts to wrangle some of that power back from the president, or to develop its own power to rival or parallel the president's power. Power Shifts focuses on this concept of the president as a national representative, which was not necessarily the idea that the Founders had for the president at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Some thought was given to how this national office would operate, but because of the way that the president is elected, at a remove from the people, the idea that the president was the voice or tribune of the people was not the key concept in the design of the presidency. Dearborn takes the reader through the evolution of this concept during the 19th and 20th century, highlighting how the presidents made claim to this particular role, while noting that it became clear that the veto power was not sufficient to reflect the voice of the people. During a number of decades in the midst of the 20th century, Congress builds up the presidency as an institution, formalizing presidential agenda-setting capacities and giving the presidency the organizational capacity to function as the center of the governmental structure and as the representative of all of the people. In examining several congressional acts, including the Budget Act of 1921, the Reorganization Act of 1939, and other particular constructions by Congress, Power Shifts examines how these creations centered presidential representation as the key to the design for these legislative moves. In the second part of the book, Dearborn explores the period of congressional resurgence in the 1970s and 1980s, and how Congress created connected legislation that sought to pull some of these powers away from the president, or at least provide Congress with sufficient capacity to challenge the president in a number of different arenas. And again, the arguments around the legislation dive into the question of whether the president is operating as a national representative, with a focus on the best interests of the people and the country. Shaina Boldt assisted with this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Political Scientist John Dearborn's new book, Power Shifts: Congress and Presidential Representation (U Chicago Press, 2021), weaves together three connected threads in the course of his analysis: the role and capacity of ideas to make political change, the evolution of the position and understanding of the President of the United States as a representative of the citizens of the United States, and the way in which congressional legislation also works to shift the constitutional or institutional relationship between Congress and the President. This is a propulsive book, which is not necessarily the norm for academic publications, and Dearborn keeps the reader engaged through fascinating details about legislation that Congress passes in the midst of the 20th century that not only sets up policy outcomes but also provides the president with the power to create those outcomes. Dearborn then traces the ways, in the latter part of the 20th century, in which Congress attempts to wrangle some of that power back from the president, or to develop its own power to rival or parallel the president's power. Power Shifts focuses on this concept of the president as a national representative, which was not necessarily the idea that the Founders had for the president at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Some thought was given to how this national office would operate, but because of the way that the president is elected, at a remove from the people, the idea that the president was the voice or tribune of the people was not the key concept in the design of the presidency. Dearborn takes the reader through the evolution of this concept during the 19th and 20th century, highlighting how the presidents made claim to this particular role, while noting that it became clear that the veto power was not sufficient to reflect the voice of the people. During a number of decades in the midst of the 20th century, Congress builds up the presidency as an institution, formalizing presidential agenda-setting capacities and giving the presidency the organizational capacity to function as the center of the governmental structure and as the representative of all of the people. In examining several congressional acts, including the Budget Act of 1921, the Reorganization Act of 1939, and other particular constructions by Congress, Power Shifts examines how these creations centered presidential representation as the key to the design for these legislative moves. In the second part of the book, Dearborn explores the period of congressional resurgence in the 1970s and 1980s, and how Congress created connected legislation that sought to pull some of these powers away from the president, or at least provide Congress with sufficient capacity to challenge the president in a number of different arenas. And again, the arguments around the legislation dive into the question of whether the president is operating as a national representative, with a focus on the best interests of the people and the country. Shaina Boldt assisted with this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Political Scientist John Dearborn's new book, Power Shifts: Congress and Presidential Representation (U Chicago Press, 2021), weaves together three connected threads in the course of his analysis: the role and capacity of ideas to make political change, the evolution of the position and understanding of the President of the United States as a representative of the citizens of the United States, and the way in which congressional legislation also works to shift the constitutional or institutional relationship between Congress and the President. This is a propulsive book, which is not necessarily the norm for academic publications, and Dearborn keeps the reader engaged through fascinating details about legislation that Congress passes in the midst of the 20th century that not only sets up policy outcomes but also provides the president with the power to create those outcomes. Dearborn then traces the ways, in the latter part of the 20th century, in which Congress attempts to wrangle some of that power back from the president, or to develop its own power to rival or parallel the president's power. Power Shifts focuses on this concept of the president as a national representative, which was not necessarily the idea that the Founders had for the president at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Some thought was given to how this national office would operate, but because of the way that the president is elected, at a remove from the people, the idea that the president was the voice or tribune of the people was not the key concept in the design of the presidency. Dearborn takes the reader through the evolution of this concept during the 19th and 20th century, highlighting how the presidents made claim to this particular role, while noting that it became clear that the veto power was not sufficient to reflect the voice of the people. During a number of decades in the midst of the 20th century, Congress builds up the presidency as an institution, formalizing presidential agenda-setting capacities and giving the presidency the organizational capacity to function as the center of the governmental structure and as the representative of all of the people. In examining several congressional acts, including the Budget Act of 1921, the Reorganization Act of 1939, and other particular constructions by Congress, Power Shifts examines how these creations centered presidential representation as the key to the design for these legislative moves. In the second part of the book, Dearborn explores the period of congressional resurgence in the 1970s and 1980s, and how Congress created connected legislation that sought to pull some of these powers away from the president, or at least provide Congress with sufficient capacity to challenge the president in a number of different arenas. And again, the arguments around the legislation dive into the question of whether the president is operating as a national representative, with a focus on the best interests of the people and the country. Shaina Boldt assisted with this podcast. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Radio Public|LibSyn|YouTube|Patreon|Square Cash (Share code: Send $5, get $5!) David Waldman handcrafts yet another small-batch KITM, lovingly prepared once daily in our World Headquarters’ kitchen. Joan McCarter joins us with an exquisite water ganache, and her usual political acumen.  President Joe Biden keeps moving his own goalposts…  And he’s still scoring!  Now, all US adults will be eligible for the Covid vaccine on April 19. Saying Boris Johnson is “smarter than Trump” is like saying Boris has “a better hairstyle” than Donald, but at least Boris is getting his pandemic act together with the implementation of a national rapid COVID-19 testing program. Brexit, however, has wiped out the UK’s fine chocolate industry, leaving only spotted dick standing for the pride of Great Britain. Montana Governor Greg Gianforte recently signed a law against mask mandates. A mask with a shot might have kept him from coming down with Covid yesterday. People who don’t believe in masks or vaccines do believe in miracles, and suggest Greg try one of those. Alcee Hastings, crusading civil rights lawyer, the first Black federal judge in Florida and dean of Florida’s U.S. congressional delegation died at 84. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez demonstrated her support for party unity by donating to vulnerable House Democrats, much to their horror, as this money will be pointed to as proof of radical left… or right wing ties by their adversaries who would have lied about them anyhow. Want to show your support at a real grassroots level? And, have a fun and interesting time doing it? Support Hillary Kwiatek’s City Council campaign and hear behind the scenes stories of big stakes TV game shows! Tonight at 7PM Eastern! Or, if that’s not your style, you can check out the special election in TX-6, with a twelve crackpot Republican “jungle primary”, led by a Korean-American known for being anti-Asian. Surprise! President Joe is making America... well, great again. Biden is doing it from infrastructure and inequality on up. Republicans, of course want nothing to do with that. Mitch McConnell promises to burn bridges with any person or corporation that would support America. Chuck Schumer is becoming increasingly fine with Republican nonparticipation, now that he and the Senate parliamentarian are seeing eye to eye on Section 304 of the 1974 Budget Act. The Senate parliamentarian ruled Monday that Democrats can use special budgetary rules on two more pieces of legislation. David and Joan discuss what that means, and where and when it might be used.

On the last night of August, the California State Legislature wrapped up its 2019-2020 legislative session in a flurry. Many bills were passed and sent to the Governor, but several difficult issues were left unresolved. In this episode, CASBO’s dynamic team of advocates Sara Bachez and Elizabeth Esquivel share highlights. What were some of the legislature’s final actions (or inactions)? What are potential education budget and fiscal implications? And what is a frenzied last night of session in Sacramento really like, especially during this time of physical distancing?Plus, Palm Springs USD Nutrition Services Director Stephanie Bruce joins us again to describe some recent good news out of Washington D.C. related to school meals.KEY RESOURCESFor details about education and budget bills that were (or were not) passed out of the legislature, read CASBO's "End of the 2019-20 Legislative Session NewsBreak." This NewsBreak also includes details about Gov. Newsom's new “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” released on Aug. 28. Additional information about budget and finance bills discussed on this episode:SB 115 -- Makes technical amendments to K-12 education and early education associated with the Budget Act of 2020.SB 820 -- Makes clarifying changes to education programs adopted as part of the Budget Act of 2020. These changes are described in more detail in the CASBO Newsbreak: New Education Budget Changes are Released in SB 820"Legislature fixes funding problem for growing districts and some charter schools," Sept. 2 EdSource article by John Fensterwald"USDA Extends Free Meals for Kids Through Dec. 31, 2020" press release from USDAOUR GUESTS:Sara Bachez, CASBO Chief Government Relations Officer Elizabeth Esquivel, CASBO Senior Director of Policy and GovernanceStephanie Bruce, Nutrition Services Director, Palm Springs USD. Learn more about Stephanie on our March episode, "The Meals Must Go On"Plus a cameo appearance by Jeff Vaca, Chief Governmental Relations Officer, Riverside County Office of EducationABOUT CASBOThe California Association of School Business Officialsis the premier resource for professional development and business best practices for California's school business leaders. Follow at @CASBO. YOUR SERIES GUIDEPaul Richman is a public education advocate and consultant. edfundingca@gmail.com and @pjr100

We talk with Chris Emper, President of Emper Healthcare Advisors, and Government Affairs Advisor at NextGen Healthcare about what comprises an FQHC, the regulations they face, and funding sources. Affordable Care Act, Bi-partison Budget Act, and the Support for Patients and Communities Act are all hot topics facing the future of FQHC/CHC's. To get more information on FQHC and regulations check out this webinar on demand that covers all the bases and explains how regulations affect FQHC’s and CHC’s: https://ng.nextgen.com/RWB-Changing-Community-Health-FB

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s stricter asylum policies.  This decision is yet another ruling made by unelected judges and not the American people.  Congress never approved of illegal aliens getting free health care in emergency rooms and having access to public education. All of these things were done by the Supreme Court. These judges are not elected and are ignorant to our individual communities because they are cloistered and only debate amongst themselves. This notion is embraced by the racialist, Balkanized, Democrats that refuse the will of the people. Yet we currently spend a quarter of a trillion dollars on illegal immigration and Congress is fighting over five billion. The real problem here is that America needs one common first language, we need to stop dismissing assimilation, and we need to do what's right for America. This shutdown is over public relations, positioning, politics, and propaganda.  Then, Senators Schumer, Corker, Coons and others blame "far right" media for influencing President Trump to take a hardline stance on the border wall to shut down our government.  Yet they've had similar positions on immigration over the last decade of their political careers.  The lies and propaganda are consuming this process.  This shutdown will not affect federal checks for Medicaid, Medicare, or social security.  The shutdown will not affect the military or any other essential branch of our government as part of the 1974 Budget Act. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s stricter asylum policies.  This decision is yet another ruling made by unelected judges and not the American people.  Congress never approved of illegal aliens getting free health care in emergency rooms and having access to public education. All of these things were done by the Supreme Court. These judges are not elected and are ignorant to our individual communities because they are cloistered and only debate amongst themselves. This notion is embraced by the racialist, Balkanized, Democrats that refuse the will of the people. Yet we currently spend a quarter of a trillion dollars on illegal immigration and Congress is fighting over five billion. The real problem here is that America needs one common first language, we need to stop dismissing assimilation, and we need to do what's right for America. This shutdown is over public relations, positioning, politics, and propaganda.  Then, Senators Schumer, Corker, Coons and others blame "far right" media for influencing President Trump to take a hardline stance on the border wall to shut down our government.  Yet they've had similar positions on immigration over the last decade of their political careers.  The lies and propaganda are consuming this process.  This shutdown will not affect federal checks for Medicaid, Medicare, or social security.  The shutdown will not affect the military or any other essential branch of our government as part of the 1974 Budget Act. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Another shutdown, another dingleberry-filled temporary funding law! In this episode, learn about the new law that reopened the government after the 6 hour shutdown by providing funding until March 23 and be one of the few people in the country who will know about the random goodies that hitchhiked their way into law. Miranda Hannah joins Jen for the thank yous. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD147: Controlling Puerto Rico CD128: Crisis in Puerto Rico Additional Reading Article: Get ready: Here comes another bs* budget commission by Stan Collender, Forbes, March 4, 2018. Report: Let Pentagon carry over FY18 budget boost so money isn't wasted, key lawmaker says by Joe Goud, Defense News, February 22, 2018. Report: Key health care provisions of bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 by Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Lexology, February 22, 2018. Article: Can updated tax credits bring carbon capture into the mainstream? by Emma Foehringer Merchant, Green Tech Media, February 22, 2018. Article: The shutdown clock is still ticking and that causes chaos throughout the government by Deirdre Shesgreen, USA Today, February 19, 2018. Report: Congress passes legislation to help foster children weather opioid epidemic by Lizzy Francis, Fatherly, February 13, 2018. Report: USA extends nuclear tax credit deadline, World Nuclear News, February 12, 2018. Report: House passes stopgap spending bill to end government shutdown by Lindsey McPherson, Roll Call, February 9, 2018. Report: The health 202: Republicans kill Obamacare's controversial "death panel" by Paige Winfield Cunningham, The Washington Post, February 9, 2018. Article: Why this tax bill may accidentally give huge leverage to the Freedom Caucus next year by Catherine Rampell, The Washington Post, December 20, 2017. Report: CMS announces big expansion to Medicare Advantage value-based insurance design model by Leslie Small, Fierce Healthcare, November 22, 2017. Report: House votes to repeal ObamaCare's Medicare cost-cutting board by Nathaniel Weixel, The Hill, November 2, 2017. Article: The pros and cons of switching to a Medicare Advantage Plan by John Bulliner, Medicare.com, January 24, 2017. Article: A single senator is blocking reform of the foster care system by Ryan Grim, Huffpost, December 6, 2016. Article: A sweeping reform of the foster care system is within reach but hanging by a thread by Ryan Grim, Jason Cherkis, and Laura Barron-Lopez, Huffington Post, December 2, 2016. Article: Congress to consider scaling down group homes for troubled children by Joaquin Sapien, ProPublica, May 20, 2015. Additional Viewing Hearing: A way back home: Preserving families and reducing the need for foster care, US Senate Committee on Finance, August 4, 2015. Hearing: No place to grow up: How to safely reduce reliance on foster care group homes, US Senate Committee on Finance, May 19, 2015. Bill Outline H.R. 1892: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018   Division A: Honoring Hometown Heroes Act Sec. 10102: Allows the flag to be flown at half staff when a first responder dies at work. Division B: Supplemental Appropriations, Tax Relief, and Medicaid Changes Relating to Certain Disasters and further extension of continuing appropriations Title I: Gives $2.36 billion to the Department of Agriculture, available until the end of 2019, to pay for "expenses related to crops, trees, bushes, and vine losses" caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and other hurricanes and wildfires that took place in 2017. Companies who have crop insurance can have 85% of their losses covered by our tax money Companies who didn't buy crop insurance can have up to 65% of their losses covered by our money Title I: Gives $14 million to Puerto Rico's food program but says the money is for infrastructure grants for infrastructure damaged by Hurricanes Irma and Maria Sec. 20101: Changes the law to allow livestock producers to collect payments for cows they sold at reduced prices, instead of just dead ones, and eliminates the $20 million cap on total payouts for livestock producers. Sec. 20201: Orders the Secretary of Commerce to issue a waiver within 120 days of the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act which prohibit the capture of marine mammals for three infrastructure projects designed to reduce land loss in Louisiana. It says the waiver for the projects "will remain in effect for the duration of the construction, operations and maintenance of the projects. No rule-making, permit, determination, or other condition or limitation shall be required when issuing a waiver pursuant to this section." Title IV: Gives $15 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers to repair damages caused by natural disasters $10 billion has to be spend in areas impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria Repairs made in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands "shall be conducted at full Federal expense" Title V: Provides $1.652 billion for the "Disaster Loans Program Account" but $618 million of that can be spend on "administrative expenses to carry out the disaster loan program" Title VI: Adds $23.5 billion to FEMA's "Disaster Relief Fund" Sec. 20604: Adds religious institutions to the definition of a "Private Nonprofit Facility", which makes them eligible to receive tax money for disaster aid services. Sec. 20605: Says the Federal government will pay 90% of the costs for 2017 wildfire disasters. Title XI: Provides $1.374 billion for the Federal highway "Emergency Relief Program", with the Federal government paying 100% of the costs for Puerto Rico Title XI: Provides $28 billion in disaster relief for housing and infrastructure. $11 billion must be spent on areas hit by Hurricane Maria $2 billion of that will be spent on upgrades to electrical power systems Sec. 20102: Allows victims of wildfires in CA to borrow up to $100,000 from their own retirement accounts and pay it back within 3 years. Sec. 20103: Allows companies that had to close due to wildfires to get a credit for up to 40% of their employees' wages, up to $6,000 each. Sec. 20104: Suspends limitations on charitable contributions made before December 31, 2018 for relief efforts in the California wildfire disaster area Sec. 20301: Provides an extra $3.6 billion for Puerto Rico and $106 million for the US Virgin Islands for Medicaid Puerto Rico can get $1.2 billion more if Puerto Rico implements a new process for transmitting data to the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) and if it creates a Medicaid fraud control unit Subdivision 3: Extends 2017 government funding levels until March 23, 2018. Funds the census Forces the sale of $350 million worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Division C: Budgetary and other matters Sec. 30101: Sets the budget limits for 2018 and 2019 2018 $629 billion for defense $579 billion for non-defense 2019 $647 billion for defense $597 billion for non-defense Sec. 30102: Zeroes out the balances on the PAYGO budget scorecard. Sec. 30204: Requires the Secretary of Energy to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve every year from 2022-2025 and 35 million per year in 2026 and 2027. Lowers the amount of oil we must have in reserves from 450 million barrels to 350 million barrels Sec. 30301: Suspends the debt ceiling entirely until March 1, 2019. Division D: Revenue Measures Subtitle A, Subtitle B, and Subtitle C: Extend 31 tax credits Sec. 40402: Extends until 2021 but then phases out tax credits for residential solar electricity, solar water heaters, small wind energy turbines, and geothermal heat pumps. Sec. 40411: Extends until 2022 and then phases out a 30% credit for fiber-optic solar, fuel cell, and small wind energy property, eliminating the credits entirely by 2024. Sec. 40501: Extends and expands tax credits for nuclear power facilities Sec. 41119: Extends an existing tax credit for carbon sequestration technology for 6 years and changes it so that more money is rewarded for each ton of carbon captured and eliminates a cap on how many tons were eligible for credits (it was 75 million tons). Division E: Health and Human Services Extenders Title I: Extends the authorization for the Children's Health Insurance Program through 2027 and adds $48 million per year for 2023-2027 for enrollment assistance. Title II: Extends Medicare programs Sec. 50302: Authorizes voluntary telehealth appointments for people receiving at-home dialysis treatments for end state renal disease, as long as they see a doctor in-person every 3 months. Sec. 50321: Expands a test program, which began in 2015 with 7 States, to all States. The program allows privately administered Medicare Advantage plans flexibility to design custom insurance plans for people with certain chronic diseases. Sec. 50322: Starting in 2020, privately administered Medicare Advantage plans will be able to offer extra benefits for people with chronic health conditions and uniformity requirements will be waived for those plans. Sec. 50323: Starting in 2020, privately administered Medicare Advantage plans can include "telehealth benefits" Sec. 50341: Starting sometime in 2019, some Medicare administrators will be allowed to offer incentives up to $20 to encourage seniors to encourage them to come to appointments with their primary care doctors. The money collected will not be considered taxable income. The Secretary of Health and Human Services can cancel this program at any time for any reason. Sec. 50412: Increased criminal and civil fines for Federal health care program fraud Sec. 50502: Updates the abstinence education program and increases funding from $50 million to $75 million in 2018 and 2019 Sec. 50711: Creates a program funding State efforts to provide mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and parenting counseling to parents in order to prevent their children from being placed in foster care. Sec. 50712: Allows foster care payments to be given to licensed residential treatment facilities if the facility welcomes the child to live with its parent as long as the facility provides parenting classes and family counseling. Sec. 50745: Requires States to require every child-care institution to run fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases on any adult working in their facility. Sec. 50901: Funds Community Health Centers with $3.8 billion for 2018 and $4 billion for 2019 Sec. 52001: Repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board Title XII: Offsets Sec. 53103: Requires Medicaid to count lottery winnings as income when determining Medicaid eligibility Sec. 53105: Rescinds $985 million from the Medicaid Improvement Fund, which is meant to improve oversight of Medicaid contracts and contractors. Sec. 53107: Reduces pay for outpatient physical and occupational therapists for care their assistant's provide to 85 percent of the rate that would have otherwise been paid. Sec. 53114: Increases the percentage that people who make over $500,000 per year pay for Medicare premiums from 80% to 85%. Sec. 53115: Empty's the Medicare Improvement Fund by eliminating all $220 million. Sec. 53116: Accelerates the closing of the prescription drug "donut hole" for seniors by moving up a decrease in out of pocket prescription costs to 25% by one year - it's now 2019 - and by increasing the percentage that drug manufacturers must discount their drugs from 50% to 70%. Sec. 53119: Cuts $1.35 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund over the next 10 years. Division G: Budgetary Effects Exempts the entire law from the PAYGO scorecard and the Senate PAYGO scorecards. Resources Bill Overview: H.J.Res. 45 Pay As You Go Act of 2010 Bill Summary: Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 Bill Scorecard: Pay-As-You-Go Act Scorecard August 4, 2017 Budget Notice: 2017 Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act Annual Report Committee on Finance Report: An Examination of Foster Care in the United States and the Use of Privatization Government Debt Info: The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It Government Debt Info: Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding Louisiana State Government: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Infrastructure Projects Visual Resources 20 Years of Congress Budget Prograstination in One Chart Sound Clip Sources Senate Remarks: Senator Paul on Budget Cap Increases in Two-Year Budget, C-SPAN, February 8, 2018. Senator Rand Paul: The bill is nearly 700 pages. It was given to us at midnight last night, and I would venture to say no one has read the bill. No one can thoroughly digest a 700-page bill overnight, and I do think that it does things that we really, really ought to talk about and how we should pay for them. Senator Rand Paul: So the reason I’m here tonight is to put people on the spot. I want people to feel uncomfortable. I want them to have to answer people at home who said, how come you were against President Obama’s deficits, and then how come you’re for Republican deficits? Isn’t that the very definition of intellectual dishonesty? If you were against President Obama’s deficits and now you’re for the Republican deficits, isn’t that the very definition of hypocrisy? People need to be made aware. Your senators need to answer people from home, and they need to answer this debate. We should have a full-throated debate. Senator Rand Paul: You realize that this is the secret of Washington. The dirty little secret is the Republicans are loudly clamoring for more military spending, but they can’t get it unless they give the Democrats welfare spending, so they raise all the spending. It’s a compromise in the wrong direction. We should be compromising in the direction of going toward spending only what comes in. And yet this goes on and on and on. Senator Rand Paul: For the umpteenth time, Congress is going to exceed their budget caps. We had something passed back in 2010. It was called PAYGO. It was supposed to say, if you’re going to pay new money, you had to go find an offset somewhere else. You could only pay as you go. It was sort of like a family would think about it. If you’re going to spend some more money, you either got to raise your income or you’ve got to save some money. You know how many times we’ve evaded it since 2010? Thirty-some-odd times. Senator Rand Paul: So the bill’s going to exceed the budget caps by $296 billion. And that’s not counting the money they don’t count, all right? So these people are really, really clever. Imagine them running their fingers together and saying, how can we hide stuff from the American people? How can we evade the spending caps so we can be even more irresponsible than we appear? So, 296 is the official number; about $300 billion over two years that will be in excess of the budget caps. But there’s another $160 billion that’s stuck into something called an overseas contingency fund. The budget caps don’t apply there. So we’re $300 billion for two years over the budget caps; then we’re another 160 billion over the caps—they just don’t count it. They act as if it doesn’t matter; we’re just not going to count it. Senator Rand Paul: The spending bill’s 700 pages, and there will be no amendments. The debate, although it’s somewhat inside baseball that we’re having here, is over me having a 15-minute debate, and they say, woe is me; if you get one, everybody’ll want an amendment. Well, guess what? That would be called debate. That would be called an open process. That would be called concern for your country—enough to take a few minutes. And they’re like, but it’s Thursday, and we like to be on vacation on Fridays. And so they clamor. But we’ve been sitting around all day. It’s not like we’ve had 100 amendments today, we’re all worn out, we can’t do one more. We’re going to have zero amendments—zero, goose egg, no amendments. Senator Rand Paul: So over the past 40 years, four times have we actually done the right thing—passed 12 individual appropriation bills, bundled them together, have a budget, and try to do the right thing. You know, there’s no guarantee that everybody’ll be wise in their spending, but it’s got to be better; it can’t be worse. What do we do instead? It’s called a continuing resolution. We glom all the bills together in one bill, like we’ve done tonight—Republicans and Democrats clasping hands—and nobody’s going to look at it. Nobody’s going to reform the spending. As a consequence, wasteful spending is riddled throughout your government. Only four times in 40 years have we done the appropriation process the way we’re supposed to. Senator Rand Paul: The last thing I’ll get to is something called the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is something that has been a limitation on how much we spend, and we have to vote on it, and it’s an unpleasant vote. And so they try to either do it for a long period of time or try to stretch it beyond elections. So this bill, the 700-page bill that no one read, that will continue all the spending and will not reform your government and is irresponsible—the one we will pass later tonight—that 700-page bill also allows the debt ceiling to go up. Historically, we would let the debt ceiling—our borrowing limit—we would let it go up a dollar amount. We’d say, well, we’ve got to borrow money, and it looks like we’re going to need a trillion dollars. But you know the way they do it now? It’s like everything else around here: We bend, break the rules, and then somehow there’s a little bit of deviousness to it. The debt ceiling will go up in an unspecified amount. So as much as you can borrow between now and November, go for it. So there is no limitation. The debt ceiling becomes not a limitation at all. Senator Rand Paul: And the media doesn’t even get it. The media does you such a disservice. They can’t even understand what’s going on sometimes. They’re like, bipartisanship has broken out. Hallelujah! Republicans and Democrats are getting along. And in reality, they should be telling you, look for your wallet; check your pants to make sure they haven’t taken your wallet, because when both parties are happy and both parties are getting together and doing stuff, guess what? They were usually looting the Treasury. And that’s what this bill does. It’s going to loot the Treasury. It spends money we don’t have. We will have a trillion-dollar deficit this year. Press Briefing: Presidential Remarks on Federal Spending, C-Span, June 9, 2009.   Community Suggestions Video: The Political Vigilante: Graham Learns About MMT Part 1  Video: The Political Vigilante: Graham Learns About MMT Part 2 See more community suggestions HERE.   Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

The Federal Aviation Administration performs the essential work of keeping airplanes from crashing into each other in the sky; in this episode, we take a look at the new law that temporarily funds the FAA and makes some important changes to aviation law. We also travel back in time to the week after 9/11 to examine the origin of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and we examine some ideas that the current leaders of Congress have for the future of air travel in the United States and beyond. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! H.R. 636: FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 Title I: FAA Extension Funding Extends FAA funding through September 30, 2017 Extends fuel and ticket taxes through September 30, 2017 Title II: Aviation Safety Critical Reform Safety Establishes a deadline of April 30, 2017 for the FAA to have a pilots records database online and available for use. Creates a maximum $25,000 fine for pointing a laser pointer at an aircraft or in the path of an aircraft. Prohibits the FAA from hiring newly trained air traffic controllers over the age of 35 The FAA must make sure that each employee of repair stations outside of the United States are given pre-employment background checks Drone Safety Over the next two years, the FAA and industry will have two work together to develop a method of remotely identifying drone operators. Starting in three years, drone manufacturers will have to include safety notices informing customers of drone safety laws and regulations. The FAA will work together with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to authorize drone use for firefighting and utility repairs. A person who uses a drone to interfere with firefighting operations, law enforcement, or emergency response can be fined up to $20,000. The FAA will conduct a pilot program testing unmanned aircraft detection systems. In the next year, the FAA and NASA will conduct tests of drones crashing into various sized airplanes and helicopters. Time Sensitive Aviation Reform By July 2017, regulations must be in effect requiring airlines to automatically refund bag fees to anyone whose bags are not delivered within 12 hours after the arrival of a domestic flight or 15 hours after the arrival of an international flight. FAA needs to submit a report, including public comments, about the risks of eliminating contract weather observer service at 57 airports and can not discontinue contract weather observer service before October 1, 2017. FAA must enact regulations requiring pilots of small airplanes to have driver's licenses and pass all medical tests required for a drivers license, completes a medical education course, Airlines will have to let passengers off a plane if it's waiting on the tarmac for 3 hours of a domestic flight or 4 hours for an international flight. Title III: Aviation Security TSA PreCheck Expansion TSA will add "multiple private sector application capabilities" for citizens to use to enroll including online enrollment, kiosks, tablets, or staffed laptop stations. Private sector will collect biometric identification information with "comparable" privacy standards to the standards developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology Private risk assessments will be used instead of fingerprint-based criminal history records checks Private administrators will be allowed to charge fees in excess of the costs of administering the program. Securing Aviation from Foreign Entry Points and Guarding Airports Through Enhanced Security TSA Administrator will be allowed donate security screening equipment to foreign airports with direct flights to the United States TSA must create an international training program to train authorities of foreign governments in air transportation security. Aviation Security Enhancement and Oversight Enacts stricter vetting requirements for people granted access to secure sections of airports Checkpoints of the Future Creates a new pilot program at between 3 and 6 airports that will test new technologies and new baggage and personal screening systems. Services, supplies, equipment, personnel, and facilities can be obtained from the private sector for the pilot programs. Sound Clip Sources: Hearings Hearing: Aviation Security, Joint House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Senate Appropriations Committee, September 20, 2001. Witnesses: Gerald Dillingham, Associate Director of the General Accounting Office Jane Garvey, Administration, FAA Kenneth Mead, Inspector General of the Department of Transportation Norman Mineta, Secretary of the Department of Transportation Hank Queen, Vice President of Boeing’s Engineering and Product Integrity division Timestamps and Transcripts {54:15} Kenneth Mead: Given the scope and complexity of the security challenge as we know it now, coupled with the long-standing history of problems with the aviation security program, I think the time’s come to revisit the option of vesting governance of the program and responsibility for the provision of security in one federal organization or not-for-profit federal corporation. This doesn’t mean that everybody has to be a federal employee, but it does mean a much more robust federal presence and control. That entity would have security as its primary and central focus, profession, and mission. Under our current system, we’ve asked FAA to oversee and regulate aviation security, and those charged with providing the security—the airlines and the airports—themselves face other priorities, missions, and indeed, in some cases, competing economic pressures. And I think a centralized, consolidated approach with a security mission would require passenger and baggage screeners to have uniform, more rigorous training, and performance standards applicable nationwide, and I think that would result in more consistent security across this country and have higher quality also. {1:22:46} Harold Rogers: Now, I want to ask you about Dulles. Did you check on the employees of the screening operation at Dulles Airport?Kenneth Mead: Yes. We’re checking on the citizens— Harold Rogers: Tell us the makeup of the staff there, in terms of their citizenship in the U.S., for example. Kenneth Mead: Yes. A substantial percentage of them are not U.S. citizens. Harold Rogers: What percent? Kenneth Mead: I think it’s about 80%. It may be somewhat more. {1:26:40} Harold Rogers: What about the turnover rate, Mr. Dillingham? I’ve been reading the GAO’s report on aviation security, issued June of 2000. I think you’re the principal author, are you not?Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: Tell us about the type of personnel that’s screening companies you’re hiring around the country at the airports to screen for terrorists. Gerald Dillingham: Let me go back just a little bit to the point you raised before. Screeners don’t have to be U.S. citizens. They can have a resident alien card as well. The other point you raised with regard to Argenbright, I think Argenbright is also a foreign-owned company as well. And with regard to the types of personnel that are being hired, one of the requirements is that you have a high school diploma or a GED. We have not checked the records of individual companies, but in the course of doing our work, we clearly got the idea that this was not a job where you would find the most skilled workers. Harold Rogers: They’re minimum-wage jobs, are they not? Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: And the turnover rate is exorbitantly high, is it not? Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: In one airport the turnover rate is 400% a year, correct? Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: In Atlanta it’s 375% a year. At Baltimore-Washington, 155; Boston Logan, 207; Chicago O’Hare, 200; and Houston, 237% a year; at St. Louis, 416% a year. Is that correct? Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: So these are untrained, inexperienced, the lowest-paid personnel, many of them certainly noncitizens, and by a company that got the contract by the lowest bid. Gerald Dillingham: Yes, sir. Harold Rogers: Now, what’s wrong with this picture? Gerald Dillingham: I think the picture is clear to everyone. {2:28:58} Carolyn Kilpatrick: This company that’s in 46 airports, that had the low-bid contract, that’s noncitizens, that handles securities, and has criminal convictions, who hired them?Norman Mineta: The airline is the one that contracts with each… Carolyn Kilpatrick: An airline. One airline. So did they all go together and hire them, or each airline hires them on its own? Norman Mineta: The airline hires the company and then the airlines—well, let me have Ken maybe go into that because he’s maybe got the list of airports with the contractors. Kenneth Mead: Yeah. The different airlines can hire the same security company, and that does happen. Carolyn Kilpatrick: Obviously. Low bids, so they’re going for cheapness. Kenneth Mead: Right. And some airports, Dulles, for example, you have the airlines get together there, and they hire one vendor, and in the case of Dulles, it’s Argenbright. In the case of other airports, where you have an airline, say, that has a dedicated concourse, and you have two or three concourses at that airport, you may have, in fact, three different firms providing the security— Carolyn Kilpatrick: Okay, thank you. Kenneth Mead: —each hired by a separate airline. Hearing: Review of ATC Reform Proposals, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, February 10, 2016. Transcript Witnesses: Mr. Paul Rinaldi, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association Written Testimony Mr. Nicholas E. Calio, President and Chief Executive Officer, Airlines for America Written Testimony Mr. Ed Bolen, President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association Written Testimony Mr. Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation Written Testimony Timestamps and Transcripts {13:00} Bill Shuster: A key reform in this bill takes the ATC out of the Federal Government, and establishes a federally chartered, independent, not-for-profit corporation to provide that service. This corporation will be governed by a board representing the system’s users. {17:55} Bill Shuster: But I just want to say that August of this year, Canadians will launch their first satellites into space, and by the end of 2017, they will have over 70 satellites launched. They will have their GPS system up in space. Currently, today, we can only see 30 percent of the airspace on our current technology. When they deploy those 70 or so satellites, they will be able to see 100 percent of the airspace in the globe, the Canadians. I am told there’s already 15 or 16 countries that have signed up for their services. So Canadians, the NAV CAN, and their partners, they’re developing this system. I believe they are going to become the dominant controller of airspace in the world. They’re going to be able to fly planes over the North Atlantic and over the Pacific, straighter lines, closer together, more efficiently; and that’s when we’re going to really see our loss in leadership in the world, when it comes to controlling airspace and being the gold standard. {19:10} Bill Shuster: Again, this corporation we’re setting up is completely independent of the Federal Government. This is not a government corporation, a quasi-governmental entity, or a GSE. It is not that. The Federal Government will not back the obligations, the financial obligations, for this corporation. The corporation will simply provide a service. {27:27} Pete DeFazio: We’re talking about an asset—no one’s valued it—worth between $30 billion and $50 billion that will be given to the private corporation free of charge. That’s unprecedented. There have been two privatizations: one privatization in Canada—they paid $1.4 billion; it was later found that it was undervalued by about $1 billion. I believe in Britain they paid a little over $1 billion for it. We’re going to take a much larger entity, controlling a lot of real estate, some in some very expensive areas like New York City, and we are going to give it to a private corporation, and the day after they establish, they can do with those assets whatever they wish. They can sell them, and we have no say. {30:11} Pete DeFazio: If someone controls the routes, and they control the conditions under which you access those routes, and they control the investment in the system itself, which means maybe we don’t want to invest in things that serve medium and small cities—they aren’t profit centers; why should we be putting investment there—you know, we are keeping control of the airspace? I guess there’s some technical way we’re keeping control of it, but none of that will be subject to any elected representative. {1:00:05} Ed Bolen: Our nation’s air traffic control system is a monopoly, and it will stay a monopoly, going forward. The airlines, for 30 years, have been lobbying Congress so that they can seize control of that natural monopoly and exert their authority over it. We think that is a fatally flawed concept. The public airspace belongs to the public, and it should be run for the public’s benefit. Do we really think that, given control of this monopoly, the airlines would run it for every American’s benefit? Reading the headlines over the past year would suggest that’s probably not the case. ‘‘Airline Consolidation Hits Small Cities the Hardest,’’ wrote the Wall Street Journal; ‘‘Justice Department Investigating Potential Airline Price Collusion,’’ wrote the Washington Post; ‘‘Airline Complaints on the Rise’’ was a headline in the Hill; ‘‘Airlines Reap Record Profits and Passengers Get Peanuts.’’ That appeared in the New York Times this past weekend. {1:02:30} Ed Bolen: We’re talking about giving them unbridled authority to make decisions about access, about rates, charges, about infrastructure. This is a sweeping transfer of authority. {1:31:12} Don Young: Will the gentleman yield? Let’s talk about the board.Bill Shuster: Certainly. Don Young: You got four big airlines board members. Bill Shuster: Right. Don Young: NATCA now is supporting it. And I question that, by the way. I fought for you every inch of the way, and we want to find out what is behind that. General aviation has one. Unknown: Two. Don Young: Two? Unknown: General aviation has two. Don Young: OK, two. Where’s the other one? Bill Shuster: Two to the government. Don Young: Two—and who are they going to be? Do we have any input on that? No. We do not. The president has—— Bill Shuster: The Department of Transportation will have it. Don Young: The president. And we’re the Congress of the United States. I’d feel a lot better if we were to appoint them. Why should we let a president appoint them? This is our job as legislators. If we’re going to change the system, let us change it with us having some control over it, financially. And the board members should be appointed from the Congress. I am not going to give any president any more authority. That is the wrong—we have done this over and over again. We give the president—we might as well have a king. I don’t want a king. Hearing: Airport Security Wait Times, House Homeland Security Committee, May 25, 2016. Witness: Peter Neffenger, Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Timestamps and Transcripts {09:20} Bennie Thompson: In fiscal year 2011, there were approximately 45,000 TSOs screening 642 million passengers. In FY 2016, TSA had 3,000 fewer TSOs screening roughly 740 million anticipated passengers, almost 100 million more passengers and 3,000 fewer screeners. {11:11} Bennie Thompson: TSA should have access to all of the aviation security fees collected by the flying public to bolster security. Yet, the passage of the Budget Act of 2013, TSA is required to divert $13 billion collected in security fees toward the deficit reduction for the next 10 years. This year alone, 1.25 billion has been diverted. {29:40} Michael McCaul: And finally, do you support—well, I can’t say—do you support the concept of expanding TSA’s pre-check program, which, I think, would move a lot of people in the long lines into the pre-check lines, which, I think, would solve many of these problems as well.Pete Neffenger: Absolutely. In fact, that’s one of my fundamental priorities is to dramatically expand the pre-check population and dramatically expand the capability to enroll people in pre-check. {48:30} Pete Neffenger: Right now we do not seem to have trouble meeting our recruiting targets. We have a large pool of people that have been pre-vetted. That’s why we were able to rapidly begin to hire that 768 because we had a large pool of available applicants that had been screened that were looking for work. I still want to work on bringing more of that back in house than is currently done. As you know, we work through a private contractor to do our hiring and recruiting right now. {49:53} Mike Rogers: I plan to introduce legislation to transform TSA from an HR nightmare to a security-focused organization by reforming and greatly expanding the Screening Partnership Program. Having worked on these issues for more than a decade, I’ve seen that TSA can do a mission when it’s given a clear, succinct mission. My bill is going to allow more airports to hire qualified private contractors, capable of managing day-to-day operations, and make TSA the driving force to oversee intelligence-based security strategies. {1:41:30} Buddy Carter: You and I have spoken before about privatization, and as you know, in full disclosure, I’m really big on privatization. Atlanta and the bigger airports are indicating to us, or at least to me, that it’s beyond the scope of a bureaucracy to be able to do this, and I just don’t get a warm and fuzzy feeling that you’re embracing privatization here. Congress passed the Screening Partnership Program. Tell me what you’re doing to implement that? We need to get to a point where you’re on the other side of the table; you’re asking the questions and overseeing this as opposed to being here answering the questions from us.Pete Neffenger: We’ve made a lot of changes to streamline that process. I was concerned that it takes a long time because it has to go out on bid, it has to go out on contract and the like. I have said repeatedly that the law allows for this. I will work with any airport that’s interested. In fact, I have directed airports like Atlanta to go out and talk to San Francisco because that’s the only large category x airport that has a contracted screening force, and we’ll continue to work with them. I think that there are things that we can do. We are somewhat hampered by the way the federal acquisition rules work. Remember, that’s a workforce that’s contracted to the Federal Government, not through the— Buddy Carter: Hold on. I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I want to know. You say you’re hampered. I want to know how I can help you to become unhampered, if that’s a word. Pete Neffenger: Well, as I said, we follow the contracting rules under the Federal Government contracting requirements. It’s a contract to the Federal Government, so I want to make sure that it’s fair and is open competition and you have to give people the opportunity to participate in that. We’ll work with anybody who wants to do that. Buddy Carter: Well, understand that I want to work with you so that we can streamline that process. I still don’t get the feeling that you’re embracing it, and I want to know what you’re doing to encourage it, to the privatization of it. Pete Neffenger: Well, again, it’s up to the airport to determine whether they want to do it. We advertise its availability, we make available information about it. There’s a screening private partnership office that manages that. Additional Sound Clips Video: People Lay on the Floor at JFK Airport as Police Team Search, Daily Mail, August 21, 2016. Video: JFK Airport Shooting Evacuation After Shots Fired JFK Terminal, YouTube, August 15, 2016. Television News Clip: JFK Airport Scare, CBS New York, August 14, 2016. Television News Clip: Nightmarish Lines Continue At Airport Security Checkpoints, CBS Chicago, May 16, 2016. Television News Clip: Passengers Stranded at O'Hare Airport Due to Long TSA Lines By John Garcia and Laura Podesta, ABC News Chicago, May 16, 2016. Television News Clip: Drones Interfere With Wildfire Battle in California, CBS This Morning, July 20, 2015. Television News Clip: American Airlines Passengers Stuck on Tarmac for Several Hours, ABC News, March 2, 2015. Additional Reading Article: Scenes From the Terrifying, Already Forgotten JFK Airport Shooting That Wasn’t By David Wallace-Wells, New York Magazine, August 15, 2016. Article: FAA Reauthorization Protects Weather Observer Program, Spokane International Airport, Aviation Pros, July 14, 2016. Article: Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Bipartisan FAA Bill Without Air-Traffic Control Privatization By Andy Pasztor, The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2016. Article: FAA Seeks To Cut Airport Weather Observers By Elaine Kauh, AVWeb, February 5, 2016. Article: Republican House Measure Seeks Independent Air-Traffic Control Board By Andy Pasztor, The Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2016. Article When Retirement Becomes a Crisis By Joseph Coughlin and Luke Yoquinto, Slate, February 2, 2016. Article: The Disturbing Truth About How Airplanes Are Maintained Today By James B. Steele, Vanity Fair, December 2015. Article: Union: Chronic Shortage of Air Traffic Controllers a Crisis By Joan Lowy, PBS Newshour, October 14, 2015. Article: TSA Body Scanner Lobbyist Now Overseeing Spending on TSA Security By Lee Fang, The Intercept, May 27, 2015. Press Release: Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Bill, The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, May 27, 2014. Article: ‘Naked Scanner’ Maker OSI Falls After Losing TSA Order By Jeff Plungis. Bloomberg, December 6, 2013. Article: FAA Plan to Terminate Airport Weather Observers Raises Travel Safety Concerns By Jason Samenow, The Washington Post, May 1, 2013. Article: Airlines Reluctant to Pay $6.6B for NextGen Air Transportation System By Jill R. Aitoro, Washington Business Journal, April 9, 2013. Article: Efforts Grow To Convince Airlines Of NextGen Worth By John Croft, Aviation Daily, October 5, 2012. Article: This Week in History: Ronald Reagan Fires 11,345 Air Traffic Controllers By Cody Carlson, Deseret News, August 5, 2012. Article: Obama Signs Bill Ending Partial FAA Shutdown By The CNN Wire Staff, CNN, August 5, 2011. Article: Everything You Need To Know About the FAA Shutdown In One Post By Dylan Matthews, The Washington Post, August 3, 2011. Article Congress Heads Home Without Extending FAA Funding By Ashley Halsey III, The Washington Post, August 2, 2011. Article: Partial FAA Shutdown Cripples Operations for Third Day By Ashley Halsey III, The Washington Post, July 25, 2011. Article: New Air Traffic Control System At Crossroads By Joan Lowy, Yahoo News, July 5, 2011. Article: Fear Pays: Chertoff, Ex-Security Officials Slammed For Cashing In On Government Experience By Marcus Baram, The Huffington Post, November 23, 2010. Article: The Airport Scanner Scam By James Ridgeway, Mother Jones, January 4, 2010. Article: DHS and TSA Have Researched, Developed, and Begun Deploying Passenger Checkpoint Screening Technologies, but Continue to Face Challenges, U.S. Government Accountability Office, October 7, 2009. Additional Information Open Secrets: Representative Bill Shuster Career Profile 9-11 Commission Report, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, July 22, 2004. Chapter 1: "We Have Some Planes" Reports FAA Continues To Face Challenges in Ensuring Enough Fully Trained Controllers at Critical Facilities, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, January 11, 2016. Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief By Bart Elias, Congressional Research Service, December 16, 2013. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

New Switzerland-Netherlands tax treaty effective January 2012 -- Norwegian National Budget for 2012 contains major tax proposals -- Portuguese 2012 Budget Act proposals will impact cross-border transactions and foreign investment -- Angola proposes transfer pricing documentation rules -- New UK –South Africa tax protocol enters into force -- China announces new Shanghai VAT pilot to replace business tax -- Changes to Japan’s transfer pricing legislation effective -- Malaysia’s 2012 budget contains corporate tax incentives -- Colombia eliminates restrictions on foreign debt; intercompany loans now possible