Tag Archives: spending

Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican caucuses in the Senate and House are considering restrict[ing] the [provider] taxes’ use to finance state Medicaid contributions entirely, which would have the effect of putting more of a State’s expenditures under Medicaid on the State itself: overall, the restriction would save the Federal government—which is us taxpaying citizens writ nationwide—some $600 billion over 10 years.

There are objections, of course, by those whose money tree would be severely pruned. Ryan Cross, Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System’s Government Affairs VP:

If you end provider taxes, you’re going to shift that burden to the state, either harming Medicaid patients and healthcare-provider reimbursement, or leading to higher state and local taxes[.]

This is disingenuous. Any harm done Medicaid patients, who as citizens of their State are the responsibility of that State, and of healthcare providers, who as operators in that State also are the responsibility of that State, is done by that State through its own decisions regarding the tax remittals of that State’s own citizens. Regarding those decisions, it apparently is inconceivable to Cross and the rest of the Leftists that the State could reallocate its spending to cover the costs rather than just knee-jerk and willy-nilly raise its taxes.

These are $600 billion dollars for which us taxpaying citizens of our nation have better use.

Yes, And?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are in a tizzy over President Donald Trump’s (R) moves to freeze or cancel altogether Federal funds and grants to universities unless and until those institutions start acting concretely and seriously against the antisemitic bigotry rampant in them. The editors are upset because those fund freezes/cancelations include funds heretofore aimed at NIH sponsored projects.

One regrettable result is that important medical research is getting scrapped.
…
Because of Columbia University’s deep research bench of neurologists, the school in 2022 took over management of the study’s government funding, which is disbursed to some two dozen other sites across the US. A Columbia lead researcher says the study’s funding is now ensnared in the fight between the university and feds over its handling of anti-Israel protests.

Columbia medical professor José Luchsinger:

It’s a pity that all the institutions across the United States, the investigators in these institutions, the staff in these institutions, and the study participants in these institutions are being held hostage to a situation that is occurring in Columbia only[.]

Indeed, it is a pity. Columbia should stop holding all that hostage, should stop namby-pambying around, and should get serious about ending the antisemitic bigotry rampant in its student and professor populations and within its management teams—and then act on that newfound seriousness and get rid of the bigots among its students and professors and university managers.

It is a pity, too, that there even is a fight between the university and feds over its handling of anti-Israel protests.

This is a cynical mischaracterization of what’s going on, and the editors should know better, even if Luchsinger pretends not to. What is there to fight about? What’s going on at the universities is not “anti-Israel protests,” it’s naked antisemitic slurs, intimidations, threats, cutoffs of others’ right to speak in favor of Jews and Israel or just to speak conservatively. Mixed in with those bare assaults (can’t call them bare-faced, the bigots cower behind masks) is overt support for Middle East terrorists and terrorism.

But the editors favor spending money on medical research, which is important when spent efficiently, over getting rid of the bigotry and terrorist support so rife in these institutions. The editors ignore the simple fact that the bigotry and terrorist support not only threaten the institution population at large, but also that very research by making those institutions unsafe for anyone.

A Path

Posted on by
Reply

House Republicans are appropriately dismayed with the Senate’s reconciliation budget framework bill—the Republican Senators shied away from the deep spending cuts that are needed, passing only a lick and a promise threshold of $4 billion against the earlier House-passed bill with its serious threshold of $1.5 trillion on the risible fiction that the $4 billion is a floor, and that more cuts will occur in subsequent legislation.

I’ve suggested one path to passing a budget framework: debate the Senate’s bill, rather than killing it outright, and amend the Senate’s version to include serious spending cuts. Then hold out for those cuts in the House-Senate Conference that would result.

In conjunction with that, Speaker Mike Johnson (R, LA) could commit to not bringing any of the dozen appropriations bills that would be the actual spending bills to the floor for debate unless and until all dozen are passed out of committee and those committee’s spending cuts aggregate, across all of the bills, to the required total spending cuts of the House-passed $1.5 trillion, or a skosh less if that’s what fell out of the Conference Committee agreement and passage.

Along those lines, Johnson could require all of the committees, particularly the chairmen, to work with each other to achieve the total spending cuts and defense and border spending increases that are necessary.

That last also would push the committees—including the Chaos Caucus members and the timid-on-spending-cuts Republican members—to honor the Congressional sessions-old commitment to pass all of the appropriations bills on time, with no need for any Continuing Resolution foolishness.

Come to that, Johnson should make that appropriations bills commitment regardless of any framework bill conference committee outcome.

Update: After I wrote this and scheduled it for publishing, the House Republicans went ahead and passed the Senate’s bill 216-214, and they did it without any floor debate or amendment to make the bill meet their requirements.

Silliness, indeed.

Republican Silliness

Posted on by
Reply

This time it includes more than just a few members of the Republican Chaos Caucus. The Senate passed its version of a reconciliation bill that includes a suitable start on tax rate reductions, and the House Republican caucus agrees with that—those reductions are consistent with the earlier House-passed reconciliation bill. However, the Senate’s bill doesn’t include enough spending cuts to suit the House Republicans, and the House Republicans are right on that.

This is where the silliness comes in. A few Republicans, including some from outside the Chaos Caucus, have announced enough “No” votes before the Senate bill comes to the House floor to kill the bill outright. That’s silly.

Instead of just killing the bill, or refusing to take it up at all, the House Republicans and those one or two Progressive-Democrat Representatives capable of reasoned argument should debate the Senate’s reconciliation bill—they’d be the big boys in the room, since the Senate Republicans ducked away from the House’s bill altogether—and then pass the Senate bill amended to include spending cuts acceptable to the House. That would create a House-Senate disagreement in the same bill, which would send the modified bill to the normal House-Senate Conference, wherein the tax rate cuts would be preserved, and badly needed much larger spending cuts could—should—be inserted into a Conference-approved bill for up-or-down majority votes in each house. Likely the much larger spending cuts still would be less than the House so correctly wants, but they’d likely be much larger than the Senate’s going-in proposal.

And, as is the case with budget framework reconciliation bills, it would set the terms of debate for those spending cuts in each appropriation bill. The difference this time, though, would be those much larger spending cuts in the framework would set a much higher floor than heretofore for spending cuts in those dozen appropriation bills.

Reviewing Harvard’s Federal Funding

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has begun reviewing Harvard University’s $9 billion in Federal funding. The question I have is how badly does Harvard need any Federal funding?

Harvard’s endowment is some $53.2 billion as of last year, and the school got a 9.6% return on its endowment’s investments last year. That allowed its endowment to grow by nearly 5% year-on-year despite disbursements from the endowment.

Harvard claims $6.4 million in annual operating expenses as of last year, and it spent $749 million in scholarships and its own grants for its students.

With all of that, I ask again, how badly does Harvard need Federal funding? The school’s endowment doesn’t seem to be doing much more than collecting dust, investment returns, and net growth, while the school collects billions of average citizens’ tax money for its programs. Given that, why should citizens of Iowa, or Montana, or Utah—or New York, or Illinois, or California—pay for Massachusetts-domiciled Harvard’s spending decisions?

My answer: Harvard has little to no need for taxpayer monies.