Tuesday, December 10, 2013

A short-term budget deal will set spending levels and alleviate unpopular budget cuts for two years.

A short-term budget deal will set spending levels and alleviate unpopular budget cuts for two years.

SHARE 385 201 60COMMENTMORE
WASHINGTON — Budget negotiators announced Tuesday a bipartisan deal to set spending levels for the federal government for two years and partially replace unpopular spending cuts with other savings.
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., led the negotiations that had intensified in recent days as a Dec. 13 deadline approaches.
In a joint appearance Tuesday evening in the U.S. Capitol, Ryan and Murray said the agreement would stop the government "lurching from crisis to crisis" and eliminate the threat of another government shutdown. The current stopgap funding measure is scheduled to run out again Jan. 15.
President Obama praised the deal as "a good first step" and said he would sign it if it reaches his desk.
If approved, the agreement would put the congressional budget process back on track, allowing for passage of the 12 annual bills that cover federal spending other than mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Ryan noted that it is the first bipartisan budget agreement to come out of a divided Congress since 1986. "This isn't easy," he said.
The budget framework sets top-line spending figures for the next two fiscal years and partially replaces for two years the sequester — the across-the-board spending cuts triggered earlier this year following prior failures to reach a budget agreement –– with other cuts and non-tax revenues.
For fiscal year 2014, overall federal spending will be $1.012 trillion and $1.014 trillion for fiscal year 2015. The agreement replaces $63 billion in sequester cuts with a combination of other savings, and includes an additional $22.5 billion in deficit reduction.
There is already growing opposition from influential outside conservative groups, and it is unclear how many Republicans would vote for it despite Ryan's endorsement. "As a conservative, I think this is a step in the right direction," Ryan said, "I think conservatives should vote for it." Ryan will brief rank-and-file Republicans on Wednesday morning.
Fiscal conservatives have voiced reservations about a spending level higher than $967 billion, which is the level set by the sequester cuts.
"It's disingenuous for Republicans to surrender the only real spending reforms accomplished under the Obama administration, and call that a deal," said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks. The group opposes the deal and is urging lawmakers to vote against it.
Senior Republican lawmakers including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, also expressed reservations Tuesday to any deal that increases spending levels. "My initial reaction is 'no,' " Hatch said.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., immediately announced his opposition Tuesday evening. "(The American people) deserve better than this," he said in a statement.
House Democrats unsuccessfully sought to use the negotiations as a vehicle to secure an extension of unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of the month. Benefits affecting 1.3 million long-term unemployed workers are set to expire if Congress doesn't act, and the budget deal could be the only vehicle headed to President Obama's desk before the House of Representatives adjourns until the new year on Friday. The Senate is scheduled to be in session next week.
Ryan and Murray said unemployment benefits were not part of their deal, and would need to be settled separately.
Democrats were also likely to lose support within their party because the agreement cuts the federal employee pension system and includes no new tax revenues.
"This plan won't create jobs, get the economy back on track, or meaningfully cut the deficit," tweeted Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.
The agreement comes at the end of what has been the most unproductive legislative year in Congress on record, and at a time when congressional approval ratings continue to hover at historic lows.
The agreement is a sign that Congress can still function, negotiators said.
"This bill doesn't solve all of our problems, but I think it's an important step in helping to heal some of the wounds here in Congress, to rebuild some trust, and show that we can do something without a crisis right around the corner and demonstrate the value in making the government work for the people we represent," Murray said.

Major ambulance service shuts down without notice in six states

Major ambulance service shuts down without notice in six states

   Text Size  
Published: Tuesday, 10 Dec 2013 | 6:01 AM ET
By: M. Alex Johnson
Twitter
56
LinkedIn
4
Share
Marje Cannon | E+ | Getty Images
A private ambulance service that transported more than a half-million patients a year in six states abruptly shut down without explanation, leaving dozens of cities and towns scrambling for medical transportation options Monday without a word of warning.
First Med EMS, based in Wilmington, N.C., served hospitals and other medical facilities in more than 70 municipalities in Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. It operated under the names TransMed, Life Ambulance and MedCorp, boasting in publicity materials: "We take pride in our performance and the safety of our patients. We refuse to compromise on this."
First Med's website was inaccessible Monday, and calls to corporate offices either reached disconnected lines or weren't answered. Company workers said inFacebook posts and tweets that they were told the corporation had declared bankruptcy, but no bankruptcy documents were yet on file Monday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Hospitals insurance companies of the future: Mt. Sinai CEO
The "Squawk Box" crew discusses the impact Obamacare on our nation's hospitals, with Dr. Kenneth Davis, Mount Sinai Health System, president & CEO. Davis says in the future, hospitals will become their own insurance companies.
First Med was the largest EMS service in Ohio, where at least 1,500 paramedics and other medical workers were left jobless in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, Cincinnati, Youngstown, and numerous smaller towns.
First Med also provided services in Richmond, Norfolk and Newport News in Virginia, as well as Wilmington, N.C.
Much of First Med's business was "non-emergent" transportation — such as taking dialysis patients to their weekly treatments and shuttling nursing home patients to doctors' appointments — and officials in some cities said there should be little impact on patient treatment.
"The unfortunate thing was lack of notice," Larry Stephens, ambulance service director for Camden Clark Medical Center in Parkersburg, W.Va., told NBC station WTAP. "They closed up shop on Friday, and people were scrambling to get to their appointments all weekend, plus early this week."
Many of the company's approximately 2,300 employees learned about the shutdown from colleagues. When they tried to show up for work Saturday, they found locked doors.
"I found out on Facebook and from a co-worker that I no longer had a job," Stacey Carpenter, a First Med dispatcher in Wilmington, told NBC station WECT. "I am absolutely devastated. I don't know what I am going to do."
Dispatch services in several cities reported that First Med called them Friday night and Saturday to stop all requests for emergency runs. Workers who were in the middle of their shifts were told to turn around and go home.
"We didn't know what to do," Derek Griffin, an emergency medical technician in Hopewell, Va., told NBC station WWBT of Richmond. 
"They told us to turn our truck in, to turn our equipment in. That was it," he said. "It was done so shadily and so behind closed doors."
Medical facilities said the shutdown took them by surprise, too, and at least one county — Bertie County, N.C. — declared a state of emergency at noon Monday. The county board of commissioners said in a statement that it would pursue legal claims against First Med. 

Reid says Senate will not extend farm law. 'Dairy cliff': Why milk may soar to $8 a gallon

Reid says Senate will not extend farm law

   Text Size  
Published: Tuesday, 10 Dec 2013 | 2:34 PM ET
Twitter
29
LinkedIn
1
Share

Daniel Acker | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Jugs of milk on sale.
Majority Leader Harry Reid says the Senate will not extend current farm law if Congress can't agree on a new farm bill before adjourning next week.
House leaders have reserved space on their agenda this week for extending the current law until the end of January. Lawmakers fear that milk prices might rise sharply if dairy subsidies expire Jan. 1.
The House and Senate have passed separate versions, but with widespread differences over crop subsidies and how much to cut food stamps.
Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week that the House should extend the current law while negotiators seek a compromise.
The response Tuesday from Reid, D-Nev.: "Let them vote on it. We're not going to do it."
Some senators fear an extension relieves pressure to get a deal.

Why milk prices may soar to $8 if US goes over 'dairy cliff'

   Text Size  
Published: Wednesday, 4 Dec 2013 | 12:45 PM ET
By:  | News Associate
Twitter
137
LinkedIn
10
Share
Mark Elias | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Holstein cows wait their turn for a morning milking at J.M. Larson Dairy 3 in Okeechobee, Fla.
Brace yourself: The U.S. is about to go over the "dairy cliff," which could cause milk prices to jump.
If Congress is not able to pass a new farm bill before the 2008 farm bill expires at the end of the year, a decades-old law will then kick in. As part of this permanent legislation from 1949, the government would then buy dairy products from producers at about twice the current market rate.
"It could take a period of weeks or a month or two for there to be a trickle-down effect at the retail level," said Chris Galen, senior vice president of communications at the National Milk Producers Federation, a group of 30 dairy cooperatives. "What happens under this permanent law, the USDA is required to basically support a much higher price to dairy farmers."
Possible impact of an expiration
Once this price increase gets passed down to shoppers, Galen said milk prices could jump as much as "$2 or $3 a gallon" possibly even as high as $7 to $8 a gallon in pricier markets. The national average for a gallon of milk in October stood at about $3.46, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If the farm bill expires, "domestic demand for dairy products would fall by an estimated 9 percent, and exports, which have seen much growth over the past decade, would likely disappear as the cost of U.S. dairy products would become prohibitively expensive," the Executive Office of the President predicted in a recent report.
In order to support these higher prices, the government would have to buy and store large quantities of dairy, which would cost the federal government "at least $12 billion per year," the report forecast.
So what's causing this dairy impasse?
"This is the second time we've been down this road. The same thing happened last year," Galen said. "It's because of gridlock on Capitol Hill. It's very similar to the showdown and shutdown we had in October."
Still, he thinks it's unlikely consumers will see the return of the earlier permanent law. It's more likely that Congress will pass either a short-term extension of the bill until early 2014 when they'll hammer out a new bill or another 12-month extension or possibly even 24 months, Galen added.
A big question mark
Bruce Stone, owner of Stone Dairy in Henning, Minn., and a member of the Minnesota Milk Producers Association, said it's hard to say how it would affect his business if D.C. wrangling leads the U.S. to go over the dairy cliff.
"We don't know what's going to happen. There's a lot of uncertainty," said Stone, who milks about 450 cows and sells dairy products primarily to Land O' Lakes.
Higher feed costs due to the bill's expiration would erase Stone's margins, he added.
"The dairy's industry been tough going for the last few years," he said. "There's not much profit in it. Costs are high. Prices aren't high enough to cover it."