Capitol View: Rep. Rick Crawford, Northwest Arkansas Council CEO Nelson Peacock
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – It's been a busy week in Washington, D.C., with Congress returning from a two-week recess and returning to committee and floor work.
Capitol View host Roby Brock met with Arkansas Congressman Rick Crawford, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, to discuss his role in this important and powerful position.
Roby then talks with Northwest Arkansas Council CEO Nelson Peacock to discuss how new legislation could affect business.
Capitol View airs on Sundays at 8:30 a.m.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring. It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets. But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave. What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans? And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life. Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations. The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create. My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved. Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority. But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing. A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well. Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats. Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes. 'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families. The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity. Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having. This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization. Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know
President Donald Trump's 2026 budget proposal, known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' introduces significant changes to federal spending and tax policies. Read Next: Try This: While aiming to reduce non-defense discretionary spending and extend tax cuts, the proposal has raised concerns about its potential impact on retirees who rely on federal programs for income, healthcare and essential services. 'These potential shifts could slow benefit growth, raise Medicare premiums or target higher earners with stricter eligibility or tax rules,' said Aaron Cirksena, founder and CEO of MDRN Capital. 'The biggest concern is uncertainty right now, and retirees rely on predictability, so even these small changes can have a big impact on them.' Here are four things retirees need to know about Trump's 2026 budget proposal. According to Congressional Budget Office analysis, if Trump's budget proposal, currently being debated in Congress, raises the federal deficit by $2.3 trillion over the next decade, it would automatically trigger spending cuts, including a projected $500 billion cut to Medicare. Such cuts may lead to reduced payments to providers, potentially affecting seniors' access to healthcare services. An analysis by the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy organization, found that the 'bill would undermine access to long-term care by shifting costs to states, likely resulting in cuts to HCBS (Home-and Community-Based Services). It would also make it harder for people to qualify for Medicaid coverage and avoid gaps in care.' Find Out: Key programs under the Older Americans Act, such as nutrition services and caregiver support, are at risk of significant funding reductions or elimination. For example, the National Council on Aging found that the Trump administration proposes to move the Aging Network Support program to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and reduce the program's funding by over 40%. The program allows seniors to live independently in their homes. This matters for individuals saving for retirement, because adult children often incur significant costs for caring for their parents. According to an AARP study, 'On average, caregivers spend 26% of their personal income on caregiving expenses. One in three dips into their personal savings, like bank accounts, to cover costs, and 12% take out a loan or borrow from family or friends.' The budget proposes substantial cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which could disproportionately affect low-income seniors who depend on these programs for healthcare and food security. According to NPR, 'If approved, starting in fiscal year 2028, states would be required to pay between 5% and 25% of food benefit costs for the first time. … In addition, states would receive less federal support to administer SNAP. The proposed changes would decrease the federal reimbursement rate for administrative costs to run SNAP from 50% to 25%.' An analysis of the Medicaid and SNAP cuts by The Commonwealth Fund found that these changes create ripple effects that affect the economies of entire communities, not just low-income households. 'For example, some of the food purchased in Georgia may have been grown in Kansas or processed in Tennessee, so lower grocery purchases in one state may cause losses in other states,' the Commonwealth report stated. 'A nurse who loses her job at a Louisiana clinic might reside in Texas; thus, a job lost in one state could create economic losses in another.' While the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' proposes extending tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it does not include provisions to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, contrary to some expectations. The bill does introduce a new $4,000 standard deduction for seniors aged 65 and older, providing tax relief for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 and couples with incomes of $150,000 annually. However, the substantial tax cuts and increased spending outlined in the proposal are projected to add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. This significant increase in the deficit raises concerns among financial experts about potential future tax hikes to address the fiscal imbalance. 'If the proposal is passed, it could increase taxes on retirement income, making Roth conversions and smart withdrawal strategies more important than ever,' Cirksena said. 'The best move right now is do not wait. Review incomes, run scenarios and add some flexibility into your plan. Better to adjust early than react late.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 4 Housing Markets That Have Plummeted in Value Over the Past 5 Years 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money This article originally appeared on Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
