by dap | Jun 23, 2025 | Daily Signal
As the Senate Finance Committee’s reconciliation package continues to make its way through
, a review of its key provisions as compared to the
offers some helpful insights and exposes some glaring omissions.
The Senate Finance bill follows the House-passed reconciliation bill in a number of ways. First, like the House bill, the Senate Finance proposal focuses on strengthening eligibility verification and enforcement rules in Medicaid and the Obamacare exchanges to ensure only those who are eligible for the program are on it. It also sets up a framework for adding work requirements, similar to those in other welfare programs, to the Medicaid program and establishes a process to recapture Obamacare premium subsidy overpayments.
In some ways, the Senate Finance bill is better than the House bill. Specifically, the Senate provisions further narrow eligibility for illegals to qualify for Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies. It also removes the delay on
. These cuts were originally promised as “savings” under Obamacare. Yet, these cuts have never taken effect as Congress constantly intervenes to stop them. The Finance proposal correctly stops these delays. The Senate Finance Committee also took additional steps to further limit states’ use of questionable financing gimmicks to leverage federal funding.
In other ways, however, the Finance bill continues other distortive provisions. Specifically, like the House bill, the Senate Finance bill makes special allowances for states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs over those states that expanded their programs via Obamacare.
On the surface, this might seem a good concession. A way of rewarding those states that took the fiscally sound path of rejecting the Obamacare
. However, such special carve outs only further distort an overly complex and opaque financing structure. Medicaid needs greater transparency and accountability, not less.
The most glaring difference between the two bills is the Senate Finance eliminates any improvements to Health Savings Accounts. The House bill made a number of modifications to increase availability, contributions, and qualified expenses for Health Savings Accounts, including Direct Primary Care arrangements and plans offered through the exchanges. The Senate bill removes these changes as well as other first term Trump initiatives, such as codifying the Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements. The omission of these two provisions is a major setback for patient-centered health reform.
Further, still missing from both the House and Senate Finance version is an agreement on bringing the
in line with traditional Medicaid match rates. Both bills do not change the enhanced Obamacare Medicaid expansion funding to normal federal Medicaid funding levels. While the bills remove a recently added temporary bonus to new expansion states, ending the preferential match rate across the board would make funding fairer and would stop the distortions it creates in the program.
Also, neither bill includes any trigger mechanism to force Congress to make more fundamental, long-term reforms to the Medicaid program. Without a forcing mechanism in place, it is likely Congress will move on as they did after welfare reform and calls for future reforms will be ignored. The House bill does not address this.
As the July 4 goal for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act nears, there is still time for Congress to act and fix what’s missing.
The post
appeared first on
.
by dap | Jun 23, 2025 | Daily Signal
NEW ORLEANS—When
goes to speak on campus and attracts a large following, that’s not the story—the story is how the Right conspired to open the door to his “extremism,” according to journalists presenting at an investigative reporting conference.
David Armiak, research director at the Center for Media and Democracy, and Kyle Spencer, a former New York Times contributor and the CEO of the Pro-Democracy Information Lab, coached a room full of at least 60 reporters and editors on “Tracking Right-Wing Influencers and Movements” at the Investigative Reporters and Editors Conference in New Orleans on Friday. Robert Downen, a Texas Monthly senior writer, moderated the panel.
Armiak recounted seeing Kirk at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s library mall last fall. He saw Kirk “in the center of campus with frat bros all around him, you know, spewing anti-trans,
” and campaigning for Donald Trump.
“I had never seen so many folks standing out, watching him in the past,” Armiak noted, mentioning that Kirk had previously been limited to a room “where it was more difficult for him to get exposure.”
“What’s the story?” Spencer asked. “The story is, how is he now next to the library?” She called this a “great opportunity” to write about “the right-wing network” passing bills “that will
and to be more easily spread.”
Spencer pointed to nonprofits like the Goldwater Institute that publish draft legislation. In October 2017, the
adopted a free speech policy echoing language used in a bill based on
.
Both Armiak and Spencer suggested the Kirk speech represented a good opportunity for reporters to expose the infrastructure of conservative policy, which they also branded “extremist.”
Armiak condemned a network that “brings together fossil fuel funders, Christian Right activists, pastors, some of these state policy network folks, litigation folks, people like Leonard Leo, Trump’s judge whisperer.” He claimed the members of this network “were deeply tied to the January 6th insurrection and are deeply tied to the manipulation of our democracy and efforts to subvert it now.”
Spencer emphasized that “when you’re covering somebody who is voicing views of the extreme Right, they have been sort of planted by a larger network.”
No Telling ‘Both Sides’
When it comes to covering the “far Right,” Spencer urged reporters to “avoid features that glamorize and glorify these people,” and to avoid “both-sides-ism”—
of presenting a point and a counter-point in reporting.
“Do not ‘two-side’ stories,” she said. “Their fascism is not a side. Destroying people’s right to vote is not a side.”
Spencer also advised reporters not to merely use the names that conservative organizations adopt for themselves. She claimed they “use propagandist tools,” employing “words that we associate with democracy, with humanism” for groups that “are doing the exact opposite.”
She gave the example of the parental rights group
. She called it “an organization that is heavily funded by non-moms, that wants to keep people from reading the books they want to read.”
“As a journalist, if you refer to them as ‘Moms for Liberty’ and you don’t put that in context, you’re lying to your readers,” Spencer said.
The Christian Right
Downen, the moderator, said the Christian Right and business groups “who really want unfettered capitalism” work “in tandem together.” He urged reporters to “find the ideological underpinnings for these groups.” He gave the example of the Council for National Policy, a secretive organization that he said “was founded almost explicitly with a Christian Dominionist agenda … the idea being that
every sector of society in order to bring about the apocalypse.”
Downen gave a “practical tip for reporting,” urging listeners to find people “two, three, four steps removed from somebody who has some really noxious ideologies or has been funding a bunch of other groups, too.” He said making these connections is “an important part of this reporting process.”
He also argued that most Americans don’t really support conservative ideas, and that conservatives favor “voter suppression” tactics in order to maintain power.
Undemocratic?
“A crucial part of the Christian nationalist movement, a lot of these movements, is convincing people that it’s not gerrymandering or low civic participation that is allowing them to sustain power, but rather that they represent some silent majority,” Downen said. “I think it’s really important to be pointing out that these are actually very unpopular ideas and the reason that they often are looking to institute them by subverting democratic processes is precisely because they know that they do not have popular support.”
Those on the Left often condemn voter ID laws as a form of “suppression,” preventing people from voting. Conservatives often respond by noting the
, and that most polls find Americans broadly favor voter ID laws, even in
.
Armiak also warned about the Convention of States, a conservative group that aims to hold a convention of the state legislatures to amend the U.S. Constitution under Article V.
“This is a massive threat,” Armiak said. He noted that “a lot of editors” would say, “Once they have the convention and they got to get 38 states to ratify it, that’s pretty difficult.”
The journalist said reporters should respond, “Yeah, but do you want them to get in the room?”
He urged reporters to ask, “Who are the extremists that are supporting it in your community?”
Advice for More ‘Contextualizing’
A member of the audience who said the Right wants to “tear government out by its roots” asked the panelists, “How do we, as journalists, convince editors and publishers to contextualize this on a higher level than what we’re doing now?” His question suggested that legacy media journalists are insufficiently negative in their coverage of the conservative movement.
Spencer did not challenge the question, but proceeded to give advice.
She said that “the end game of limited government … of destroying the safety net” is “something that you can really explain to people.”
“You should always be using examples that would be alarming to people,” Spencer added. She encouraged reporters to start “reporting on aspects of limited government that would be really scary to people, and that would be really alarming.”
Journalists often worry about reporting on truly extreme individuals, such as mass shooters, lest they reward people who are seeking negative attention. Spencer applied this concern to conservative activists, but she suggested reporters solve the problem by telling “a larger story about how dangerous these entities are.”
More than 1,600 reporters and editors attended the conference, which included panels on practical tips for investigative reporting. Other panels, however, focused on issues from a left-wing perspective, such as “Following the anti-trans federal actions,” and “Belonging under fire: In an era of backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.”
The post
appeared first on
.
by dap | Jun 23, 2025 | Daily Signal
is urging the speedy passage of the One
Act—the main legislative vehicle for President Donald Trump’s campaign promises—by contending that eliminating taxes on overtime pay would be a show of support for law enforcement.
The Daily Signal has learned that Emmer, R-Minn., will be joined Tuesday by James Stuart, the former sheriff of Anoka County, Minn., to tout the
relief the 10-year fiscal framework would bring.
Stuart will speak at the House leadership’s press conference in support of the bill.
“holds promise for every American, including the brave men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line daily to keep us safe,” Emmer told The Daily Signal in a statement, adding:
I’m proud to welcome retired Anoka County Sheriff James Stuart to Washington this week to share how no tax on overtime pay will improve the lives of officers in Minnesota and across America.
Stuart is currently the executive director and CEO of the
Sheriffs’ Association, a pro-law enforcement nonprofit organization formed in 1885 that counts dozens of sheriffs across
as members.
“No tax on overtime pay would benefit peace officers across Minnesota and our country by putting more money in their pockets to save, invest, and grow,” Stuart said in a statement.
“I thank Congressman Emmer and House Republicans for their work to advance this policy, and I urge Congress to get it across the finish line to send our protectors a clear message of respect and support.”
GOP leadership in both chambers of
are working to pass the legislation by their preferred deadline of Independence Day on July 4.
Congress breaks for recess on June 27, though, so the
.
The post
appeared first on
.
by dap | Jun 23, 2025 | Daily Signal
A number of provisions of the House‘s
—the main legislative vehicle for fulfilling President Donald Trump’s campaign promises—have been thrown out in recent days, complicating Republicans’ efforts to pass the 10-year fiscal framework before Independence Day on July 4.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough—essentially the Senate referee—decides on whether or not provisions in the budget reconciliation process follow Senate rules.
In such cases, she is invoking the “Byrd rule,” which is meant to restrict the process to budgetary policy only. The rule is named for then-Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who was
when it was adopted in 1985.
There are a few reasons a parliamentarian might to toss a provision under the Byrd rule: If it does not produce a change in spending or savings that is more than “merely incidental”; if it is not in compliance with budgetary instructions; if it increases deficits beyond the 10-year window; if it is outside a committee’s jurisdiction; or if it
In order to overcome such overruling, Republicans would have to get 60 votes to overturn each ruling, per Senate custom. That’s very unlikely given the current partisan divide in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats.
Here‘s how
has been changed in recent days.
Food Stamps
MacDonough has thrown out some of the reforms to the
which provides food stamps to millions of Americans.
Specifically, the parliamentarian has struck provisions that would have barred noncitizens from accessing food stamps and would have forced states to share a larger amount of the cost of the program if they have a higher payment error rate.
Those amount to a gutting of the House and Senate agriculture committees’ work on the bill and will do damage to the overall spending reductions of the bill.
State Border Enforcement
Another provision on the chopping block was “state and local assistance”—authorizing states to
“This subsection authorizes states to conduct border security and immigration enforcement, which are federal functions,” write Senate Budget Committee Democrats in their outline of the Byrd rule casualties.
Beyond precluding the federal government from saving money on these operations, the parliamentarian’s ruling also deals a blow to the bill’s work to help fulfill Trump’s promises on
Selling Off Postal Service EVs
Slashed from the bill is a provision that “mandates the sale of all the United States Postal Service’s electric vehicles and infrastructure to support its electric vehicles.”
While perhaps not a massive setback for congressional Republicans, it means that this element of former President Joe Biden’s presidency will live on.
Is a Parliamentarian’s Ruling Final?
The
parliamentarian’s rulings are something of a setback to Republicans, but they are not necessarily final. A simple option is to amend and resubmit the provision so that the parliamentarian no longer considers it in violation.
The Senate can also motion to waive the parliamentarian’s ruling, which requires 60 votes—an unlikely outcome given Republicans’ 53-seat majority and Democrats’ unanimous opposition to the bill.
There is also the option of having the presiding officer of the Senate—
—choose to ignore the parliamentarian’s rulings. This would send an earthquake through Washington and shatter precedent.
For context, back in 2021, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., urged Vice President Kamala Harris to overrule MacDonough
in the American Rescue Act, a reconciliation package.
“I’m sorry—an unelected parliamentarian does not get to deprive 32 million Americans the raise they deserve,” Khanna
in 2021. “This is an advisory, not a ruling. VP Harris needs to disregard and rule a $15 minimum wage in order.” Harris ultimately did not pursue this.
There is also the option of removing a parliamentarian, which then-
R-Miss., did with then-Parliamentarian Robert Dove in 2001.
These latter two options are extremely unlikely, but they are in the Republicans’ toolbox if they consider MacDonough’s rulings do considerable damage to the main legislative vehicle for enacting Trump’s agenda.
The post
appeared first on
.
by dap | Jun 23, 2025 | Daily Signal
The House of Representatives is set to vote this week on a resolution condemning the recent
and thanking law enforcement.
The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., “condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated against federal, state, and local law enforcement” and “calls on local and state elected leadership to work with the federal government to end the violent riots and restore peace.”
“Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence, and other crimes are not. Protecting public safety shouldn’t be controversial, which is why I am leading the California Republican delegation in a resolution to support law and order as we continue to see unrest,” Kim told The Daily Signal.
“I hope [California Gov. Gavin] Newsom can come together with President [Donald] Trump to stop the riots, lower the temperature, and keep our communities safe,” the congresswoman continued.
“Let’s be clear: The riots escalated before the National Guard was sent in and were enabled by California’s soft-on-crime policies—peddled for years by Gov. Newsom, Sacramento, and local prosecutors—that have allowed for lawlessness and endangered public safety of hardworking Californians,” Kim added.
A spokeswoman for Kim, who represents a district southeast of Los Angeles, said the resolution is expected to be brought up to the floor for a vote on Friday.
The move comes after a federal appeals court
that President
had lawfully deployed the
to California to
from the rioters. Newsom
the challenge to Trump’s action.
The resolution also expresses gratitude to the law enforcement officers who intervened to help quell the riots, including “the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, California Highway Patrol, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and other local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.”
It notes that the “protests quickly escalated into violent riots across Los Angeles, where acts of arson, widespread looting, property destruction, and vandalism were committed, blocking streets and highways, lighting streets on fire, throwing rocks at law enforcement vehicles, and assaulting federal and local peace officers.”
Kim’s
goes on to castigate rioters who “have
and
at Los Angeles Police Department officers and
” and “
, an act that disrespects the nation that protects their freedom.”
It also critiques
, quoting him as saying that local law enforcement
. The resolution also captures the extent of the people involved in illegal activity noting that more than 561
.
The post
appeared first on
.