‘That's a problem': Allegheny County Council reacts to Trump's federal funding freeze
Some Allegheny County Council members worry about what the order could mean for community members and the budget.
Democratic Allegheny County Council President Pat Catena is bracing for the trickle down effect.
'It impacts the facet of everyone's everyday life,' Catena said. 'The county manager, I know, is working on a plan. It's basically an all-hands-on deck approach.'
Catena said it could impact some federally funded programs like the Community Development Block Grant that's used to demolish homes and put in handicap access ramps.
'To pause money for things like that, that's a problem,' he said.
Catena said the pause could cut money from the budget but just how much remains to be seen.
'The devil's always in the details when you're dealing with legislation or executive orders,' he said.
There are still a lot of unknowns about how the order will work and in the 11th hour Tuesday a federal judge ordered a stay until Monday.
Republican County Council Member Suzanne Filiaggi said they'll have to wait and see what happens.
'We have a new administration, and they're putting their mark on the administration early on,' she said. 'I think that cooler heads will prevail.'
No matter what, Filiaggi wants residents to know they won't be forgotten.
'We can assure people in Allegheny County that we're here for them and we will support all of the people that think that they are in jeopardy of losing some things they hold dear,' Filiaggi said.
The executive order would not affect personal payouts such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Democrats wage national redistricting war, Republicans may have the upper hand
WASHINGTON — As California legislators begin the process of reconfiguring its congressional districts and creating a more Democratic-friendly map in next year's midterms, the party could be pushing itself into a national redistricting war — and one that would likely hold them at a disadvantage. The California Legislature will work to pass its proposed version of the state's congressional map this week, which would give Democrats an advantage in five additional House seats in the state. After that, the revised map will be on the ballot in November when California voters participate in a special election for municipal races. That means Democrats' attempt to thwart Republican redistricting efforts in other states, namely Texas, where President Donald Trump is pushing for Republicans to draw more GOP-friendly districts, will come down to whether California leaders can convince enough voters to support the gambit. And that may be easier said than done. Even if California is successful and counteracts the five seats Republicans say they'll flip in the Lone Star State, it could ignite efforts in other states to redraw their maps for partisan leverage. Doing so would be an easier fight for Republican-led states than those led by Democrats, largely because of the laws put in place by party leaders to avoid this exact situation. Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans in redrawing maps As state leaders threaten a redraw of their maps, Republicans have an advantage over their Democratic counterparts due to local laws impeding partisan gerrymandering attempts. Most redistricting efforts are completed through state legislatures and more easily accomplished in states with single-party control, meaning one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's mansion. In that category, Republicans have the trifecta advantage: There are 26 states under complete GOP control compared to just 15 under complete Democratic control. Once you factor out the states that don't have split congressional representation — for example, Utah, which only has Republican seats so a map redraw wouldn't do anything to change the calculus — you are down to 15 red states and eight blue states with seats available to flip. Even then, at least four of those Democratic-led states require independent commissions (or some hybrid system with state legislators) to change congressional maps in the middle of the decade. That complicates their efforts while the Republican states would only require their legislatures to do the heavy lifting. 'Even if (Democrats) are hell bent on doing this, I don't think it's going to be a very easy thing for them to do as a matter of their various state laws,' John Malcom, the vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government, told the Deseret News in an interview. 'It's not going to be easy for them to do, and they have less room to maneuver because they've already done a remarkably effective job of redistricting (some states) in a way that … dilutes Republican votes.' California gambles with those obstacles in place Unlike a majority of states, California hands the power of map-drawing not to state legislators but instead to an independent redistricting commission that is meant to draw nonpartisan boundaries based purely on population data. The commission was first enacted in 2010 and is made up of five Republicans, five Democrats and four voters who are not affiliated with either of the major parties. California is mandated by its state constitution to utilize the commission only once a decade, and it already did so in 2021. In order to work around this, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced last week he would introduce a constitutional amendment circumventing those laws. The catch: California voters, who largely support the independent commission, have to approve throwing away the panel's nonpartisan maps until after the census is taken again in 2030 and new maps are drawn for the 2032 election cycle. A recent Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab survey found 64% of voters support keeping the independent commission, compared to just 36% who said state lawmakers should draw the maps. But some members of the commission who drew the current boundaries support throwing out the map, with the agreement that the panel will be reinstated later. But even with that endorsement, Republicans plan to fight back with accusations that Democrats are defying the will of the voters. 'I think that it will be seen as a negatively partisan thing if they try to go back on what the voters only recently approved,' Malcolm told the Deseret News. 'But you know, Gavin Newsom is making it very clear that the lane he wants to run for president in is the 'I'm the anti-Trump guy.' And so being nakedly partisan is not something that Gavin Newsom is going to shy away from.' Still, Democrats could have some luck as nearly half of the state's voters belong to the party compared to just 24.7% who are registered Republicans, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Another 21.9% identify as independents. California and Texas could set off firestorm in other states With Texas expected to approve its new map as early as this week and California moving full steam ahead on its proposal this fall, the boundary battle could elevate to an all-out war encompassing several states across the country. More than half a dozen states are publicly considering changes to their congressional maps next November in an attempt to gain leverage — especially as it becomes likely California will simply neutralize Texas and neither party will benefit. Democrats in New York have openly suggested they would look at ways to change congressional maps to squeeze out GOP lawmakers in vulnerable districts while Florida Republicans are considering the opposite in the Sunshine State. But other states are slowly entering the conversation, such as Indiana, where Republicans already hold a 7-2 advantage to Democrats. All seven of those House Republicans came out in support of redrawing the map on Monday after President Donald Trump began looking to the state as another opportunity to secure his majority. 'Now, with President Trump and the entire Hoosier Republican Congressional delegation expressing support for Congressional redistricting, the General Assembly should act swiftly to get the job done,' Rep. Marlin Stutzman, the first Indiana Republican to announce his support, said in a statement to the Deseret News. 'Hoosiers deserve Congressional districts that ensure voting records are reflected accurately in their Congressional districts.' Despite uphill battle, Democrats say they can't give up Although Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans, the redistricting battle is emerging as a war they must wage, strategists say — lest they risk an unenthusiastic base that has already expressed frustration the minority doesn't do enough to thwart Trump's agenda. 'The way I look at it, you have to fight fire with fire,' Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist based in Washington, D.C., told the Deseret News. 'You just can't let the Republicans gerrymander their way to a House majority that they're going to have difficulty protecting.' Republicans currently hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, a historically slim margin that has often made it difficult for the party to advance legislation even with a Republican trifecta. With control of the White House and Senate, Republicans have enjoyed total control of Washington — something that is at risk next November. Historical trends show that the party of the sitting president typically loses control of the House during midterm elections. If Democrats manage to flip the House, it would deal a massive blow to Trump and likely thwart his agenda for his final two years. As a result, Trump is pressing state Republican leaders to deliver additional seats through redistricting — which some strategists say is a sign of political desperation and should motivate Democrats not to let up. 'Democrats have an opportunity to take back the House, and it won't stop the abuses in the Trump regime, but it will slow them down,' Bannon said. 'Democrats will have the opportunity to call hearings and investigations into the Trump administration, and I don't think we can afford to let that opportunity go by. So I think Democrats should go full steam ahead.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Women lean harder on Social Security. Here's what that means for advisors
Since its inception 90 years ago, Social Security has become a critical safety net for America's retirees. New research shows that's especially true for women, who rely on the program as a primary source of income at a far greater rate than men. The research, conducted by the Transamerica Institute for its 25th annual retirement survey, collected responses from over 10,000 American adults about their views on retirement savings and Social Security. READ MORE:The Next Step: Can a millionaire store clerk retire at 55?As insurers axe Medicare plans, here's what advisors should know4 ways business owners could reap big tax savings under OBBBAWomen clients want clarity, not jargon. Here's how to deliver Across the country, about a third of adults expect Social Security to be their primary source of income, but women of all ages are more likely than men to rely on it in retirement. Given their reliance on Social Security, a greater share of women also say they're concerned about the program being reduced or ceasing to exist in the future. Researchers asked survey participants to rank how they feel about the statement "I am concerned that when I am ready to retire, Social Security will not be there for me." Among working women, 3 in 4 agreed with the statement, with 37% of them strongly agreeing — 10 percentage points more than working men. Financial advisors say the difference in Social Security reliance between men and women has important consequences for retirement planning. Understanding the domino effect on women's retirement Behind the greater reliance on Social Security among women is a long list of social and economic gender dynamics, including a persistent pay gap and unbalanced caregiving expectations. The pay gap between men and women in the United States has narrowed slightly over recent decades, but it still remains. In 2024, women earned 85% of what men earned, up from 81% in 2003, according to the Pew Research Center. "An income gap inevitably creates a savings gap, because most people contribute a percentage of their earnings to retirement accounts," said Hazel Secco, founder of Align Financial Solutions in Hoboken, New Jersey. Across multiple measures, researchers at the Transamerica Institute found that women had far less saved for retirement compared to men. The typical working woman in the survey had saved $35,000 in total household retirement accounts, nearly half of what men saved. About three in 10 men (31%) have saved $250,000 or more, compared with just 21% of women. Beyond the pay gap, caregiving expectations can also hurt a woman's lifetime income. "During time away from work, whether caring for children or aging parents, those contributions stop entirely," Secco said. "That's why I encourage my female clients to be very intentional with their savings. We're not talking about never spending money, but making sure that any extra funds aren't left without a purpose. If there's money left over after covering income needs and spending priorities, I recommend creating a flexible 'future use' bucket, a taxable investment account that isn't tied to an IRA or Roth. This gives women access to funds whenever needed, while still allowing them to grow their wealth and supplement Social Security down the road." Getting real without being discouraging Tackling the retirement preparedness gap with female clients should begin with a serious accounting of their situation. "I like to present my female clients in these situations with nothing but hard facts," said Nancy Listiawan, founder of Vera Wealth in Pasadena, California. "Statistics carry more weight than rhetoric sometimes." When working with women who are behind on their savings, Listiawan said she likes to remind them that even small monthly savings can compound by the time they reach retirement. "I'm working with a client now who is only comfortable adding $100 each month," Listiawan said. "That $100 each month can grow into approximately $60,000 in 20 years at an average 8% return. For clients who are not used to the habit of savings, it's best to start small and gradually increase their regular contributions over time. Some clients are very visual. As they see their account growing, they will naturally want to continue to put away more money for their future." Maximizing Social Security income for business owners For women counting on Social Security, advisors say it's important to make sure they're maximizing their expected benefits in retirement. A female client who didn't make much money — and thus didn't contribute much to Social Security — during her career might only receive a modest Social Security benefit in retirement. But even high-earning female business owners can find themselves receiving meager Social Security payments in retirement if they're not careful about how they structure their taxes during their working years. Oftentimes, female business owners are advised to create an S corporation for their business as a means of minimizing their tax obligations, according to Catherine Valega, founder of Green Bee Advisory in Burlington, Massachusetts. And while that strategy can boost someone's net income in the near term, it can also create problems for Social Security earnings in the long run. Through an S corp, business owners can pay themselves a portion of the company's income as salary and take the rest as a distribution, which isn't subject to payroll taxes like FICA. This approach reduces the amount owed in Social Security and Medicare taxes. But it comes at the expense of the owner's Social Security earnings history — a key factor behind an individual's expected Social Security income. "I just think it's something that people don't talk about," Valega said. "I'm not saying that it's the wrong thing. But no CPA is talking about [a client's] Social Security earnings history. People go to CPAs … to say, 'Reduce my taxes,' and that's what they do." With the right planning, Valega said it's reasonable to minimize FICA taxes if the business owner then uses the extra income to save for retirement on their own. But that virtually never happens without a professional helping the owner plan, she said. "I think that's an okay strategy, but only if I'm actually doing that for them, right? Because if the CPA tells them, people are never going to do it. It's just not in their nature," Valega said. Sign in to access your portfolio
