Mediaboss Marketing

HARRISBURG The $32 billion spending plan that became law on July 10 without Gov. Tom Wolfs signature still has no set arrangement for funding it, and Philadelphia-area Democrats said financing packages offered up by the GOP are irresponsible and they fear the states debt will increase.

Already, Standard & Poors alerted government officials that Pennsylvanias credit rating is in jeopardy of downgrading and a budget without means to fund it only hurts the states tenuous portfolio.

I am deeply troubled that the Senate and House Republicans who dominate both chambers waited so long after Governor Wolfs budget address back in February to begin discussing how to pay for the $32 billion spending bill supported by members of both parties on June 30, said State Rep. Christopher Rabb, a Philadelphia Democrat who serves the 200th Legislative District.

Nearly two weeks into the new fiscal year, Republican leadership from both chambers have refused to consider a shale tax, an adjustment to the states personal income tax which could provide savings to most families, a long-overdue minimum wage increase or an end to the Delaware loophole which allows for continued corporate welfare for the wealthiest Pennsylvania-based businesses paid for by hard-working families who are deprived of those revenues being allocated to valuable services and resources that benefit millions of residents across the state, Rabb said.

State Rep. Joanna McClinton, also a Philadelphia Democrat and who serves the 191st District, said when she began her term there was a budget impasse and GOP leadership couldnt coordinate and get on the same page and lead effectively.

Its very disheartening. The governor came to us, as he always does, gave us his priorities several months ahead of time and here we are in July, and we havent handled that business, McClinton said.

Without new revenue, the general fund will have a negative balance for eight months, and the state is basically operating on a credit card for eight months out of the year which is fiscally irresponsible, said State Rep. Leanne Krueger-Braneky, a Democrat from neighboring Delaware County.

Several lawmakers worked through a recent weekend trying to find ways to forge a plan to fund the spending bill and fill the more than $2 billion state budget gap.

However, they fell short of an agreement.

The governor and House Democrats said they want to ensure the revenue bill includes significant recurring revenue sources to avoid the credit downgrade threatened by Standard and Poors last week if Pennsylvania continues to try to borrow and mortgage its way out of its deficit.

I showed up to work this week with one goal in mind and that was to pass a fair and balanced budget, said State Rep. Maria Donatucci, the chair of the Philadelphia Delegation.

The House passed a budget that increased education funding for the City of Philadelphia by $34 million. Unfortunately, as the past week has come and gone, my colleagues across the aisle have only offered proposals that will hurt Philadelphia schools and Philadelphia school children, Donatucci said.

It is vital that we fund our early education initiatives and provide our children with the quality education they deserve. And we must now find a responsible way to pay for it, she said.

Among the ways Donatucci, Rabb and other Democrats have proposed is the implementation of a Marcellus shale severance tax and raising the minimum wage.

These are issues that I have been fighting for since I first took office, Donatucci said. I am willing to stay in Harrisburg as long as I have to and will continue to speak up for our most vulnerable residents. My constituents, and the entire city of Philadelphia, are counting on us to not only get this done, but to get it done right, she said.

Rabb accused Republicans of wanting to pay for the budget with a risky expansion of gambling and liquor sales, protecting wealthy corporations and slashing critical resources for the most vulnerable.

Democrats like me want to end poverty wages for hard-working women and men trying to support their families, end corporate welfare and make natural gas producers pay their fair share like regular taxpayers do so that we can better fund our schools, encourage job growth, care for our elders and others most in need and protect our environment, Rabb said.

Far bigger than our impending financial crisis is the crisis in leadership and vision in Harrisburg where Republicans have wreaked havoc for decades. Further, the budget process itself is a prime example of garbage in, garbage out because too much of the negotiations happen too late and with little transparency, accountability, creativity and inclusiveness, he said.

Meanwhile, as public attention continues to focus on ways to pay for the budget, Republicans in the state House have quietly been pushing a radical overhaul of the states Medical Assistance program that would impose work requirements on thousands of beneficiaries.

Two newspaper reports on Thursday said the bill, sponsored by Rep. Dan Moul, R-Adams County, cleared the state House on a party-line vote and is now awaiting action by the Senate, which could happen at any time.

The language is included in a piece of budget-enabling legislation known as the Human Services Code. The two chambers are now on six hours notice to return to Harrisburg in the event of a budget agreement.

That means a vote on the Medicaid revisions could happen as part of that.

Activists have accused the House of trying to push the bill through to avoid a public outcry, even as Washington works on a radical overhaul of Obamacare.

This is kind of done in the middle of the night, moving forward proposals that would impact hard-working Pennsylvanians that rely on Medicaid for coverage, Antoinette Kraus, of the Philadelphia-based consumer group Pennsylvania Health Access Network, said.

Donatucci said shell continue to urge her Republican colleagues to do what is right for all Pennsylvanians. Its time to put people before party, she said.

See more here:
State Democrats 'deeply troubled' over budget proposals - The Philadelphia Tribune

President Trump said Wednesday that hell make the final decision on whether to defend President Obamas 2012 deportation amnesty for Dreamers, and said he wished Congress would pass a comprehensive immigration plan though he said the countrys not ready for that.

The call for a comprehensive bill was a stunning remark from Mr. Trump, who during the campaign had said he wanted to see a crackdown on illegal immigration. Comprehensive immigration reform is the description used by advocates who want to see most illegal immigrants legalized, with a full pathway to citizenship.

What Id like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan. But our country and political forces are not ready yet, Mr. Trump said.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to France, Mr. Trump was asked about the 2012 program known as DACA, which is currently protecting some 780,000 young adult illegal immigrants. Mr. Obama created the program but Mr. Trump and Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly have kept it going despite questions about its legality.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said that if Mr. Trump doesnt revoke the program by September, hell challenge DACA as part of a lawsuit that already halted DAPA, Mr. Obamas broader 2014 amnesty. Legal analysts say that they cant see DACA surviving a challenge in a world where DAPA has already been ruled likely illegal.

Mr. Kelly, speaking to Hispanic members of Congress on Wednesday, had said he doubted DACA could withstand legal scrutiny but said the final decision was up to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Mr. Trump said, though, that hell make it.

Its a decision that I make and its a decision thats very very hard to make. I really understand the situation now, he said.

He added, There are two sides of a story. Its always tough.

Immigrant-rights groups say the DACA program has been a major success, saying its helped illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. by their parents and grew up here to have a chance in the U.S. economy.

Activists are demanding Mr. Trump fight the program in court, despite the legal obstacles, saying its a major test of his presidency.

This is a moment of truth, and history has its eyes on us, said Frank Sharry, executive director of Americas Voice.

See the rest here:
Trump says he wants 'comprehensive immigration plan' but country isn't ready - Washington Times

The Trump administration is working with two senators on a bill that would restrict and revamp some of the legal avenues for immigrating to the United States, sources confirm to CNN, but the bill remains a long way from potential passage in Congress.

The bill from Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia was introduced in February but will be re-introduced with some changes, Cottons office confirmed.

The original version of the bill cut back on whats referred to as chain migration, ways of immigrating to the United States that are based on family or not based on skills. The bill would limit the types of family members of immigrants that can also be brought to the US to primarily spouses and minor children, would eliminate the international diversity visa lottery and limit the number of annual refugee admissions.

An administration official characterized the discussions as one of many efforts to work with lawmakers on potential pieces of immigration reform. Politico was first to report the talks.

The over-arching goal for the Cotton-Perdue bill, the official said, is to install a system where immigrants are allowed into the country based on their skills and contributions, as opposed to familial connections or a lottery.

The bottom line here is that the President believes we should have a merit-based system of immigration in this country, the official told CNN. What the merit-based system would do is bring our immigration policy more in line with whats good for American workers and taxpayers, so thats the overarching goal, and that Im sure is the driving force behind talks with Congress and these senators.

The official acknowledged that it remains to be seen whether the White House goes all in to support a final version of the bill, which faces an uphill climb in Congress.

I think were a long ways away, the official said.

The President spoke about a desire for comprehensive immigration reform while flying to Paris Wednesday night as well.

What Id like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan. But our country and political forces are not ready yet, Trump told reporters.

Perdue and Cottons offices both confirmed the senators continue to work on the RAISE Act but wouldnt elaborate on details.

While a move to end chain migration was part of the ill-fated Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate but died in the House in 2013, that bill was loaded with other side deals that helped pave the way for passage.

To me its more of almost a political discussion vs. actual enactment or trying to enact policy, said former Bush administration Homeland Security deputy James Norton, who now works as a strategist.

Rosemary Jenks, the vice president and director of government relations for NumbersUSA, a group that advocates limited legal immigration and supports the RAISE Act, said her group stands ready to support it, she said, but still lacks a clear feel for where the administration wants to go.

(Were) feeling a little bit more optimistic about some of them and pushing forward that much harder because it appears there may be an opportunity here and if there is, we want to be ready for it, Jenks said.

In addition to the difficulty of building a bill that works for the many constituencies represented in both parties, the Senate calendar has proven daunting for lawmakers this year, who are still struggling to pass an Obamacare repeal bill, need to extend government funding by the end of September, hope to pass tax reform and need to pass a defense authorization.

A nasty fight over immigration reform could also scuttle efforts to pass government funding that includes money for Trumps border wall.

It has momentum in the sense that there are definitely people who have been working on immigration since day one, Norton said, but I think in terms of active legislation I think it has a very difficult road for it to go down to become law.

Read more here:
White House working with senators on immigration limits - Gant Daily

The City of Seattle is experimenting with a first-in-the nation program that potentially makes every adult a campaign donor.

Under the democracy voucher program, every resident who is a registered voter has been mailed four $25 vouchers. Only candidates can redeem the vouchers for cash, but first they have to convince people to sign them over, which is why Jon Grant rarely meets someone without asking them for their vouchers.

Under the democracy voucher program, every resident who is a registered voter has been mailed four $25 vouchers. Only candidates can redeem the vouchers for cash, but first they have to convince people to sign them over. (Fox News)

Were funding our campaign through the democracy voucher program, Grant tells a homeowner in the Georgetown neighborhood of Seattle. So far Grants strategy has worked. His campaign has collected more than $200,000. Grant says 95 percent of the money has come from vouchers.

SEATTLE SEDNING VOTERS TAX-FUNDED VOUCHERS TO SPEND ON CAMPAIGNS

I think whats really exciting about this is every voter now has kind of a level playing field, said Grant, each has $100, which is essentially a coupon, that you can give to a candidate that matches your values.

Not everyone is thrilled with the program. Its funded by a property tax worth $30 million over 10 years, which the city calculates will cost the average homeowner $12 per year.

But its not about the amount of money for Mark Elster, a Seattle resident who along with another resident and help from the Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank, has sued to stop the program. Elster does not support any of the candidates running for office and feels his money is providing political speech to those with whom he vehemently disagrees.

With three weeks to go before the primary, only 4 percent of the vouchers have been returned and cashed in by candidates who qualify. (Fox News)

Its a clear violation of First Amendment rights, said Elster. With free speech comes the right not to speak.

SEATTLE GUN TAX FAILURE? FIREARM SALES PLUMMET, VIOLENCE SPIKES AFTER LAW PASSES

Wayne Barnett, executive director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, would not comment directly on the lawsuit, but defends the voucher program.

Most people have never had a candidate knock on their door and ask them to make a campaign contribution, Barnett said. Its empowering to people in a way theyve never been empowered before.

About 500,000 registered voters were mailed vouchers, but many more people are eligible to receive them if they apply. Non-citizens who are in the country legally cant vote, but they can get $100 worth of vouchers.

Jon Grant makes no apologies for seeking vouchers from everyone. The former director of the Tenants Union, who has been endorsed by the Democratic Socialist party, has collected vouchers from government-subsidized renters, new immigrants and some people living in illegal homeless camps. Its pushed Grant into the fundraising lead and has allowed him to have six paid campaign staffers. Two years ago, when he ran for the same seat against the incumbent, he raised only $75,000 through November and he could pay only one person.

One goal of the democracy voucher program is to reduce the amount and influence of money in politics. In exchange for receiving vouchers, candidates agree to a spending cap. The primary the cap is $150,000, from any combination of vouchers and private donations.

One goal of the democracy voucher program is to reduce the amount and influence of money in politics. In exchange for receiving vouchers, candidates agree to a spending cap. (Fox News)

But the Elections Commission has already lifted the spending cap.

Candidate Teresa Mosqueda, who has raised $100,000 in vouchers and another $85,000 in private donations, asked that the limit be lifted because an opponent who has opted out of the voucher program is raising a lot of private donations. Sarah Nelson, a brewery owner, is supported by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. Her biggest donor is Amazon.

Four other candidates for City Council want to access vouchers, but havent qualified to receive the money. The bar to qualify is collecting 400 donations of at least $10 and matching signatures. Dr. Hisam Goueli is several dozen signatures short and is frustrated by the system.

I believe in its original intent, Goueli said. The problem is the program has become so cumbersome that its basically tanked our campaign.

With three weeks to go before the primary, only 4 percent of the vouchers have been returned and cashed in by candidates who qualify. Any voucher money that goes unused this year will roll over to the next election cycle.

Dan Springer joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in August 2001 as a Seattle-based correspondent.

View post:
Seattle's 'democracy voucher' under fire: 'Clear violation of 1st ... - Fox News

It wouldnt have taken much for Hillary Clinton to prevail on Election Night. Donald Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins of less than 1 percent in three states that had gone Democratic in the previous five elections Michigan by 10,000 votes, Wisconsin by 22,000 and Pennsylvania by 34,000.

Yes, if only she hadnt run what was likely the worst presidential campaign in our lifetimes, Hillary Clinton could have stitched together around 80,000 votes and could have been sitting in the Oval Office right now.

The interesting question is: How would America in July 2017 be different under a President Clinton rather than a President Trump?

The astonishing answer, if you really think it through, is: not all that different when it comes to policy.

Lets face it: With the exception of the Supreme Court appointment and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, Trump has astoundingly little in the accomplishments column especially for a president whose party controls both houses of Congress.

Were nearing the end of July without a health-care reform bill. Theres no tax cut. Trump has his Cabinet in place but hundreds of sub-cabinet positions have yet to be filled. His flashy effort to restrict immigration from Muslim countries ran afoul of the courts and is only now being implemented in part.

Yes, Trump struck Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons in April but President Hillary might well have done the same.

So Trump has gotten very little done. The same would have been true if Hillary had won.

She would have taken office with Congress in exactly the same configuration that Trump founda four-seat Republican majority in the Senate and a 24-seat GOP advantage in the House of Representatives.

What would the Republicans have done in the Hillary era so far? They would have sought to stymie her, or challenge her.

They would have rejected any effort she would have made to revise ObamaCare in favor of outright repeal a repeal she would have vetoed.

They might have sought to block some of her Cabinet appointments and slowed down the process of filling the departments, but she would certainly have sent far more nominees up to Capitol Hill for confirmation than Trump has and would have gotten most of them through.

Once again, the sole major difference would have been in the composition of the Supreme Court. But its very possible that by this point, Hillarys nominee would not yet have been confirmed and Gorsuchs first few votes on the court did not result in critical policy changes that will affect Americas future.

The most significant case on which he sat, a religious-freedom issue, was decided seven to two, so if he hadnt been on the court and a more liberal person had been, the vote might have been six to three instead.

Gorsuch did rule on Trumps travel ban, but all the liberal justices ruled (at least partially) in Trumps favor anyway.

In the case of Hillary, her own ethically compromised self would have been sharing living quarters with her ethically compromised ex-president husband.

So what would have been different? For one thing, we would not be living through the insanely overheated Trumpian political atmosphere in Washington and throughout the culture.

Hillary is many things, and many not good things, but she is not a sower of chaos or the subject of infighting so constant that no one can even catch a breath before one weird story is displaced by another. Shes far too boring for that.

Of course, since we wouldnt ever have had to live through the insanity of the past six months, we wouldnt be aware of what we were missing.

And in one respect, the Hillary White House would very much resemble the Trump White House in that there would be an ongoing melodrama surrounding the high jinks of Hillarys family.

With Trump, we have his son and his daughter and his son-in-law conducting themselves in an unprecedented manner at the highest reaches of power. In the case of Hillary, her own ethically compromised self would have been sharing living quarters with her ethically compromised ex-president husband.

Given how readily he (and she) were willing to raise money for their foundation using her position at the State Department, would it really be the case those efforts would have ceased on Bills behalf at least when the Clintons returned to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Liberals are obsessed with the possible violations of the emoluments clause with the continuing existence of the Trump Organization and conservatives would have been just as consumed with the question of the behavior of Clinton Inc. during a Clinton administration.

The corporate donors and wealthy donors and foreign donors who filled the coffers of the Clinton Foundation would all be hovering around the Hillary White House. Their quest for access, the successes they scored in winning that access and the jobs they secured as a reward for their loyalty would be grist for media mills and congressional committees.

We would have been awash in a scandal narrative that would not be quite as breathless or bonkers as the Trump White House helps to generate but would have been disturbing and unpleasant.

Moreover, the questions raised about the unprecedented nature of the Trump presidency would have been raised by the dynastic Clinton White House, featuring a candidate who got elected despite her e-mail scandals and the spouse who was only the second president in history to have been impeached.

In the end, then, this what if scenario suggests July 2017 under a Clinton presidency might have been distressingly similar to what were living through right now. In either timeline, the United States evidently has a rendezvous with destiny it doesnt deserve but which it has visited upon itself.

See the rest here:
Hillary's White House would be no different from Trump's - New York Post