Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Cuts
Judge halts Trump administration cuts to public health research in some states
CNN
—
A federal judge on Monday paused cuts that the Trump administration had made to funding for public health research, issuing a temporary restraining order that applies only in the 22 Democratic-led states that brought a lawsuit challenging the reduction in funding.
US District Judge Angel Kelley ordered more briefing in the case, with a hearing scheduled for February 21.
The Democratic attorneys general of 22 states alleged in the lawsuit filed Monday that the newly announced cuts “will mean the abrupt loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that are already committed to employing tens of thousands of researchers and other workers, putting a halt to countless life-saving health research and cutting-edge technology initiatives.”
“Not only that, but the sudden cut of funding will have ripple effects into the private sector as it disrupts numerous partnerships with private institutions,” said the lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts’ federal court.
The complaint added to the pile of quick-moving court proceedings challenging President Donald Trump’s aggressive reshaping of the federal government.
Under the challenged plan, funding from the National Institutes of Health known as indirect cost rates would be capped at 15 percent, from an average of more than 27 percent. Some research institutions, including Harvard, have rates higher than 60%, according to the NIH, which said in a post on X last week that the policy would save more than $4 billion a year.
Those rates are aimed at covering the various overhead costs – like facility costs, regulatory compliance and administrative support – that research institutions must account for to support their research. If the administration’s plans to cut those rates are not halted, the “cutting edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt,” the lawsuit said.
“This is an attempt to eliminate funding that supports medical and public health innovation at every research institution in the country,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said at a news conference Monday. “The administration’s recent directive would abruptly cap indirect costs at 15%, significantly less than what is required to conduct advanced medical research. The administration knows that.”
Campbell noted that the Trump administration had proposed similar cuts in 2017, “and the Republican-controlled Congress at the time passed a law demanding continued stable funding for medical research. That law is still in effect, whether the president believes it or not.”
The attorneys general bringing the case said they expected private research institutions to bring their own lawsuit challenging the administration’s plans, as the states’ lawsuit would cover public research institutions.
NIH’s parent agency, the US Department of Health and Human Services, has the authority to make these changes, its director of communications, Andrew Nixon, told CNN via email – and believes it could even impose them retrospectively “for current grants and require grantees to return the excess overhead they have previously received, but we have currently chosen not to do so to ease the implementation of the new rate; however, we will continue to assess this policy choice and whether it is in the best interest of the American taxpayer.”
“Our Administration wants to help America have the best research in the world, and we believe that by ensuring that more cents on every dollar go directly to science and not to administrative overheard, we can take another step in that direction,” Nixon said.
Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the White House defended the new policy.
“Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less. The Trump administration is committed to slashing the cottage industry built off of the waste, fraud, and abuse within our mammoth government while prioritizing the needs of everyday Americans,” spokesman Kush Desai said.
A federal judge has put a stop to the Trump administration’s attempts to slash public health research funding in certain states. The ruling comes as a victory for advocates of public health and medical research, who have been fighting against the proposed cuts.The Trump administration had planned to reduce funding for public health research in states like California, New York, and Massachusetts, which are known for their robust medical research programs. However, the judge’s decision has halted these cuts, ensuring that critical research projects can continue to receive the necessary funding.
This ruling is a significant win for public health advocates and researchers, who rely on government funding to support their vital work. It also sends a strong message that the government cannot arbitrarily cut funding for critical research projects without proper justification.
As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health crises, it is essential that we prioritize and support research efforts that can help us better understand and combat these threats. This ruling is a step in the right direction towards ensuring that public health research remains a top priority for our government.
Tags:
- Trump administration cuts
- Public health research
- Judge halts
- Government funding
- Health research funding
- Public health initiatives
- Federal budget cuts
- Public health protection
- Government research programs
- Legal ruling on health funding
#Judge #halts #Trump #administration #cuts #public #health #research #states
Vanguard cuts fees for nearly 100 funds, including ETFs with billions in assets
Pavlo Gonchar | SOPA Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images
Asset management giant Vanguard announced broad fee cuts for many mutual funds and exchange-traded funds on Monday, reinforcing its standing as one of the cheapest options for investors.
The move reduces fees on 87 different funds, and 168 total share classes of those funds. The average fee cut is 20% per share class. Vanguard said this is its biggest fee cut ever and will save investors about $350 million this year, based on current asset levels.
“We’re proud to build on Vanguard’s legacy of lowering the costs of investing—which we have done more than 2,000 times since our founding—by announcing our largest ever set of expense ratio reductions. Lower costs enable investors to keep more of their returns, and those savings compound over time,” Vanguard CEO Salim Ramji said in a press release.
The list of cuts includes actively managed and index-based products, with many of the funds representing billions of dollars. Stocks, bonds and commodities products are all included in the reductions. Some of the funds on the Vanguard list include:
Fund fees for mutual funds and ETFs are assessed as an annual percentage of total assets under management for the share class.
The fee cuts to VEGBX and some other actively managed bond funds is notable because active fixed income is emerging as a growth area for the exchange-traded fund industry. The booming popularity of ETFs, which can be purchased more easily than many mutual funds, is often cited as a key factor in driving down management fees for stock funds in recent decades.
Vanguard said its actively managed fixed income funds and ETFs have a weighted average expense ratio of 0.10% versus an industry average of 0.53%.
Vanguard has long been a leader in lowering fees among asset managers, a tradition dating back to its founder, Jack Bogle. Monday’s announcement is a sign that the trend could continue under Ramji, who took over as CEO in 2024 and previously worked at rival BlackRock.
The fee cuts come less than a month after Vanguard agreed to pay more than $100 million to settle charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission related to disclosures around some of its retirement products.
Vanguard, one of the largest investment management companies in the world, has announced a significant fee reduction for nearly 100 funds, including several popular exchange-traded funds (ETFs) with billions of dollars in assets.This move is part of Vanguard’s ongoing efforts to provide cost-effective investment options for its clients and to remain competitive in the ever-evolving financial market. The fee cuts range from a few basis points to more significant reductions, making Vanguard’s funds even more attractive to investors seeking low-cost investment options.
Some of the ETFs that will benefit from the fee cuts include the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF, the Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF, and the Vanguard Total International Stock ETF, all of which have billions of dollars in assets under management.
Investors who hold these funds in their portfolios will see a decrease in their expense ratios, ultimately leading to higher returns over time. With these fee reductions, Vanguard continues to solidify its position as a leader in the investment management industry, offering high-quality funds at competitive prices.
Overall, this fee cut is great news for investors who are looking to minimize costs while maximizing their investment returns. Vanguard’s commitment to providing low-cost, high-quality investment options is a win-win for investors seeking to grow their wealth over the long term.
Tags:
- Vanguard fee reductions
- Vanguard fund fees
- Vanguard ETF fee cuts
- Vanguard assets management
- Low-cost Vanguard funds
- Vanguard investment options
- Vanguard fee reduction news
- Vanguard fund fee updates
- Vanguard investment strategies
- Vanguard financial planning.
#Vanguard #cuts #fees #funds #including #ETFs #billions #assets
EPA cuts off IRA solar money already under contract
EPA sent letters to recipients of a nationwide solar program Tuesday informing them that their grants had been paused until further notice.
The Solar for All program recipients — state and local government agencies and a few nonprofits — have signed contracts with EPA amounting to $7 billion. The program is part of the Inflation Reduction Act and is designed to help offset climate pollution and energy costs by financing community and rooftop solar in low-income communities.
EPA’s letter, which followed the announcement of a broader freeze on federal assistance Monday night, informed program participants that the agency was working with the White House Office of Management and Budget to implement President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order on “Unleashing American Energy.” It said EPA was pausing “all funding actions related to” Biden-era climate and infrastructure laws.
“At this time period, EPA is continuing to work with OMB as they review processes, policies and programs as required by the executive order,” the letter stated.
Four recipients contacted by POLITICO’s E&E News said they had lost access to EPA’s online grant management portal, called the Automated Standard Application for Payments, or ASAP, on Wednesday morning — more than 12 hours after a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s expansive spending freeze.
The recipients, who were granted anonymity to discuss government funding decisions, said they were not given any point of contact for questions related to the spending pause. Two said their EPA program managers had cut off contact.
OMB on Wednesday rescinded the Monday memo that initiated the spending freeze, but the ASAP portal was still inaccessible by midafternoon Wednesday, four grant recipients said. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X on Wednesday that the administration was not rescinding the spending freeze, only the OMB memo.
“This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” she said.
EPA referred E&E News to the Justice Department. The Justice Department declined to comment.
Solar for All is one of three programs under the 2022 climate law’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It’s the only one that still has funds at the U.S. Treasury. The money for the other two programs, totaling nearly $20 billion, has been deposited at Citibank under a financial agent agreement with Treasury.
The solar grants are all obligated, meaning that the federal government can’t legally claw back any of the contracted funds unless there is malfeasance on the part of the recipient, according to legal experts.
EPA grantees can typically access funds for expenditures five days out in the future through ASAP, with federal grant managers auditing transactions on the back end. The four Solar for All recipients said they haven’t been able to access the portal to draw down the money.
That might not change soon. Zealan Hoover, the Biden administration’s implementation lead for programs under the Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure bill, said roughly $50 billion in grants administered by EPA under those two laws are still frozen, pending reviews by the administration.
“They’ve frozen all [bipartisan infrastructure law] and IRA programs. That has not changed today,” said Hoover, who remains in contact with grantees since leaving the agency. “Everyone’s been getting rejections.”
Roman Castillo of CohnReznick, a grants management and administration vendor for some of the recipients, said his clients were making contingency plans in case the spending freeze continued — or if the Trump administration finds some other way to turn off the funding spigot.
“I think it’s safe to say that when funding flows are disrupted, Solar for All grant recipients have no choice but to reevaluate their financial commitments,” he said. “That uncertainty is likely going to result in delays or some sort of interruption in program implementation.”
The programs lend or grant money to sub-awardees to support solar power deployment in underserved communities. Those awards could be delayed, Castillo said, if grant recipients can’t depend on receiving the federal funds.
Adam Kent, director of the green finance program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said administration actions targeting Solar for All would harm low-income communities, including in states that vote for Republicans.
“This is a local economic development program that’s going to touch all corners of our country and deliver energy savings and help communities become healthier and more resilient,” he said. “So to block these funds from moving forward is really callous and shortsighted.”
This story also appears in Energywire.
In a shocking turn of events, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided to cut off funding for solar projects that were already under contract with the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA). This decision has left many in the renewable energy industry stunned and confused.The EPA’s decision to revoke funding for these projects comes as a major blow to the advancement of solar energy in India, as well as to the companies and individuals who had already invested time and resources into these projects. Many are left wondering what the rationale behind this sudden change in policy is, and how it will impact the future of solar energy development in the country.
This move by the EPA raises serious questions about the government’s commitment to promoting renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. It also highlights the challenges that the renewable energy industry faces in navigating a regulatory landscape that is constantly shifting and unpredictable.
As stakeholders in the renewable energy sector grapple with the implications of this decision, one thing is clear: the fight for a more sustainable and clean energy future is far from over. It is now more important than ever for advocates of solar energy to come together and push back against policies that threaten to hinder progress in this critical area.
Tags:
- EPA cuts
- IRA solar
- Contract cancellation
- Government funding
- Solar energy
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Renewable energy
- Clean energy
- Solar power
- Budget cuts
#EPA #cuts #IRA #solar #money #contract
Tesla Cuts Cybertruck Lease Prices by 25% in 3 Months; Increases the End-of-Lease Buyout to 71% of the Truck’s Purchase Price After 3 Years and 30,000 Miles
Tesla has once again lowered Cybertruck lease prices. This is the second time Tesla has lowered Cybertruck lease monthly payments since introducing the option less than 3 months ago this past November.
Now, the Cybertruck AWD lease costs only $750 a month. This is down from $1,000 a month in November and $900 a month in December.
All these price cuts mean a 25% price decrease in monthly lease payments in less than 3 months. If Tesla similarly discounted the Cybertruck purchase price by 25%, it would give the vehicle a $60,000 starting price.
What’s interesting here is that Tesla launched the Cybertruck lease option after ending the Foundation Series Cybertruck program and introducing the regular Cybertruck, which has an $80,000 starting price.
This means all the lease payment price cuts have been for the non-Foundation Series Cybertruck. Also, since introducing the lease program the Cybertruck has always qualified for the $7,500 tax credit through the lease loophole.
What this means is that all of the lease payment cuts and the entirety of the 25% discount are coming directly out of Tesla’s bottom line.
The $750 monthly lease price is for the base model Cybertruck AWD; however, Tesla has surprisingly increased the monthly lease payment for the performance tri-motor Cybertruck, although it’s only by $1.
In November, leasing a performance Cybertruck used to cost $1,204 a month. However, this price dropped to $999 a month in December, and now it has increased by $1 to $1,000.
Overall, even after this “price increase,” Tesla has still discounted the Cybertruck performance lease price by over 20% in less than 3 months.
However, going back to the base model Cybertruck AWD, Tesla has increased the end-of-lease buyout price for the vehicle after the latest lease payment cuts.
Before the latest price cuts, the Cybertruck AWD lease buyout used to cost $54,950; however, as of today, this number has increased to $57,400.
Similarly, Tesla has increased the end-of-lease buyout for the Cybertruck performance; It’s now up from $67,500 to $71,730.
At these prices, the end-of-lease buyout numbers suggest that Tesla expects the Cybertruck to hold over 70% of its value after 3 years and driven 30,000 miles.
Overall, It’s interesting to see Tesla simultaneously lowering the Cybertruck monthly lease payment and increasing the end-of-lease buyout price. Please let me know what you think about this move. Share your ideas by clicking the “Add new comment” button below. Also, visit our site, torquenews.com/Tesla, regularly for the latest updates.
Image: Courtesy of Tesla, inc.
For more information, check out: Elon Musk Is Not Too Excited About the 2nd Generation Tesla Semi Starting Production, Asks “Does $10 Billion a Year Matter These Days?”
Tinsae Aregay has been following Tesla and the evolution of the EV space daily for several years. He covers everything about Tesla, from the cars to Elon Musk, the energy business, and autonomy. Follow Tinsae on Twitter at @TinsaeAregay for daily Tesla news.
Tesla has made some significant changes to its Cybertruck lease program, slashing prices by 25% in just three months. This move is sure to attract more customers looking to get their hands on the highly anticipated electric pickup truck.But it’s not all good news for potential lessees. Tesla has also increased the end-of-lease buyout price to 71% of the truck’s purchase price after three years and 30,000 miles. This means that customers who choose to buy out their lease at the end will be paying more than ever before.
While the lowered lease prices may be enticing for some, the increased buyout price may give others pause. It’s a trade-off that customers will have to consider when deciding whether to lease or buy the Cybertruck.
What are your thoughts on these changes to the Cybertruck lease program? Let us know in the comments below.
Tags:
Tesla Cybertruck, Cybertruck lease prices, Tesla lease discounts, Tesla end-of-lease buyout, Tesla Cybertruck purchase price, Tesla Cybertruck mileage, Tesla lease deals, Tesla truck leasing, Tesla Cybertruck pricing, Tesla leasing terms
#Tesla #Cuts #Cybertruck #Lease #Prices #Months #Increases #EndofLease #Buyout #Trucks #Purchase #Price #Years #MilesIndia Budget 2025 key takeaways: Income tax cuts for salaried middle class
NEW DELHI (AP) — Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government presented an annual budget to Parliament on Saturday that focused on wooing the salaried middle class with tax cuts and spurring economic growth by boosting agriculture and manufacturing.
In her budget speech, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the government is focused on boosting private investment to strengthen growth, increasing funding in the agriculture sector and enhancing the spending power of India’s middle class.
“The focus of the budget is taking everyone together on an inclusive path,” Sitharaman said, adding that the government is aiming for a fiscal deficit of 4.4% of India’s gross domestic product for the 2025-26 financial year.
The world’s fifth-largest economy is expected to post its slowest growth in four years due to a sluggish manufacturing sector, persistent food inflation, stagnant job growth and weak urban consumption. The country’s chief economic advisor, in a report released on Friday, forecast India’s economy would grow 6.3% to 6.8% in the next fiscal year.
Here are some takeaways from the budget:
Income tax cuts for the salaried middle class
Sitharaman said her government will initiate reforms in sectors like finance, power, urban development and mining, with “transformative reforms in taxation.” She raised the starting point for income tax to $14,800 from $8,074 and said the government will introduce a new income tax bill next week.
“The new structure will substantially reduce the taxes of the middle class and leave more money in their hands, boosting household consumption, savings and investment,” Sitharaman said.
Modi, who is now in his third term as the country’s prime minister, has been under pressure to allay discontent among the country’s middle class and generate more jobs to help sustain growth. Many economists had suggested his government make tax cuts on individuals’ income and implement job creation programs to mitigate rising unemployment.
According to the Center for Monitoring the Indian Economy, youth unemployment was at 7.5% in January, underscoring the challenge of delivering jobs in a country of more than 1.4 billion people.
Agriculture sector and gig economy gets a boost
To boost productivity across the agriculture sector, the Indian government will launch a nationwide program to push high-yielding crops, focusing on the cultivation of pulses and cotton production. Sitharaman said the program will target at least 17 million farmers and raise the limit for subsidized credit offered to them from $3,460 to $5,767.
The government also plans to formally register India’s gig workers and ease their access to health care. Sitharaman said the government will issue them identity cards and maintain a national registry that will ensure their inclusion in welfare initiatives.
India’s gig economy could employ more than 23 million people by 2030, according to estimates by government think tank NITI Aayog.
Investments in new startup funds and energy sector
Sitharaman announced a new fund for startups and said the government will provide more money to promote innovation in partnership with the private sector and launch programs to push manufacturing and exports. The share of manufacturing in India’s economy is close to 17%, short of its aimed goal of 25%.
The government will infuse more money to increase tourism-led employment in several Indian states and help with building infrastructure and boosting air connectivity to 120 new destinations over 10 years, Sitharaman said.
She also announced the Nuclear Energy Mission to drive India’s transition toward clean energy, with a goal of developing at least 100 GW of nuclear power by 2047.
The India Budget 2025 was recently announced and one of the key takeaways for the salaried middle class is the income tax cuts. The government has introduced new tax slabs and reduced the tax rates for individuals earning between Rs 5 lakh to Rs 15 lakh per year. This will provide much-needed relief to the middle class who have been facing the burden of high taxes.Additionally, the government has also increased the standard deduction for salaried individuals, which will further help in reducing the tax liability. The focus on reducing the tax burden on the middle class is a welcome move and will help in increasing disposable income for individuals.
Overall, the India Budget 2025 has brought some positive changes for the salaried middle class by providing income tax cuts and increasing standard deductions. This will not only benefit individuals but also boost consumer spending and stimulate economic growth.
Tags:
India Budget 2025, key takeaways, Income tax cuts, salaried middle class, budget highlights, tax reforms, economic policies, government initiatives, financial updates.
#India #Budget #key #takeaways #Income #tax #cuts #salaried #middle #classCal State system braces for possible cuts in classes, sports due to budget problems and enrollment decline
At Sonoma State University, lower enrollment is worsening financial cutbacks.
Credit: Ally Valiente / EdSource
When Kaitlin Anderson committed to play golf for Sonoma State University, she posed proudly in a Seawolves sweatshirt. But last week, school officials announced that they plan to end all NCAA sports next year, part of a bid to balance the school’s budget amid sliding enrollment and anticipated cuts to state funding. Anderson, a business marketing major from Peoria, Arizona, now is thinking that she might leave the campus.
“I will not be coming back here” if the golf program is eliminated, said Anderson, a first-year student. “I think this school will not do well after doing all this because half the reason we have so many people is because of athletics.”
Sonoma State, one of the 23 campuses in the California State University (CSU) system, is perhaps the most extreme example of how public universities in the state are tightening their belts in the wake of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s January budget proposal and troubling enrollment drops at some campuses. The governor’s plan calls for a nearly 8% reduction in state funding in 2025-26 for both CSU and the University of California (UC), while also deferring previously promised budget increases of 5% until 2027-28.
The governor’s proposal is not final, and later revisions could paint a rosier financial picture for higher education. But CSU leaders have warned that the plan, if implemented, could result in fewer course sections and larger class sizes, along with some cuts in student services.
Sonoma State has been taking in less money from tuition and fees as its student body has shrunk 39% over the past decade due to changes in local demographics and some continuing fallout from wildfires in the region. In addition to the sports closures, it is also planning to close six academic departments and eliminate two dozen majors in an effort to plug a nearly $24 million budget deficit.
Several other CSU campuses are warning about possible impacts of the governor’s proposal. Stanislaus State, which serves more than 9,000 students in the San Joaquin Valley, could face a $20 million deficit after accounting for the January budget proposal, a Jan. 22 email from the president’s office said. Sacramento State, with a student body of more than 30,000, anticipates making a $45 million one-time cut. CSU Channel Islands officials have outlined plans to permanently reduce the Ventura County campus’s budget by $17 million in recurring expenses in 2025-26, saying that expenses per-student exceed the state average by thousands of dollars.
Reduced state support could be missed most at schools like Sonoma State, one of 11 CSU campuses where enrollment has dropped over the last decade, reducing revenue from tuition and fees. Enrollment this fall was also a mixed bag, rising year-over-year at 15 CSU campuses and falling at eight.
At the Sonoma State campus in Rohnert Park, students responded to the news about the end to NCAA Division II intercollegiate sports and academic cuts with a mixture of anger and disbelief. A video published by the Press Democrat newspaper in nearby Santa Rosa shows an emotionally charged town hall meeting among student-athletes, coaches and university leaders. “So you think that we’re easily replaceable?” one attendee asked interim President Emily Cutrer. (“No, that’s not what I was saying,” she replied.) As tensions escalated, students erupted into bitter laughter and shouted interjections. “Do we get our money back for the semester?” one student asked, prompting applause.
A group called Save Seawolves Athletics has filed a federal civil rights complaint arguing that Sonoma State’s plan to end the school’s NCAA Division II athletics program will impact minority students disproportionately, spokesperson and assistant men’s soccer coach Benjamin Ziemer said. The group is also considering filing a lawsuit.
Signs of belt-tightening were also common this fall at San Francisco State, where enrollment is down 26% over the decade. Students and faculty members in December protested academic job cuts by staging a mock funeral march. Earlier in the fall, the university’s J. Paul Leonard Library announced that it expects to trim its budget 30% over the next two years, reducing its spending on resources like books and journals. The university offered 443 fewer course sections in fall 2024 than in fall 2023, a decline of nearly 11%, according to university data. President Lynn Mahoney said in a December message to the campus that the school is planning for “significant reductions in the 2025-26 budget” totaling about $25 million.
Leaders at California State University, Dominguez Hills — where enrollment has fallen a slighter 3% since 2015, but 20% from its peak in fall 2020 — have already whittled $19 million from the school’s base budget since the 2023-24 school year. If state funding is slashed in 2025-26, campus officials have outlined plans to shave another $12 million, and have contemplated reducing the number of course sections, among other things.
“I don’t want to cut out Psych 101, but if we have a thousand less students here, then maybe I don’t need 20 sections of Psych 101; maybe I only need 12,” President Thomas A. Parham said at a Nov. 7 budget town hall. “What we are trying to do is reduce the number of sections and, in some cases, fill those higher, so that instead of 15 students there might be 25 in them. But we are still trying to keep the academic integrity intact, even as we work smarter around the limited resources we have.”
Some faculty and students at Dominguez Hills are worried. Elenna Hernandez, a double major in sociology and Chicano studies entering the last semester of her senior year, said the tighter finances have been evident at La Casita, a Latino cultural center where she works on campus. She said La Casita, which receives campus funding, isn’t staying open as late as it has in the past and received less funding for its Day of the Dead celebration. The center is important to her because it runs workshops where students can learn about Latino history and culture.
“A lot of students don’t have access to this education,” she said, noting that more than 60% of the student body is Latino. “The classroom doesn’t teach it, necessarily, unless you’re in an ethnic studies class.”
Stanislaus State University President Britt Rios-Ellis said last week in an email to the campus that the university is considering several ways to balance its budget, including reducing the number of courses and looking to save money on utility costs.
Miranda Gonzalez, a fourth-year business administration major at Stanislaus State and president of the school’s Associated Students student government organization, said she initially was surprised that CSU would need to trim its budget at all in light of a decision to increase tuition 6% each year starting this past fall and ending in the 2028-29 school year. Full-time undergraduate students currently pay $6,084 for the academic year, plus an additional $420 per semester if they are from out of state.
“It was kind of a shock that the CSU was going to be cutting their budget when they just raised tuition as well,” she said, adding that lawmakers and campus leaders should remember that any reduction “ultimately impacts the lives of our students, faculty and staff.”
State funding is not the only source of revenue for the CSU and UC systems, which also get money from student tuition and fees, the federal government and other sources like housing, parking and philanthropies.
The revenue picture is not gloomy at every Cal State campus.
Cal State Fullerton, which has the largest student body in the system, saw enrollment grow 4% to roughly 43,000 students between 2023 and 2024. The steady growth provides the campus with a revenue cushion that has potentially saved jobs, campus President Ronald S. Rochon said.
“We are at a record enrollment, and because of the enrollment, we continue to have the kind of revenue to keep our lights on, people employed and our campus moving forward,” Rochon said in a Nov. 7 presentation to the university’s Academic Senate. “This is something that we all should be taking very, very seriously. We should not rest on our laurels with regard to where we are with enrollment.”
The California Faculty Association, which represents CSU employees including tenure-track faculty, lecturers and librarians, argued last spring that the university system should tap its financial reserves to balance shortfalls. CSU officials, however, say that reserves leave them only enough money to cover 34 days of operations systemwide.
UC’s fiscal outlook is less dire. Enrollment is stable across its 10 campuses and is even increasing at several. Some campuses, like UC Berkeley, may not have to make cuts at all to department budgets. A Berkeley spokesperson cited increased revenues from investments and noted that Berkeley will benefit from a systemwide 10% tuition hike for out-of-state students that kicks in this year. Berkeley enrolls about 3,300 undergraduates from other states and another 3,200 international students.
Other campuses, however, likely would have to make cuts under Newsom’s proposed budget, including to core academic services. The system as a whole faces a potential $504 million budget hole, due to the possible drop in state funding paired with rising costs. “I think this budget challenge does require us to focus more on some campus budgets than we have perhaps traditionally,” Michael Cohen, who chairs the finance committee of UC’s board of regents, said at a meeting last week.
UC Riverside has already saved some money on salaries because of retirements and other employee turnover, said Gerry Bomotti, vice chancellor for budget and planning at the campus. Still, the campus could face a deficit next year because of increasing compensation costs on top of possible cuts in state funding. Bomotti said the campus will try to minimize any harm to academic units if reductions are needed.
“Our priority obviously is serving students and supporting our faculty and our enrollment. We tend to always give that priority,” he said.
California’s 116 community colleges, which enrolled more than 1.4 million students as of fall 2023, could face a more favorable 2025-26 budget year than the state’s two university systems. The colleges would get about $230 million in new general funding through Proposition 98, the formula used to allocate money from California’s general fund to K-12 schools and community colleges.
By some measures, the past decade has seen more state and local dollars flowing into California’s public colleges and universities. State and local spending on higher education in California has been at a historic high in recent years on a per-student basis, hitting $14,622 per full-time equivalent student in 2023, up from $10,026 in 2014, according to an analysis by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, which takes into account funding for both two-year and four-year institutions. Looking at four-year schools alone, the association calculated that California spent $3,500 more per student than the U.S. average in 2023. Living costs and salaries, however, are often higher in California than in many other states.
Marc Duran, a member of the EdSource California Student Journalism Corps, contributed to this story.
This article has been updated with the correct spelling of Kaitlin Anderson’s last name and to clarify her plans if the golf program is eliminated.
The California State University system is facing tough decisions as budget problems and a decline in enrollment are putting pressure on the institution. With a potential decrease in funding, the CSU system is preparing for possible cuts in classes and sports programs.The decrease in enrollment has been attributed to various factors, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and a shift towards online learning. This has resulted in a loss of revenue for the CSU system, prompting officials to consider reducing the number of classes offered and potentially cutting some sports programs.
These potential cuts could have a significant impact on students, faculty, and staff within the CSU system. Students may face challenges in completing their degrees on time, while faculty and staff may face job insecurity due to budget constraints.
Despite these challenges, the CSU system is working to find solutions to maintain the quality of education and programs offered to students. Officials are exploring alternative sources of funding and implementing cost-saving measures to mitigate the impact of potential cuts.
As the situation continues to evolve, students, faculty, and staff are encouraged to stay informed and engaged in the decision-making process. Collaboration and communication will be key in navigating these uncertain times and ensuring the continued success of the CSU system.
Tags:
Cal State system, budget cuts, enrollment decline, classes, sports, higher education, California, university system, budget crisis, academic programs, student athletes, campus resources
#Cal #State #system #braces #cuts #classes #sports #due #budget #problems #enrollment #declineVirginia Medicaid recipients on edge as GOP weighs cuts • Virginia Mercury
With President Donald Trump back in the White House and congressional Republicans eying Medicaid cuts, Virginia Democrats are moving to safeguard the state’s health care safety net.
Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville, a veteran of 32 years in state government, called the 2018 Medicaid expansion one of the “most meaningful” votes in his career. At the time, the Democrats struck a compromise with Republicans, agreeing to a “trigger” that would automatically roll back the expansion if federal funding were cut.
Now, Deeds and Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Chesterfield, are pushing to remove that trigger, introducing budget language to keep the expansion intact. The House and Senate money committees will unveil their proposals Sunday, but for now, Deeds said, “we’re going to keep the pressure on our federal representatives to do the right thing.”
Medicaid, a federal program that helps low-income earners and people with disabilities access health insurance, was expanded in Virginia to cover more residents. If Congress slashes funding, roughly 630,000 people could lose their coverage automatically.
If the state budget amendment passes but Congress cuts Medicaid, lawmakers would need a special session to figure out a way to keep the program afloat, Deeds warned.
“If they were to roll it back 50%, that’s a $2.5 billion price tag for Virginia,” he said.
With Virginia sitting on a $2 billion surplus, Deeds acknowledged competing priorities but signaled that saving Medicaid could be a consideration.
“We’re going to have a lot of figuring out to do and it’s really going to be a struggle to do that,” he said.
For Richmond resident Katina Moss, Medicaid isn’t just health insurance — it’s what allows her to care for her aging parents while continuing her self-employed work without the crushing burden of medical bills.
“If the federal government drops funding by even 1%, my health coverage, my safety net and my ability to pursue my self-employed work while caring for my parents would be gone in a flash,” she said.
Advocates warn that the potential cuts would force many Virginians into impossible choices.
Ashley Kenneth, president of The Commonwealth Institute, and Julia Newton, a Service Employees International Union member, emphasized how Medicaid gives workers the security to prioritize basic needs without choosing between “putting food on the table,” paying rent, or seeking medical care.
Medicaid has been in Republicans’ crosshairs before. On his first day in office in 2017, Trump issued an executive order targeting the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which allowed states to expand Medicaid. He later celebrated a repeal effort that passed the House before failing in the Senate, and in 2020, he supported a lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court that sought to dismantle the ACA.
More recently, a Trump administration memo outlining a proposed federal funding freeze pointedly excluded Medicare and Social Security but was silent on Medicaid, sparking concern from Democratic lawmakers. The administration later rescinded that memo, but uncertainty remains.
Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, who supported Virginia’s Medicaid expansion in 2018, could not be reached for comment.
With state budget negotiations approaching the final stretch of the 2025 legislative session, Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s stance on protecting Medicaid remains unclear. The Mercury asked whether he had been in contact with Trump or congressional Republicans about the issue but did not receive a response before publication.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
As the GOP in Virginia considers potential cuts to Medicaid, recipients of the program are feeling on edge about the potential impact on their healthcare coverage. Medicaid plays a crucial role in providing healthcare services to low-income individuals, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with disabilities.These cuts could have significant consequences for those who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare needs. Many recipients are worried about losing access to essential services such as doctor visits, prescription medications, and specialist care.
The uncertainty surrounding the potential cuts has left many Virginia Medicaid recipients feeling anxious and unsure about the future of their healthcare coverage. Advocates for Medicaid recipients are urging lawmakers to consider the impact these cuts could have on vulnerable populations and to prioritize the health and well-being of those who rely on the program.
As discussions about potential cuts to Medicaid continue, it is important for recipients to stay informed about any changes that may affect their coverage and to advocate for their healthcare needs. The Virginia Mercury will continue to provide updates on this developing story.
Tags:
- Virginia Medicaid
- GOP cuts
- Medicaid recipients
- Virginia Mercury
- Healthcare in Virginia
- Medicaid coverage
- Virginia politics
- Medicaid funding
- Republican party
- Medicaid concerns
#Virginia #Medicaid #recipients #edge #GOP #weighs #cuts #Virginia #Mercury
Why Republicans’ proposed health care cuts could be politically risky
The Trump administration and new Republican majority in Congress have big plans to extend tax cuts and crack down on immigration. To pay for these changes, they’re in the market to cut government spending by trillions of dollars, and government-assisted health care programs are among their first targets. Earlier this month, a House Budget Committee memo and detailed list, both obtained by Politico, laid out potential budget cuts, including savings of up to $2.3 trillion from funding for Medicaid, the government program that provides health insurance for low-income adults and children; and an additional $1 trillion or so in other cuts from Medicare, the equivalent federal program for older adults, and other health care-related programs.
Other moves from the administration this week have raised alarm bells for Medicaid as well. Even though President Donald Trump’s move to freeze funding for all federal grants and loans (which has been halted by a federal judge) was not intended to impact benefits programs, a brief outage in the Medicaid payment system heightened concerns and confusion over the program’s future under his administration. Meanwhile, Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., lambasted high medical costs during his confirmation hearing, and seemed to pin the blame on government-run programs. He claimed Americans don’t like Medicaid and most would prefer to be on private insurance plans.
Health care generally wasn’t the top issue voters considered when casting their votes in November, as their concerns over the economy and immigration propelled Trump back into office. Nonetheless, voters across the political spectrum are broadly unhappy with the state of health care and health insurance. A recent poll from PerryUndem/YouGov dove into how exactly Americans felt about the U.S. health care system and some of the proposed cuts put forth by Republicans.* The results show that Americans share Kennedy’s anger at the health care system — 39 percent said they were very frustrated and 38 percent said they were somewhat frustrated with the state of the current health care system.
Unsurprisingly, high costs were a major concern for those surveyed. Seventy-eight percent said health care was currently very or somewhat unaffordable for most people, and 63 percent said it was personally important to them that “something be done soon to make health care more affordable.” Nearly half of survey respondents said they have at some point had medical debt from receiving health care services for themselves or a family member, while more than 4 in 10 said they had skipped receiving medical care or prescriptions because of cost. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans now have some kind of health insurance, whether it’s private or government-sponsored. (Fifteen percent in the PerryUndem/YouGov survey said they did not currently have coverage, a bit higher than the Census Bureau’s estimate of roughly 8 percent of the total population in 2023.)
But while Americans in the survey agreed with Kennedy that health care costs are too high and the health care system needs changes, they decidedly did not agree with where he pointed the blame; government-sponsored health care programs like Medicaid remain widely popular.
In his 2024 campaign, Trump’s promises on health care were vague, as he now-famously said in his sole debate with former Vice President Kamala Harris that he had “concepts of a plan.” As the details of that plan continue to take shape, Americans will likely be open to changes to a system they see as deeply flawed and too expensive, but Republicans’ proposed budget cuts and changes to government-run programs could rub them the wrong way.
Most Americans oppose cuts to Medicaid
To begin with, the government programs on Republicans’ chopping block don’t have the same low approval as health care in general. Eight in 10 Americans had a favorable view of Medicaid (which was additionally described in the survey as “a joint federal and state health care program that covers low-income families and children, pregnant women, older adults, and people with disabilities”). Contrary to Kennedy’s claim that Americans dislike Medicaid and would prefer to be on private insurance, approval of the program was even higher (around 90 percent) among those who were or had previously been enrolled in it. This is in line with other surveys that have found Americans generally approve of the Medicaid program.
When asked whether funding for Medicaid should increase, decrease or remain the same, Americans decisively favored continuing or increasing program funding: Forty-nine percent said funding should be increased, and 40 percent said funding should be kept at current levels, while only 12 percent said it should be decreased.
Of course, Republicans haven’t proposed across-the-board cuts to Medicaid, but instead a wide range of targeted cuts or program restrictions that would reduce overall program spending and limit who is eligible to enroll. The survey asked how Americans felt about some of those specific changes and found that most were net unpopular with Americans, though a large share also remained undecided.
One of the most high-impact options floated by House Republicans is establishing per-capita caps on the amount the federal government pays per person enrolled in Medicaid. That idea was supported by only 21 percent of Americans and opposed by 53 percent. Even among Republicans, slightly more opposed the cuts than supported them (36 percent to 35 percent). Support was lower for a potential reduction in funding to the 41 states (and Washington, D.C.) that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, which could remove eligibility for millions of those enrolled in the program: 18 percent supported and 55 percent opposed those funding cuts, and once again opposition still outweighed support among Republicans (36 percent to 31 percent). And the numbers were even less favorable for a general proposal to remove protections that guarantee Medicaid coverage to certain populations, like low-income pregnant women and disabled Americans.
One GOP proposal that could be popular, though, is requiring Medicaid recipients to prove they are employed in order to keep their benefits: 38 percent overall said they would support it, compared to 35 percent who were opposed. And it was notably more popular among Republicans, with 57 percent in favor and 18 percent opposed. Republicans have long advocated for work requirements for many public benefit programs, and Arkansas even enacted a Medicaid work requirement in 2018 — it was struck down by a federal judge shortly thereafter, though Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders plans to try again under the new administration.
The ACA has grown in popularity
Beyond expanding Medicaid eligibility to millions of lower-income Americans, the Affordable Care Act made sweeping changes to health insurance access, including by making it illegal for health insurance companies to refuse to cover preexisting conditions, requiring them to allow children to stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26 and opening state-level health care insurance marketplaces to allow people to buy plans with government subsidies.
Republicans have tried dozens of times since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 to repeal it. After the latest failed attempt during his first term, Donald Trump has distanced himself from his earlier promises to do so, as have Republicans as a whole. Rather than fully repeal the law, though, Republicans’ proposed budget cuts are among the ways they could scale it back or reduce its effectiveness, including by forcing states to trim coverage due to reduced funding, or simply by doing nothing: a Biden-era law that extended tax credits for individuals to buy insurance plans on their state ACA marketplaces is set to end in 2025.
Pivoting away from a full ACA repeal is probably politically wise for Republicans, as the law has actually gained popularity in the more than 10 years since it went into effect. Seventy-three percent of those surveyed had a favorable opinion of the law, including 52 percent of Republicans. At the start of the survey, 32 percent of respondents said they’d support repealing the law, while 44 percent opposed a repeal. After completing the full survey that described specific provisions of the ACA, though, the share of respondents who favored repealing it dropped slightly, to 28 percent. The biggest change was among Republicans, 59 percent of whom initially said they supported a repeal, compared to 49 percent later in the survey.
Even fewer Americans supported repealing popular aspects of the law that Republicans have previously tried to target, with only 25 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed to a proposal to let health care plans that offer reduced benefits into the marketplace, a change previously made by the first Trump administration but repealed by President Joe Biden — and potentially something in line with Kennedy’s calls to expand affordable private options. Other changes that were included in the GOP’s last attempt to kill the ACA were even less popular: around 7 in 10 Americans opposed changes that would allow insurance companies to “charge sicker people more for their health insurance or deny them coverage” or to “charge women more than men for their health insurance.” Meanwhile, half of Americans said Congress should extend the expiring individual tax credits toward health insurance, while only 16 percent said Congress should end them to reduce government costs. (The question wording noted that these credits “made health coverage more affordable for more than 19 million people.”)
Perhaps most tellingly when it comes to Americans’ support for government-sponsored health care programs, a majority of Americans, 55 percent, said they would somewhat or strongly support a government-sponsored plan that could compete with commercial insurance plans — an idea that rose to prominence when it was championed by progressive Democrats and ultimately backed by President Barack Obama in the debates over what became the Affordable Care Act. Commonly referred to as “the public option” at the time, the idea was ultimately scrapped by Democrats to win over independent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose support they needed to pass the law along party lines. Since then, the idea of giving Americans access to a government-sponsored plan — whether through a new government program or by allowing all Americans to buy into Medicaid regardless of income — is still backed by many Democrats, but has mostly faded from public debate.
The idea remains very popular among Democratic voters, though, and seems to have a substantial base of support among Republicans as well: 71 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans said they would strongly or somewhat support a government-sponsored health plan. And perhaps because it wasn’t actively proposed or opposed during the 2024 campaign, very few voters were against the idea, while many were undecided: only 13 percent of respondents opposed it, while 32 neither supported nor opposed. That undecided number was particularly high among Republican and independent voters, more than one-third of whom said they would neither support nor oppose the plan.
***
That last point illustrates a common theme in this survey: Many Republicans haven’t decided how they feel about some of the health care questions that may be central to the coming debate on government spending.
While Democrats in the poll were fairly united in their opposition to proposed changes to federal health care spending and programs, Republicans often had divided opinions, and on certain questions, many had no opinion at all. For example, 38 percent said they neither supported nor opposed cutting Medicaid spending by reducing block grants to states, 33 percent neither supported nor opposed reducing funding to Medicaid expansion states and 30 percent said the same about per capita funding caps.
Similarly, around 29 percent of Republicans said they neither supported nor opposed repealing the Affordable Care Act — and the number is a bit higher among 2024 Trump voters, 32 percent.
Overall, this could signal a “wait and see” approach among Republicans and Trump supporters. The nitty-gritty debate over whether or what health care provisions Republicans may propose cuts to is only just beginning. But even if health care wasn’t a top priority for these voters in deciding their votes in 2024, their opinions are likely to solidify as the debate continues. Republicans seem to have their work cut out for them when it comes to winning over public opinion.
Footnote
*This was a national survey conducted Dec. 13 to 23, 2024, among 1,269 adults 18 and older.
The Republican Party’s proposed cuts to health care programs could prove to be politically risky for a number of reasons.First and foremost, health care is a deeply personal and important issue for many Americans. Any perceived threats to their access to affordable and quality health care could lead to backlash at the polls.
Furthermore, the proposed cuts could disproportionately affect certain demographics, such as low-income individuals, seniors, and people with pre-existing conditions. This could alienate these groups of voters who may feel abandoned by the party in power.
Additionally, health care is consistently ranked as one of the top issues that voters care about. By pushing for cuts to health care programs, Republicans may be seen as out of touch with the priorities of the American people.
Overall, the proposed health care cuts could be politically risky for the Republican Party as they may alienate key voter demographics and be perceived as prioritizing budget cuts over the well-being of the American people.
Tags:
- Republican health care cuts
- GOP health care proposals
- Political risks of health care cuts
- Republican health care policies
- Impact of health care cuts on voters
- Healthcare cuts in Republican agenda
- Potential backlash to GOP health care cuts
- Republican health care reform
- Public opinion on GOP health care proposals
- Analysis of Republican health care cuts
#Republicans #proposed #health #care #cuts #politically #risky
To Pay for Trump Tax Cuts, House GOP Could Slash Benefits for Poor, Working Class — ProPublica
One of the hallmarks of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was a promise of sweeping tax cuts, for the rich, for working people and for companies alike.
Now congressional Republicans have the job of figuring out which of those cuts to propose into law. In order to pay for the cuts, they have started to eye some targets to raise money. Among them: cutting benefits for single mothers and poor people who rely on government health care.
The proposals are included in a menu of tax and spending cut options circulated this month by House Republicans. Whether or not Republicans enact any of the ideas remains to be seen. Some of the potential targets are popular tax breaks and cuts could be politically treacherous. And cutting taxes for the wealthy could risk damaging the populist image that Trump has cultivated.
For the ultrawealthy, the document floats eliminating the federal estate tax, at an estimated cost of $370 billion in revenue for the government over a decade. The tax, which charges a percentage of the value of a person’s fortune after they die, kicks in only for estates worth more than around $14 million.
Among those very few Americans who do get hit with the tax, nearly 30% of the tax is paid by the top 0.1% by income, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center think tank. (Many ultra-wealthy people already largely avoid the tax. Over the years, lawyers and accountants have devised ways to pass fortunes to heirs tax free, often by using complex trust structures, as ProPublica has previously reported.)
Another proposal aims to slash the top tax rate paid by corporations by almost a third.
Trump promised such a cut during the campaign. But Vice President JD Vance came out against it before Trump picked him as his running mate. “We’re sort of in line with the OECD right now,” he said in an interview last year, referring to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 38 wealthy developed nations. “I don’t think we need to be cutting the corporate tax rate further.”
What We’re Watching
During Donald Trump’s second presidency, ProPublica will focus on the areas most in need of scrutiny. Here are some of the issues our reporters will be watching — and how to get in touch with them securely.
We’re trying something new. Was it helpful?
In Trump’s first term, he brought the top corporate rate down from 35% to 21%, where it’s at now, taking the U.S. from a high rate compared to other OECD nations to about average. The proposed cut to 15% would make the United States’ rate among the lowest of such countries.
To pay for new tax cuts, the House Republicans’ proposal floats a series of potential overhauls of government programs. One major focus is possible cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for people with low incomes that is administered by the states. Medicaid expansion was a key tenet of the Affordable Care Act, passed under President Barack Obama. Many Republican governors initially chose not to take advantage of the new federal subsidies to expand the program. In the intervening years, several states reversed course, and the program has expanded the number of people enrolled in Medicaid by more than 20 million, as of last year.
The deep cuts to the program floated in the document include slashing reimbursements to the states. States would need to “raise new revenues or reduce Medicaid spending by eliminating coverage for some people, covering fewer services, and (or) cutting rates paid to physicians, hospitals, and nursing homes,” according to an analysis by KFF, a health policy organization.
Trump has been inconsistent in his position on Medicaid over the years. He sought to slash the program in his first term. But he has also made statements about protecting it over the years.
As recently as a 2023 campaign event, Trump promised that “we’re not going to play around with Medicare, Medicaid.” But it’s not clear whether the comment was a throwaway: While preserving Medicare, the program that covers health care for the elderly, has been a focus for Trump, maintaining Medicaid has not. The official GOP platform rolled out by Trump last year, for example, promised not to cut “one penny” from Medicare but was silent on Medicaid. In separate remarks during the campaign last year, Trump appeared to endorse cuts to “entitlements,” after an interviewer asked about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Other proposals would eliminate tax breaks for families with children.
Currently, parents can get a tax credit of up to $2,100 for child care expenses. The House Republican plan floats the elimination of that break. The cut is estimated to save $55 billion over a decade.
Vance, in particular, had promised economic policies that would lessen the load on parents. “It is the task of our government to make it easier for young moms and dads to afford to have kids,” he said last week. (He campaigned on a proposal to more than double the child tax credit.)
Another proposal in the list of options takes aim squarely at parents raising children on their own. The provision would eliminate the “head of household” filing status to collect almost $200 billion more in taxes over a decade from single parents and other adults caring for dependents on their own.
The “head of household” status was created in the 1950s under the rationale that single parents should have a lighter tax burden. Eliminating it would affect millions of Americans, largely women. (The after-tax pay of people with incomes between the 20th and 80th percentiles, those making between about $14,000 and $100,000, would fall by the highest percentage, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.)
Democrats have criticized the proposals as a gift to the wealthy at the expense of the working class. “Republicans are gearing up for a class war against everyday families in America,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a statement.
A White House spokesperson did not respond to questions about the specifics in the House GOP document but said in an email that “This is an active negotiation and process one that the President and his team are working productively with congress. His visit to the House Retreat [Monday] was a sign that he wants to prioritize unity and a good deal for American that achieves his campaign promises.”
A spokesperson for the House Budget Committee declined to answer specific questions but said “this is a menu of policy options for authorizing committees to consider as members navigate the reconciliation process.”
Some of the proposals would fulfill Trump’s campaign promises geared toward the working class.
The document includes a plan to eliminate income taxes (but maintain payroll taxes) on tips, at a cost of $106 billion over a decade. The proposal is one Trump touted while campaigning in Las Vegas to win support from the city’s huge contingent of service workers. Trump’s Democratic opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, later pledged to do the same. Economists have criticized the idea as one that unfairly benefits one group of working-class employees over others who get paid the same but work in other industries that don’t deal in tips.
Another Trump campaign promise included in the document is ending taxes on overtime pay, at a price of $750 billion over a decade. That proposal has also been criticized by tax experts as an inefficient way to provide relief for lower-paid workers who are eligible for overtime because they’re paid hourly and perform repetitive tasks. The provision, critics say, would invite gaming and further complicate tax reporting by creating new reporting requirements about the hours a taxpayer worked.
One of the biggest-ticket proposals to raise new revenue in the House Republicans’ document would hit a tax break cherished by upper-income Americans: eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. The document estimates $1 trillion in savings over 10 years by eliminating the break. Because of a complex interplay of different features of the tax code, an estimated 60% of the value of this deduction flows to Americans making over $200,000 per year, according to the Tax Foundation.
Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would have an uneven geographic impact: analyses have found the tax break is more valuable to Americans in Democratic-dominated states such as California, Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Pratheek Rebala contributed research.
Do you have any information about the tax proposals that we should know? Robert Faturechi can be reached by email at [email protected] and by Signal or WhatsApp at 213-271-7217. Justin Elliott can be reached by email at [email protected] or by Signal or WhatsApp at 774-826-6240.
In a recent report by ProPublica, it has been revealed that in order to pay for Trump’s tax cuts, the House GOP is considering slashing benefits for the poor and working class. This move could have devastating consequences for those who are already struggling to make ends meet.As the wealthy continue to benefit from tax breaks, it is the most vulnerable members of society who are being asked to bear the brunt of these cuts. Programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance could all be on the chopping block, leaving millions of Americans without the support they need to survive.
It is clear that these proposed cuts are not about fiscal responsibility, but rather about prioritizing the interests of the wealthy over those of the most disadvantaged. It is up to us to speak out against these unjust policies and demand that our lawmakers put the needs of the people first. We cannot allow the most vulnerable members of our society to be sacrificed in the name of tax cuts for the rich.
Tags:
- Trump tax cuts
- House GOP
- Benefits cuts
- Poor
- Working class
- Tax reform
- Economic policy
- Government spending
- ProPublica
- Social welfare
- Income inequality
- Budget cuts
#Pay #Trump #Tax #Cuts #House #GOP #Slash #Benefits #Poor #Working #Class #ProPublica
Active Skin Repair Kids First Aid Spray – Non-Toxic & Natural Antiseptic for Minor Cuts, Wounds, Scrapes, Rashes, Sunburns, and Other Irritations (3oz Spray)
Price: $29.97
(as of Jan 31,2025 04:19:50 UTC – Details)
ACTIVE: Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) 0.012%. INACTIVE: Electrolyzed Water (H2O), Sodium Chloride (NaCl), Phosphates
Package Dimensions : 5.67 x 1.93 x 1.89 inches; 4.16 ounces
Item model number : SUVELAM
Date First Available : April 18, 2019
Manufacturer : BLDG Active
ASIN : B07QY3GCM7FIRST AID MEDICAL GRADE HYPOCHLORUS ACID SPRAY FOR KIDS: The technology used in Active Skin Repair is the same safe and gentle molecule used in hospitals and households worldwide; Hypochlorus Acid cleanse wounds to help skin recover faster
PEDIATRICIAN RECOMMENDED AND CLINICALLY PROVEN: ACTIVE Skin Repair’s Kids Spray is natural and non-toxic and also non-sensitizing. Contains no steroids, no synthetic antibiotics, no alcohol and no harsh or stinging chemicals.
DAILY SOLUTION FOR SKIN CARE: ACTIVE Skin Repair helps kids recover by working on cuts, rashes, sunburns, and other skin irritations. The power of an first aid kit in a 3oz spray bottle
SAFE ON KIDS AND TOUGH ON GERMS: ACTIVE Skin Repair’s Kids first aid spray is a medical grade spray. While this spray is non-toxic and safe to use on sensitive areas, it is also helps to support the body’s natural healing process.
FSA AND HSA APPROVED: Use your Flexible Spending Account or Health Saving Account card to purchase.
MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE: Love it or simply return for a full refundCustomers say
Customers find that the medication works well for cuts, bites, burns, and other minor injuries. It heals wounds faster than antibiotic ointments and doesn’t cause a sting. Many customers find it useful for kids who are afraid of the sting of other wound treatments. They appreciate its safety and ease of use. However, some customers have issues with the bottle capacity and differing views on value for money.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Introducing Active Skin Repair Kids First Aid Spray – Your Go-To Natural Antiseptic Solution for Kids’ Minor Skin Woes!When it comes to our little ones, we always want the best for them, especially when it comes to their health and well-being. That’s why we’re excited to introduce the Active Skin Repair Kids First Aid Spray – a non-toxic and natural antiseptic spray that is specially formulated for children’s delicate skin.
This 3oz spray is perfect for treating minor cuts, wounds, scrapes, rashes, sunburns, and other irritations that kids may encounter while playing or exploring outdoors. Made with only the highest quality natural ingredients, including hypochlorous acid, this spray is gentle yet effective in promoting healing and preventing infection.
Active Skin Repair Kids First Aid Spray is free of harsh chemicals, fragrances, and artificial preservatives, making it safe for even the most sensitive skin. Plus, its convenient spray bottle makes it easy to apply on-the-go, whether you’re at home, at the park, or on vacation.
Don’t let minor skin issues slow your little one down – keep Active Skin Repair Kids First Aid Spray handy for all their first aid needs. Give your child the care they deserve with this natural and non-toxic solution. Try it today and see the difference it can make!
#Active #Skin #Repair #Kids #Aid #Spray #NonToxic #Natural #Antiseptic #Minor #Cuts #Wounds #Scrapes #Rashes #Sunburns #Irritations #3oz #Spray,non toxic