City Council urges Congress to reject Medicaid cuts, approves fireworks
The resolution protecting Medicaid passed with all those present voting in the affirmative while the fireworks resolution had one member vote against the resolution.
City Council Member Andrew Werthmann proposed the Medicaid resolution along with Council Member Roderick Jones.
'We were inspired by the news of the county passing a similar resolution a few weeks ago,' Werthmann said.
He said the other instigator was the passage of the budget reconciliation bill proposing at least $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid and related programs in February along with concerned constituents writing him.
'[They] are deeply concerned about what this could mean for them and wanted the city to have a role in speaking up,' he said.
'This is not a good thing for our city and our county where we're a place that has a high quality of life,' said City Council Member Clara Serrano. 'This will definitely impact our quality of life to have more sick people who can't get healthcare.'
Various council members expressed concerns Tuesday of a snowball effect touching on not only how this negatively affects individuals but the financial wellbeing of institutions like hospitals and nursing homes. It was expressed that a loss of Medicaid could further reduce access to mental healthcare and tip vulnerable individuals over the edge to poverty and homelessness.
'We're at a very precarious place with people just on the edge of homelessness,' Serrano said. 'There are so many more that are just hanging on by a thread. Cuts to food aid and Medicaid—I'm very concerned that it will cause us to have a big spike of people who no longer can afford to stay in their homes.'
'These are the kinds of things that have a downstream impact,' Werthmann said. 'Not everyone can make it in our economy. Maybe you're recently out of a job. We've heard some stories of people who have special needs, families who depend on these things.'
'These programs are used by a lot of people in our region and they contribute to the well-being of people throughout our community,' said City Council Member Joshua Miller. 'We saw it as very important to speak up from a local level.'
'When lifelines are cut, then our local community ends up having to pick up the pieces,' Werthmann said. 'We were already stretching our budget.'
'We're really limited in the kind of way that we can raise revenue,' Serrano said. 'And those federal programs, our residents are already paying into. If we have to do some kind of financial gymnastics to be able to make up for this short fall, the city is very limited.'
The resolution to accept a donation from Festival Foods for Fourth of July fireworks for the next three years passed 9 to 1.
Werthmann said that he tried to get Festival Foods to compromise to pay for some of the city's extra expenses and with accommodations for quieter or a smaller fireworks display.
'I thought it was reasonable to ask for a compromise,' he said. 'They said they weren't interested, so in the end, I decided to vote no.'
Two city council members — Council President Emily Berge and Larry Mboga — attended the meeting virtually as they were attending the National League of Cities Convention in Washington D.C.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
The CIRCLE Act: A blueprint for revitalizing American manufacturing through recycling
As Congress prioritizes American manufacturing and global trade, it is time to recognize one of our most overlooked resources: the valuable materials sitting at the end of every driveway. Each year, 37 million tons of recyclable household materials in the United States are landfilled or incinerated. That loss weakens our supply chains, drives up costs for American manufacturers and wastes taxpayer-funded resources. If we are serious about revitalizing domestic production, keeping dollars in local economies and strengthening U.S. competitiveness, we must modernize our recycling system and scale access for every household. Recycling already delivers for American industry. Recycled content makes up 40 percent of U.S. manufacturing inputs. People across the country are doing their part: setting out blue carts, dropping off batteries, returning pallets. But the system supporting them is uneven. More than 41percent of Americans still lack access to basic recycling services, and billions in raw material value is lost each year as a result. Congress has a clear opportunity to lead. The bipartisan CIRCLE Act, introduced by Reps. Suozzi (D-N.Y.) and Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), is a targeted, practical solution. It would create a 30 percent investment tax credit for businesses, nonprofits and individuals building or upgrading recycling infrastructure — from curbside collection to sortation and processing. The model is proven. Like the tax credits that fueled growth in solar and semiconductors, this approach will drive innovation, reduce risk for private investors, and build a stronger, more resilient domestic supply chain. We already know this investment pays off. According to The Recycling Partnership, a $17 billion commitment to universal recycling access would create more than 200,000 U.S. jobs, return $8.8 billion in materials to the economy and save taxpayers nearly $10 billion in five years. Few investments can match that return. Global momentum is also building. As nations convene to negotiate a global treaty on plastic pollution, the U.S. has a chance to lead from a position of strength. Investing in domestic recycling infrastructure is not just good policy, it is essential to showing global leadership on waste, sustainability and economic development. We cannot afford to waste valuable glass, metals, plastics and paper. Nor can we ignore the growing need for extended producer responsibility policies that require producers to fund better systems, as already seen in seven U.S. states and across the globe. The EPA's Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program offers a strong foundation. First passed with bipartisan support during the Trump administration, it has already attracted more than 450 applications. These investments are popular, cost-effective and widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats. As the EPA turns its focus to the Great American Comeback, continued funding for the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program is a smart and strategic move. But policy must go further. As more recycled plastic moves through our economy, Health and Human Services should ensure materials are safe for use in food, health and household products. Regulatory clarity is critical as manufacturers increase their use of recycled content. Protecting public health should go hand-in-hand with accelerating circularity. Recycling is one of the rare areas that unites rural, suburban and urban interests. It creates jobs, reduces waste, lowers costs for businesses and delivers environmental returns. At a time when Americans expect real solutions, this is one Congress and the administration can act on now. Passing the CIRCLE Act would send a clear message: the U.S. is ready to lead the world in smart, sustainable manufacturing. Recycling is a proven path to jobs, resilience and economic strength. Let's stop wasting potential and start investing in it.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawsuit in court this week could throw a wrench in Trump's trade policies
The Trump administration's trade policy faces a critical test this week as a federal court weighs the legality of its sweeping tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Thursday in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, a case brought by five small business owners and 12 states who allege they have been harmed by President Trump's import taxes. V.O.S., the lead plaintiff in the case, is a New-York based wine importer. The lawsuit challenges President Trump's claim that he has authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to issue tariffs, a process that normally requires congressional approval. A victory by the plaintiffs could deal a blow to Mr. Trump as he seeks to negotiate trade deals with U.S. economic partners. The U.S. and the European Union on Sunday announced a pact, easing tension over a brewing trade war. But the White House has yet to reach deals with other major trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, South Korea and China. What both sides are arguing The plaintiffs in the V.O.S. case argue that Mr. Trump exceeded his authority when he bypassed congressional approval and invoked IEEPA as the legal basis for imposing his "Liberation Day" tariffs on April 2. Mr. Trump also drew on IEEPA in deploying a separate set of tariffs in February against Canada, Mexico and China that he said was aimed at stemming the flow of undocumented immigrants and fentanyl. "This case is about more than high tariffs," Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., nonpartisan think tank, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "It's about whether a president can stretch a vague statute beyond recognition to sidestep Congress." IEEPA, among other things, gives the president authority to regulate transactions with foreign countries during national emergencies. However, no U.S. president has ever invoked IEEPA as a justification for imposing tariffs. "It's limited to emergencies where there is an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' — and the trade deficit is hardly an emergency. It's been with us for basically 50 years" said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, a nonpartisan public interest law representing the five businesses that have filed suit in the case. The White House has defended President Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs. "The administration is legally and fairly using tariff powers that have been granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to level the playing field for American workers and safeguard our national security," White House spokesperson Kush Desai told CBS MoneyWatch in a statement. Why the case is important Mr. Trump has said tariffs are necessary to eliminate trade imbalances with other countries, which he said constitutes an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States." But a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could have broader implications for trade policy, forcing Mr. Trump to seek congressional approval in imposing tariffs, Schwab said. "If the court holds that the President's Liberation Day and fentanyl tariffs are unlawful, then he would not have authority to set those tariff rates, but still Congress could approve these deals — just like it did the NAFTA renegotiation in the first Trump term," Schwab said in an email. Presidents can draw on other statutes, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, to authorize the use of tariffs. How we got here The U.S. Court of International Trade in May struck down Mr. Trump's tariffs, with a three-judge panel ruling that the levies exceeded "any authority granted to the president by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs." At the time, the trade court said the 10% reciprocal tariffs are designed to deal with trade imbalances, which the judges said did not constitute an emergency under IEEPA. But a federal appeals court in May blocked the trade court ruling and reinstated the tariffs after the Trump administration appealed. After the trade court ruling in May, Desai said Mr. Trump would use "all tools at his disposal to advance trade policy that works for all Americans." The case now heads to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., where lawyers from both parties will present their arguments. The court could issue a decision as early as August, Schwab told CBS MoneyWatch. That decision likely won't be the end of the road for the case, with Schwab expecting the losing party to appeal to the Supreme Court. John Oliver: The 60 Minutes Interview Finding the plane used for Argentina's dictatorship-era "death flights" | 60 Minutes Immigration agent told 18-year-old U.S. citizen "you got no rights here" during arrest
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judges question whether Trump tariffs are authorized by emergency powers
WASHINGTON - U.S. appeals court judges sharply questioned on July 31 whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. More: Trump's final stumbling blocks for countries hoping to avoid tariff hikes: Live updates Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on July 31. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." During the July 31 arguments, Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other U.S. laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: US court to review Trump's power to impose tariffs
