Latest news with #ShauneenMiranda
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
N.J. lawmakers consider shortening timeline to fill House vacancies
The bill comes after two sitting House members died last year, leaving their seats vacant for five months. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom) New Jersey lawmakers are considering changes to the state's special election rules after two sitting members of New Jersey's House delegation died in office last year, deaths that led each of those seats to remain vacant for five months. The legislation, which would shorten timelines for special elections to fill House vacancies, comes as another New Jersey member of Congress could step down by next January. Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Mikie Sherrill are among six Democrats competing in June 10's gubernatorial primary, and if either is victorious in the primary and then in November, they would have to vacate their House seat. Bill sponsor Sen. Andrew Zwicker (D-Middlesex) said the state's current rules on filling House vacancies need to be changed. 'I thought it was pretty important that we get rid of this so that the people of New Jersey have representation, and if they don't have it, make sure that gets filled as quickly as possible,' he told the New Jersey Monitor. He added: 'We've got two members of Congress … running for governor, so there's a reasonable likelihood there will be another vacancy starting in January, whenever the transition occurs.' Sherrill's and Gottheimer's Democratic rivals have criticized both of them for putting their seats in jeopardy of being vacant if they win the primary. Republicans have just a two-seat majority in the House. The Senate's state government committee on Thursday briefly discussed the New Jersey bill, but it did not vote on it. Though New Jersey law and the U.S. Constitution allow New Jersey governors to make interim appointments to fill empty Senate seats — as when Gov. Phil Murphy appointed his former chief of staff George Helmy to fill a Senate vacancy after Bob Menendez resigned — the Constitution requires House vacancies to be filled by elections, if they are filled at all. Presently, New Jersey has three separate structures for filling House vacancies, and timing determines which is used. If a seat becomes empty at least 70 days before a June primary for any office, the governor is required to order them filled at the next general election, with nominees decided during that primary. If the seat becomes vacant within the 70 days preceding a primary but more than 70 days from the general election in an odd-numbered year, the governor may — but is not required to — call for the seat to be filled at the state's next general election. In such cases, a district's county committee members choose their party's nominee. State law also allows the governor to call for special elections — with both primaries and generals — to fill House vacancies. Gov. Phil Murphy called for a special election last year after Rep. Donald Payne Jr.'s April death. Then-Newark City Council President LaMonica McIver won the special primary in July to be the Democratic Party's nominee and won the special election in September to serve the remainder of Payne's term (she won election to a full term in November). Murphy did not call for an election in August when Rep. Bill Pascrell died. Democratic officials picked then-state Sen. Nellie Pou (D-Passaic) to replace him on the November ballot, and she was elected to a full term. Under current law, when the governor is required to call for a special election, there is no required timeline for them to do so. 'They can keep that seat vacant until the next general election, and they frankly might do that for politics if there's a razor-thin margin and it's a Democratic seat, or vice-versa,' bill sponsor state Sen. John McKeon (D-Essex) said Thursday. The bill would require the governor to call for a special election within 10 days of a seat becoming vacant unless there are fewer than 100 days remaining in the unexpired term. First introduced following Payne's death, the bill would require special elections — including primaries — to be held between 74 and 80 days after a seat becomes vacant when there are more than 180 days left before the end of the current Congress. Vacancies incurred with between 100 and 180 days left in the term would be filled by special elections held between 80 and 86 days after the seat becomes vacant. In that case, there would be no special primary, and district county committee members would select parties' nominees. If a House seat becomes vacant within 100 days of the end of the congressional term, it would be filled at the next regular election. County committees would select replacements for candidates who die after they've been placed on the ballot, as they do under current law. That timeline especially is condensed by the bill. Under current law, House vacancy races with special primaries can sit empty for more than five months. 'This is now practical as opposed to theoretical. We went through it with the death of Congressman Payne and then the death of Congressman Pascrell,' McKeon said. 'We figured out what a nuisance it is, quite frankly, and a nightmare to fill those congressional seats.' Zwicker said he hoped to have the bill passed before the end of Murphy's term in early January. Fears about another vacancy redoubled after Rep. Donald Norcross (D-01) was hospitalized for an infection that turned septic in early April. Norcross was discharged from the hospital after roughly a month following the life-threatening episode. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Kansas schools and students face avalanche of scorn. Leaders don't have our best interests at heart.
The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building in Washington, D.C., is shown on Nov. 25, 2024. (Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom) As a Kansas public school teacher and parent, I am deeply concerned about ongoing attacks on public education, most recently through executive actions by the Trump administration that include eliminating the Department of Education and targeting the free speech of students. Halting federal support for our schools and students will ensure historically marginalized students do not receive equal opportunities, will take away resources such as student lunches and special education programming, and will stifle learning communities. Despite these attacks, educators and communities are showing fight and resilience that is cause for hope. Some leaders in Washington are pushing the Educational Choice for Children Act. If enacted nationwide, ECCA would divert billions of taxpayer dollars from our public schools to subsidize private institutions. In fact, similar bills were proposed locally in the Kansas Legislature, and recently, a coalition of organizations, including Game On for Kansas Schools, Showing Up for Racial Justice Education Core, Voter Rights Network of Wyandotte County, among many others, educated the public about the dangers of these with multiple screenings of the documentary 'Backpack Full of Cash.' The Kansas Legislature recently passed a budget that cruelly underfunds special education, but due to the work of pro-public education groups, the voucher bill did not come up for a vote this session. Voucher programs only worsen ongoing budget cuts to public school children, benefiting a privileged few while leaving low-income and rural students with fewer resources. Most recently, the Trump administration issued an executive order on school discipline, implying that school discipline had gotten worse as a result of the policies of Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. In fact, the school-to-prison pipeline, or the more nuanced school and prison nexus, which is caused by disproportionate policing and punishment leveled on Black and brown students, is a crisis that Trump's executive order will only exacerbate. While it is true that serious improvements need to be made in terms of how our system relates to educators, school staff, students and communities to improve schools for all, it is also true that investments in prisons and police have exceeded holistic investments in educating our young people. In fact, policing is nearly the greatest expenditure for school districts nationally. With Trump reversing the nominal pressure of past Democratic administrations on this crisis, we can expect even greater pressure on schools and teachers to increasingly criminalize marginalized students. Unfortunately, attacks on students, teachers, and communities do not stop with voucher bills and executive actions. Distressingly, there is bipartisan support at both the Kansas and national levels for punishing speech, especially in schools and against students who support Palestine or are simply critical of Israel. It is also widely documented that immigrant students are struggling to learn along with their peers under increasing criminalization by the Trump administration. In fact, parents are reporting to school staff that they are afraid to bring their kids to schools because of widespread ICE raids ordered by this administration. Resources for educators have popped up to help support immigrant students who are under attack. Families are also fighting back. In February, A Day Without Immigrants showed massive resistance to anti-immigrant attitudes and policies. Furthermore, the GOP attacks on transgender students, and LGBTQ+ students more broadly, has reached a fever pitch and are being used to drive a wedge between Kansans who would otherwise stand for public education access for all children. Republicans voted to override Democratic Gov. Laura's Kelly veto and target some of the state's most vulnerable children. According to advocacy organization Loud Light: Legislators 'expanded their targeting of LGBTQ kids by providing legal protections to potential foster or adoptive parents with anti-LGBTQ beliefs, no matter how extreme.' Public education is the foundation of a multiracial democracy. If we are serious about ensuring quality education for all students — not just the wealthiest — we must reject efforts to defund public schools and criminalize our youth. Michael Rebne is a teacher in Kansas City, Kansas, a leader with Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ-KC) and a Board Member of Justice for Wyandotte. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Don't take away what keeps moms like me alive by slashing Medicaid funding
Medicaid sign at U.S. Senate Democrats' press conference on Feb. 19, 2025. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom) Mother's Day may have just passed, but what hasn't passed is the growing threat facing mothers like me across the country. While many of us were being celebrated with cards and flowers, lawmakers in Washington were advancing a budget that would devastate the programs that help us survive. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently issued a chilling report: Republican leaders are pushing a federal budget proposal to slash $880 billion from health care, particularly Medicaid, to fund another round of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. That is not a gift to mothers. That is a gut punch. As a working mom in Kentucky raising two beautiful daughters, Medicaid has been the difference between surviving and slipping through the cracks. It allows me to access regular checkups, medications, dental appointments, and essential care not just for me, but also for my children. I work two jobs. Neither offers health insurance nor pays a living wage. Without Medicaid, we would have no safety net, no way to stay healthy, and no protection when things go wrong. I cannot imagine what I would do without Medicaid or SNAP benefits. These supports are not handouts. They are how I keep my family going in a system that too often fails to value mothers like me. Let's be clear. The majority in Congress is proposing to roll back the Medicaid expansion that has been a lifeline for millions. Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA), only seniors, people with disabilities, children and pregnant women qualified for Medicaid. Low-income working people were left out. The ACA changed that. In Kentucky, expanding Medicaid in 2014 drastically reduced the number of uninsured people, saved rural hospitals from closing, and ensured access to mental health and addiction services during public health emergencies. Most of those who gained coverage through the expansion were women, especially mothers. After giving birth, Medicaid became even more vital when postpartum coverage was extended, giving new mothers a full year of health care. It also supports preventive care and chronic disease treatment for women of childbearing age, helping create better outcomes for mothers and children. Ten states still refuse to expand Medicaid, leaving millions uninsured. And instead of encouraging progress, Congress is proposing to strip health care from those of us who need it most. Despite working two jobs, I still can't consistently afford groceries without Medicaid and SNAP. Yet Congress is rewarding billionaires with tax cuts while targeting mothers like me for cuts. That's not justice. That's betrayal. Medicaid is the largest source of federal funding in every state. In Kentucky, over 1.5 million people rely on it. Slashing this lifeline would harm families and damage schools, hospitals, clinics and emergency services that depend on Medicaid dollars. Just over the mountains in West Virginia, 516,500 people rely on Medicaid. This includes 49,000 seniors, 196,000 children, and 86,000 people with disabilities. Across Appalachia, one thing is clear: our families depend on these programs for survival. This is not what the American people voted for. Medicaid has broad support from Democrats, Republicans and independents alike. Most of us know someone who relies on it, whether it's a mother, a grandparent, a child or a neighbor. We must protect the programs that value our lives if we value mothers. This isn't just about policy. It's about dignity. It's about survival. If Congress can afford to give billionaires tax breaks, then it can afford to provide health care to the millions of moms, kids, grandparents and people with disabilities who need it. Our representatives must protect Medicaid, mothers, and the people who hold this country together daily. Because taking health care away from moms doesn't save money, it breaks families.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Colorado Democrats decry ‘monstrosity' of a spending bill that GOP defends
The U.S. Capitol pictured on Nov. 26, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom) Following the U.S. House of Representatives' 215-214 vote to approve Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill,' elected officials in Colorado had mixed reactions to the measure and how it will affect the state. The 1,116-page tax and spending bill extends President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts for businesses and individuals; reduces funding for Medicaid by $625 billion over 10 years; shifts the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program food aid program to state governments; drastically bolsters border security and defense spending; reworks energy permitting; and restructures federal aid for higher education, among many other provisions. A new Congressional Budget Office analysis released late Tuesday showed the package favors the wealthy, projecting it would decrease resources for low-income families over the next decade while increasing resources for top earners. The measure now heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Colorado's members of the House voted along party lines, with Republicans in support of the bill and Democrats opposed. Republicans have celebrated the measure and said it will save working-class people money, while Democrats denounced it for cutting taxes for the wealthy and stripping Medicaid benefits. 'This bill will deliver for the American people by securing our borders, extending tax cuts, unleashing American energy, and making our nation stronger than ever before,' U.S. Rep. Jeff Crank, a Colorado Springs Republican, said in a statement. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, said the bill is 'bad for Colorado, Americans, and the country's economy.' Before he was elected governor, Polis represented Colorado's 2nd Congressional District in Congress. 'I'm disappointed to see Republican members of Colorado's delegation vote to take health care away from Colorado kids, families, and vulnerable people, increasing health care costs on everyone,' Polis said in a statement. 'If this bill is so 'big and beautiful,' as Republicans boast, then Americans should be asking why it wasn't voted on in the light of day? The reality is, Americans are being left behind and left in the dark by Republicans in Washington.' The House vote on the measure came early Thursday after an all-night session. U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans, a Fort Lupton Republican, applauded the bill's support for additional immigration enforcement resources and said it preserves the long-term viability of Medicaid for those who need it most. 'This pro-family, pro-America bill isn't just good policy, it follows through on promises made to working families,' Evans said in a statement. 'As a father, Army combat veteran, and former cop, I fight every day to make Colorado a better place to live, work, and raise a family, and that's exactly what this legislation does.' This monstrosity of a bill is so skewed towards the wealthiest Americans that more than 66% of the benefits would go to the top 20 percent of households by income. – U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Lakewood Democrat, said families in Colorado have shared their fears with her that the measure will affect their ability to afford health care. 'This bill means kids will go hungry, thousands of people will die without access to health care, and the progress we've made in fighting the opioid crisis will be erased,' Pettersen said in a statement. 'Hospitals and nursing homes will shutter, and the health care costs for all of us will skyrocket. All to give the wealthiest people in the history of the world more tax giveaways on the backs of the rest of us.' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Windsor Republican, said the bill is a step toward 'implementing the America First mandate voters delivered' in November. A news release from her office celebrating the bill said she fought specifically to implement work requirements for Medicaid and to ensure Medicaid does not cover 'transgender surgeries' or abortion care. 'This critical legislation makes the Trump tax cuts permanent, unleashes American energy production, invests billions in support of our farmers and ranchers by responsibly reforming SNAP benefits, strengthens Medicaid to focus on American citizens who truly need help, and delivers a final net deficit reduction of $1.5 trillion,' Boebert said in a statement. While Republicans have touted Medicaid work requirements as a tool to ensure the program helps those who need it most, a KFF analysis has found that work requirements 'would not have any meaningful impact' on how many recipients are working, and that 92% of adults on Medicaid are either working or would qualify for an exemption. U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Denver Democrat, said the 'One Big, Bogus Bill' will lead to millions of people losing access to health care, including 26,760 Denver residents. She said the bill was put together 'following hidden negotiations, overnight markups, and the last-minute release of bill text' to keep Americans from learning the contents of the bill. 'This monstrosity of a bill is so skewed towards the wealthiest Americans that more than 66% of the benefits would go to the top 20 percent of households by income, and people making less than $51,000 a year will actually see their taxes go up,' DeGette said in a statement. 'This bill makes life harder for the American people while enriching the top earners in our country.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Topline: Tens of thousands of Minnesotans to lose health insurance
Medicaid sign at U.S. Senate Democrats' press conference on Feb. 19, 2025. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom) Welcome to The Topline, a weekly roundup of the big numbers driving the Minnesota news cycle, as well as the smaller ones that you might have missed. This week: health coverage losses due to congressional Republicans' cuts; UnitedHealth in free fall; the young children dying to fentanyl; EPA funding to clean up polluted sites; and a bad year for rail. Roughly 150,000 Minnesotans would lose health insurance under congressional Republicans' plan to cut funding for Medicaid and other social services, according to an estimate released last week by Democrats on the Senate Joint Economic Committee. Roughly 110,000 of those losses would come from Medicaid cuts, with an additional 40,000 losing coverage due to cuts to Affordable Care Act funding. All told, roughly 13.7 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage under the spending proposals currently being debated in Washington. The numbers are derived from an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Under those proposals, any cost savings from the reduced Medicaid and ACA spending would be more than offset by expanded tax cuts, primarily benefiting the rich. On net, the GOP tax bill is currently expected to add roughly $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade. Minnesota-based UnitedHealth, one of the largest corporations in the U.S., has shed roughly half its value on the stock market in the past month. In the past week alone, CEO Andrew Witty stepped down, and the Wall Street Journal reported the company is under criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department over potential Medicare fraud. UnitedHealth is one of just 30 companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, so its ongoing slide is having a disproportionate impact on perceptions of the economy's health. The overall Dow is up roughly 5% over the same period UnitedHealth has fallen by half. The company received national attention and scrutiny after the murder last year of Brian Thompson, an executive in charge of its health insurance division. The company has also been the subject of an ongoing investigation by health and medicine news organization STAT over its use of unregulated algorithms to deny patients care and juice profits. A KARE 11 investigation finds that since 2000, 23 Minnesota infants and children under the age of eight have been killed by accidental fentanyl ingestion. The investigation details the story of one fentanyl-addicted mother who left out foil containing residue that her one-year-old daughter ingested. That mother was convicted of second-degree manslaughter and sentenced to two years in prison, plus additional time on supervised release. Nationwide, accidental pediatric fentanyl exposures are rising: The nation's poison control centers report there were 120 exposures in 2020, and 539 by 2023. Not all exposures are lethal, but the drug's high potency means that the ingestion of even a minuscule amount can pose a threat to a child's life. Pre-natal exposure, when an infant is exposed to illicit substances in utero due to the mother's drug use, is also a problem, with more than 1,100 cases in Minnesota in 2023 (drug-specific breakdowns aren't available in the data, which come from the federal government). The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced $2.2 million in funding to clean up contaminated sites in Minnesota. The sites include a former landfill in Duluth, as well locations in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Willmar and Cass Lake. 'The $267 million in Brownfield grants will transform contaminated properties into valuable spaces for businesses and housing, creating new opportunities that strengthen local economies and directly benefit American families,' said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. The federal agency recently cancelled tens of millions in grants for environmental justice initiatives in Minnesota and other Midwestern states. Minnesota lawmakers voted over the weekend to pull $77 million in funding from the proposed Northern Lights Express rail line to Duluth and direct it toward unemployment insurance costs for hourly school workers. The project, which lawmakers initially funded in 2023, had been dependent on federal funds to move forward. Those funds never came through, and the current budget crunch in St. Paul made the previously-earmarked funds irresistible to lawmakers looking to plug holes elsewhere. House Republican Transportation Chair Jon Koznick spiked the football: 'With the House and Senate voting to shift a significant amount of the state's share of the project's funding, the Northern Lights Express train is effectively dead, and taxpayers are better off because of it.' Sen. Jen McEwen, DFL-Duluth, said on the Senate floor on Sunday she's holding out hope that it will happen one day. 'Although we are making a substantial cancellation because of this austerity that is being imposed upon the people of Minnesota … the Northern Lights Express project is still alive,' McEwen said. It's been a tough year for rail: several months ago the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportation announced plans to convert the struggling Northstar rail line to bus service.
