Senate budget debate continues, adding $43.5M to bottom line
Before amendment consideration, the Senate budget proposal sat at $61.32 billion, and it appears the branch is forging ahead with spending despite federal funding uncertainty and modest tax revenue.
Senator Gomez secures funding for Springfield cultural initiatives
During Tuesday deliberations, the Senate considered 671 amendments, rejecting 208 and adopting 301, including designating $150,000 for a free abortion legal hotline and $220,000 for mental health support for new parents.
Other passed amendments include $50,000 for educational programming to prevent gun violence, $330,000 for 'medically-tailored' meals for veterans, and $250,000 for youth nonprofit sports programs for marginalized youth.
Senators also looked to regulate Department of Mental Health case managers without directly endangering their jobs. This clashes with the governor's plan, which looks to reduce the DMH workforce by half, as the DMH looks to transition to a care model where case managers no longer have specific clients.
The senator who proposed the branch's amendment spoke about potential impending cuts.
'If they're going to cut case managers, they're going to cut, but I'm much more focused on what they're doing, and what they're trying to do, and why they're cutting caseworkers,' said Arlington Senator Cindy Friedman.
Remaining budget topics up for deliberation include transportation, public safety, judiciary, and local matters.
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on WWLP.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump taps conservative economist EJ Antoni to serve as next labor statistics chief
President Trump on Monday announced he would nominate E.J. Antoni, a top economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, to serve as the next commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after he pushed out the previous leader. 'Our Economy is booming, and E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'I know E.J. Antoni will do an incredible job in this new role. Congratulations E.J.!' Antoni is the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation and previously contributed to Project 2025's policy rubric, which outlined potential moves for the next GOP administration during the 2024 campaign. Antoni has in the past expressed skepticism about data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He recently appeared on conservative firebrand Steve Bannon's podcast to urge Trump to fire the previous commissioner, Erika McEntarfer. The position requires Senate confirmation, but Republicans hold a 53-47 GOP majority, giving Antoni a path to the job even if there are defections. Trump earlier this month ordered the firing of McEntarfer, a Biden White House appointee who was confirmed with a large bipartisan majority in the Senate in 2024. The move came after the jobs report released in early August showed lower-than-expected hiring in July and major downward revisions to the jobs reports from May and June. While Trump and his allies argued it was a move intended to improve transparency and accuracy, critics noted McEntarfer had little to do with what the numbers showed. Economists and lawmakers also expressed concern that it would erode credibility and confidence in government data, hurting businesses and consumers in the process.
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Five takeaways as Trump seizes control of DC police, deploys National Guard
President Trump announced on Monday that he was taking control of the District of Columbia's police and deploying the National Guard. Trump portrayed the moves, which will involve around 800 National Guard troops, as a response to high crime rates in the nation's capital. He said it was an attempt to 'rescue' the District from 'bloodshed, bedlam and squalor.' Reporters in a packed White House briefing room received handouts just before the president spoke where the District's murder rate was shown as higher than those of other international cities including Bogota, Delhi and London. Police statistics, however, show that crime rates in the District have fallen sharply over the past two years. Violent crime is down 26 percent when compared year-to-date against 2024. Last year, in turn, saw a 32 percent drop in homicides and a 35 percent drop in overall violent crime compared to 2023. That being said, the total number of homicides last year, 187, was still above the years that immediately preceded 2020's COVID-19 pandemic. Here are the main takeaways from Trump's announcement. A major assertion of federal power — and Trump's power The decision from Trump was more expansive than many people expected. A deployment of National Guard troops had been predicted, in part because the District's status — short of full statehood — gives the president clear control of when the Guard is deployed. The decision to wrest control of Washington's police — the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) — was a significantly larger step. The fact that it came amid falling crime rates makes it even more controversial. So too does the politics of the District. Voters who gave then-Vice President Harris more than 90 percent of their votes last November will have their police force taken over by a notably divisive Republican president. Trump secured fewer than seven percent of the vote in D.C. The Home Rule Act of 1973, which gives the District its current measure of autonomy, provides for a president taking emergency control of the D.C. police for 48 hours. During that period, a president who wishes to extend control is supposed to provide the reasons for that decision to the chairpersons and ranking members of House and Senate committees with responsibilities for the District. Doing this enables presidential control for 30 days. Any extension beyond that, the statute says, can only come if 'the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' Whether Trump accedes to those requirements remains to be seen. D.C. mayor offers modulated response District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) was critical of Trump's decision without intensifying her rhetoric as much as she could have. Bowser called the president's move 'unsettling and unprecedented' in a news conference. She also used the move to reiterate her belief that D.C. should be granted full statehood — a long-standing aim for many of the District's voters. In relation to a question about the prospect of military troops being deployed, Bowser said: 'I think I speak for all Americans: We don't believe it is legal to use the American military against American citizens on American soil.' But Bowser struck a fairly restrained tone throughout — including on social media where she wrote: 'Here's where we stand after today's announcement: we will follow the law, work with federal officials, and continue the work we do every single day to keep D.C. safe, beautiful, and the best city in the world.' Not everyone in city government was quite so measured. The District's attorney general, Brian Schwalb (D), said that Trump's move was 'unlawful' and asserted that 'there is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia.' Democrats, liberal groups worry about militarization at Trump's behest Beyond the D.C. government, Democrats, liberals and civil rights groups expressed angst over what they see as Trump's penchant for gratuitous militarization. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a statement that Trump's 'ever-expanding use of the military for domestic matters is beyond alarming.' Reed cited as a precursor Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year — against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — saying that this showed a willingness 'to deploy U.S. military forces on American streets for inflammatory and political reasons.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) accused Trump of being 'an incoherent wannabe dictator who is trying to turn D.C. into his personal police state.' Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) contended that 'using U.S. military forces to enforce a policy agenda on American soil is a gross abuse of power that reeks of authoritarianism.' Among the broader criticism, Monica Hopkins, the executive director of the D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called Trump's move, 'political theater and a blatantly phony justification for abuse of emergency powers.' It's unclear where things go from here Even amid all the words on both sides, there is a lot of uncertainty. One obvious question is whether Trump will fulfill the demands of the Home Rule Act, in terms of informing Congress about the reasons for his decision to take control of the police, and in ceding back control of the MPD after no more than 30 days. Another issue is where exactly the National Guard or other federally-commanded troops will be deployed. Trump has focused on tourist-friendly areas being besmirched by crime. But in fact Washington's worst crime rates by far are found in the economically deprived neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, far from the epicenter of tourism. Another uncertainty hangs over what the president would characterize as success. In a social media post, he insisted that crime — as well as 'Savagery, Filth and Scum' — would 'DISAPPEAR' from D.C. Presumably he doesn't consider literally zero crime to be an achievable goal. Does any crime at all amount in his mind to justification for maintaining federal control? The news conference wasn't all about D.C. During Monday's news conference, Trump took questions on other topics. The most interesting moments came when he discussed his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, scheduled for Friday in Alaska. Trump's tone suggested a new turn against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump and Vice President Vance berated Zelensky during an Oval Office meeting in late February but more recently the president had seemed to be putting pressure on Putin. That changed back Monday, when Trump once again appeared to blame Zelensky for the war, which was in fact started by Russia's 2022 invasion. 'I get along with Zelensky but, you know, I disagree with what he's done — very severely disagree,' Trump said. 'This is a war that should have never happened.' A deadline Trump had set for new sanctions on Russia expired on Friday without action being taken.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Millions will lose Medicaid under Trump's tax law. Here's the final tally.
About 10 million Americans are expected to lose health insurance under President Donald Trump's tax cut and spending law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said. Over the next decade, 7.5 million people will lose Medicaid coverage due to changes under the law, the CBO said in an analysis released Monday, Aug. 11. Nondisabled adults on Medicaid will be required to get a job, volunteer or enroll in school to maintain their Medicaid coverage. And states must double Medicaid eligibility checks to twice a year. Another 2.1 million people will shed Affordable Care Act coverage over the next decade, the CBO said. And 400,000 more will lose coverage due to impacts of the law — nicknamed the One Big Beautiful Bill — which was backed by Congressional Republicans. The CBO earlier said the legislation, which Trump signed on July 4, would add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit. The law extends the 2017 tax cuts, ends taxes on tips and overtime, and bolsters border security, among other things. The CBO also estimated low-income Americans will lose about $1,200 per year due to Medicaid changes and reductions in food assistance. Middle-income households are expected to gain $800 to $1,200. Meanwhile, the law's tax cuts will benefit wealthier Americans by about $13,600 per year, even though these households with pay about $190,000 in federal taxes annually, the CBO said. Millions more could lose their health insurance When the bill passed the Senate, the CBO estimated it would leave about 11.8 million Americans without health insurance through 2034. The law signed by Trump won't cut as deep because it excluded a provision that would've penalized states extending Medicaid to undocumented residents. Still, another 5 million could lose coverage if Congress doesn't extend the expiring COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made Affordable Care Act plans more affordable for consumers, according to earlier CBO estimates. Consumers who use those pandemic-era tax credits will see the amount they need to pay spike an average of more than 75%, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit. The combination of the tax law, expiring tax credits and overall rising medical costs will make insurance premiums more expensive for everyone. Insurers plan a median premium increase of 18% for 2026 plans, which would be the largest ACA insurance price hike since 2018, according to a Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker report released Aug. 6.
