Opinion: Why America is still 'an experiment worth pursuing'

Abraham Lincoln wrote that while America's prosperity was dependent upon the union of the states,
'the primary cause' was the principle of 'Liberty to all.' (Adobe Stock photo)

Two hundred years ago, 19th-century French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville described the United States as "exceptional." Not even 10 years ago, Pew Research Center polls found Americans more upbeat than people in other wealthy nations. While not scientific, should you search "what's great about living in America?" or "what's great about being an American?" you'll discover pages upon pages richly filled with why America -- despite its failings and current political turmoil -- is still one of the best places to live in the world. In 2023, The Washington Post's Editorial Board offered an opinion on why Independence Day is still worth celebrating. Some lightly edited highlights are below.

There is a tide of worry about a lack of civic cohesion, intense partisanship, and, to some, a sense of hopelessness. July Fourth, however, is a day to celebrate, among other national virtues, the United States’ proven capacity for renewal and self-improvement. The staying power of our system comes from its ability to correct and recalibrate. Free elections and open markets create a dynamism that increases political and economic freedom.

The genius of America is that it’s built for give and take, accommodation and compromise, checks and balances, reform and reaction. People in China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Cuba aspire to freedom. But their systems don’t tolerate constructive dissent.

Yes, we hear people who should know better say things have never been this bad. Measured by almost every metric, the United States is better off than 200 — or even 20 — years ago. Start with economic well-being: The U.S.-led global order has brought millions out of poverty. America remains the capital of medical, technological and artistic invention.

The framers designed a self-healing system that also allows for moral growth. We carry the scars of the Civil War, the Jim Crow era, the Great Depression, McCarthyism, Watergate and Vietnam but came out of them a better people. The country that initially counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person twice elected a Black president.

So why are many Americans no longer as proud of their country? Corrosive partisanship is no small part of the answer. . . . Alarmingly, across party lines, just 18% of 18-to-34-year-olds say they’re extremely proud of this country. This generation grew up amid the dislocation of the Great Recession, seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, school shootings and active-shooter drills. . . . .With these frames of reference, fear and hopelessness are unsurprising. A decline in national pride ought not be viewed in isolation from daily events, but these events also provide evidence of this nation’s resiliency. . .

Fourth of July weekend events are good places for Americans
to hang out together and celebrate. (Adobe Stock photo)

Even the chaos at the U.S.-Mexico border. . . is a reminder that this country remains a beacon of opportunity so powerful that people around the world are willing to take enormous risks to move into what they understand to be a promised land.

Between baseball and barbecue, let’s all take a deep breath. . . . Despite the corrosiveness of self-doubt and political tribalism, there is much to celebrate. American values have matured and endured, and while our union is still far from perfect, we continue to believe it’s an experiment worth pursuing."

It's easy to stereotype voters, especially rural ones

A report from the Pew Research Center smashes political stereotypes and clarifies voting trends, David Byler writes for The Washington Post: "Its validated voter survey, which uses official state records to check whether respondents really voted, dispels five common political misconceptions." Here are Byler's data-bites, boiled down for easy digestion:

Chart by David Byler, Washington Post, from Pew Research data

Republicans aren't mainly rural. Democrats aren't mainly urban. Every electoral map has deep-blue dots — major metro areas — surrounded by bright-red rural areas. As a result, pundits often treat Democratic voters as if they are stuffed into a single Manhattan apartment while Republicans are spread among a grid of farms that span the rest of the nation. . . . Democrats fare best in neighborhoods that are close to the city center; while Republicans thrive in exurbs and small metros. But despite how some maps may look, suburbanites — not small-town farmers or big-city baristas — are the core of both parties.

Religious Democrats and secular Republicans are both common. Democrats typically represent the most secular voters: They consistently win almost 90 percent of self-identified atheists, along with roughly 80 percent of agnostics. Republicans, by contrast, routinely take more than 80 percent of the White evangelical vote. . . . But that doesn't mean one party believes in God and the other doesn't. Most Democrats are Christians, and a solid chunk of Republicans claim no religious affiliation. . . . Republican politicians still represent the interests of the religious right, especially on abortion and LGBTQ rights. . . . Both parties are home to a mix of devout and secular voters.

Democrats aren't young. Both parties are old. It's true that young voters tend to prefer Democrats while their parents and grandparents are more likely to vote GOP. In the 2022, House elections, 68 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 backed a Democrat, and 56 percent of seniors voted for a Republican. But older voters rule both parties. In 2022, 6 in 10 Democrats and 7 in 10 Republicans were 50 or older. . . . Only 1 in 4 American adults are between ages 19 and 34, and turnout among young voters is always lower than other age cohorts.

Both parties rely on White college graduates — not just Democrats. When Donald Trump took over the GOP, many white-collar Republicans defected to the Democratic Party. But the magnitude of that shift has been greatly exaggerated. In 2022, only 52 percent of White college graduates voted for Democrats, and 47 percent favored Republicans. The result: Both parties relied on White college graduates for roughly a third of their votes.

The Hispanic vote is not the GOP's only route to victory. In 2020, Trump made substantial gains with Hispanic voters. Since then, political analysts have spent more time and effort analyzing Hispanic Republicans than almost any other group. . . . Only 1 in 10 voters self-identify as Hispanic. Republicans could very well win in 2024 by building on recent gains with the White working-class and Asian American voters, regaining recently lost college-educated suburbanites, or finally making inroads with Black voters. These groups, which make up the other 90 percent of the electorate, deserve attention, too.

Quick hits: Wikipedia gets a makeover, unions' share keeps falling, religion is changing, best ideas do come in showers

Wikipedia's subtle makeover includes an updated
table of contents section. (Image by Wikipedia)

Wikipedia is one of the world’s top 10 most visited websites, and a resource used by billions every month, is getting its first desktop makeover in more than a decade, TechCrunch reports.

The share of American workers in a labor union in 2022 was 10.1 percent, the lowest figure since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking it almost 40 years ago. In 2021 the figures was 10.3 percent. The decline "comes despite the highest labor union approval rate — 71 percent, according to Gallup — since 1965," Politico Nightly notes.

A Waterloo, Iowa, sports reporter who doesn't like filling in on the weather beat returns to it reluctantly, after a viral rant: ‘It’s pandesnownium!’

Insights on seven common farm shop tools include this: Created by engineers who never actually assembled or disassembled anything.

Engrossing photo essay in The Daily Yonder of Jace Charger, land defender. The piece documents a sage harvest on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, a critical form of self-care for them and their Indigenous community.

Climate change and dairy cows' stomachs: A climate solution is gurgling in there somewhere. A new partnership will work to reduce methane emissions from production of milk around the world.

Although routines can be magical, there is no magic routine. Using a little science can help.

1.6 million acres of U.S. corn is missing. Where did it go?

Ailing Earle, Ark., elected an 18-year-old mayor. Residents hope that Jaylen Smith’s youthful energy and sense of purpose can improve their fortunes. First goal: getting a town supermarket.

Orange you glad you're buying bananas? Here's the juice on orange prices.

You do get your best ideas in the shower. The science of shower thoughts teaches us the importance of mind-wandering for creativity.

American religion is not dead. It's changing. Traditional worship may be in decline but meaningful growth can be found, Wendy Cadge and Elan Babchuck write for The Atlantic.

The 411 on electric tractors, is John Deere pushing them? AgWeb has an exclusive interview with Jahmy Hindman, the company's chief technology officer.

Ready for a reset? 13 tips to make your job less stressful.

Trump cuts to rural development prompt opposition, resignation and some support in Ky.

In addition to eliminating the Appalachian Regional Commission, President Trump's budget also eliminates or cuts several other programs key to rural areas. Jose A. DelReal of The Washington Post went to Appalachian Kentucky, a Trump stronghold, to see what residents think about that.

Key lawmakers have said the ARC won't be cut, but other rural programs remain on the chopping block, such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's community development grants, DelReal reports. For example, Frenchburg, Ky. (Best Places map), has received $1 million from HUD "to develop a senior-citizens center and a regional meal-assistance kitchen." Local resident Wendy Collins, a Trump supporter, told DelReal, "The government shouldn’t take it away. This place is below the poverty level. There is nothing here and people need something to stay out of drugs. This community has nothing. It needs help.”

A shuttered coal mine operation near Hazard, Ky.
(Washington Post photo by Michael S. Williamson)

Some of Trump's supporters in the region "appear willing to accept development funding cuts because they believe Trump’s broader agenda will help revitalize the region," DelReal writes. "The president has promised he will bring the coal economy back to life by cutting industry regulations, though experts have largely dismissed the effect such actions would have on jobs."

Trump said in Louisville on Monday: “As we speak, we are preparing new executive actions to save our coal industry and to save our wonderful coal miners from continuing to be put out of work. The miners are coming back.”

DelReal writes, "Some voters here conflate federal funding of assistance programs—such as food stamps—with those that fund infrastructure and community development." Shane Estes, of Elliott County, "said the money would not make a difference in the area anyway because the culture has been too polluted with drugs. Estes, who voted for Trump, said that some employers in the area have stopped drug-testing workers because that would mean they could not hire anyone. And he takes issue with people using food-assistance dollars on junk food. But what about spending on infrastructure?" Estes told him, “It’s going to get worse around here. . . . I don’t think Trump can change this; I don’t think anything can.”

Mount Sterling, Ky. (Best Places)

Grants have helped revitalize many communities in the region, DelReal writes. Mount Sterling, outside the Appalachian coalfield, "has been successful in cleaning up its main street. And it has benefited greatly from federal dollars." For example, Danielle King "purchased an abandoned building—empty since 1997—in downtown Mount Sterling seven years ago," restored it and turned it into a once-a-week bakery. She told DelReal, “If it wasn’t for grants, you would not be able to build and progress in a small town."

Trump would kill Chesapeake cleanup; critics of plan said it could lead to similar Miss. R. work

Virginia Tech map

President Trump's proposed budget includes eliminating $73 million in annual funding to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, prompting an outcry from advocates and editorialists.

Will Baker, president of the nonprofit Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said about two-thirds of the $73 million is funneled to states—New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia—and localities for specific pollution reduction projects, covering "a wide range of polluters, from farms to stormwater systems," Dave Mayfield reports for The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk. "Much of the remaining money goes into federally supervised water-quality monitoring."

The Washington Post said in an editorial: "The administration’s proposed budget would, at a swipe, reopen the door to the degradation of the U.S.’s largest estuary and reverse important recent progress in restoring the water, fish, oysters, crabs and tourism that make the bay so vibrant. It was just six years ago that a third of the bay, from Baltimore to the Potomac River, was beset by a sprawling springtime 'dead zone' of oxygen-starved water—the result of marine-life-killing nutrients from fertilizer and other chemical runoff."

The editorial continues, "In the quarter-century or so before the Environmental Protection Agency launched a massive cleanup program in 2010, the oyster harvest had plummeted by 96 percent and the crab harvest by 60 percent. Starved for oxygen by runoff pollution, huge tracts of the Chesapeake’s 64,000-square-mile watershed were in a death spiral. "Some industrial farms, home builders and municipalities have resisted the EPA cleanup, regarding it as bureaucratic overreach," says the editorial. "They have said it amounts to an unfunded mandate saddling them with the costs of cattle fencing and other means of pollution mitigation."

The project has implications beyond the Chesapeake region. "From beyond the watershed, opponents feared it would become a template for even more ambitious actions by the EPA, including an effort to clean up the Mississippi watershed that might be expensive for major industrial polluters," the editorial notes.

Trump's budget will add lawyers for eminent domain cases to make way for border wall

Current fencing along part of the U.S./Mexico border

President Trump's budget includes adding 20 attorneys to the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare for eminent domain cases—in some cases against landowners who helped put him in office—in order to build a border wall, Tracy Jan reports for The Washington Post. Currently less than 20 of the department's 11,000 attorneys work in land acquisition. Trump said in his budget the extra attorneys were needed to “pursue federal efforts to obtain the land and holdings necessary to secure the southwest border.”

"Much of the border, especially in Texas, snakes through farms, ranches, orchards, golf courses, and other private property dating back to centuries-old Spanish land grants," Jan writes. "The battle has been fought before. The last wave of eminent domain cases over southern border properties dates back to the 2006 Secure Fence Act authorizing President George W. Bush to erect 700 miles of fencing. Of the roughly 400 condemnation cases stemming from that era, about 90 remain open a decade later, according to the Justice Department. Nearly all are in the Rio Grande Valley in southwest Texas."

"The U.S. government has already spent $78 million compensating private landowners for 600 tracts of property for the construction of the existing pedestrian and vehicle fence, according to Customs and Border Protection," Jan writes. "The agency estimates that it will spend another $21 million in real estate expenses associated with the remaining condemnation cases — not including approximately $4 million in Justice Department litigation costs."

It wouldn't be Trump's first foray into eminent domain, Jan writes. "As a developer, Trump has wielded the power of eminent domain to make way for his properties. In Scotland, he pursued compulsory purchase to force neighbors out of their homes for the Trump International Golf Links near Aberdeen. When that didn't work, he built a five-foot-tall wooden fence—then tried to make his neighbors pay for it."

"Trump also famously tried seizing the property of an elderly Atlantic City widow to make way for a limousine parking lot for his hotel and casino," Jan writes. "He has a consistent history supporting the use of eminent domain and praised the 2005 Supreme Court decision—denounced widely by conservatives—that said the government could force property owners to sell their land to make way for private economic developments that benefit the public."

Rusty patch bumblebee added to endangered list

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Tuesday added the rusty patch bumblebee to the endangered species list, 60 days after President Trump ordered a 60-day freeze on new regulations on his first day in office, Corbin Hiar reports for Greenwire. Environmentalists had sued over the freeze for delaying protection for the species, which has lost nearly 90 percent of its population since the 1990s. 

"Pesticides, habitat loss, climate change and disease spread from commercial honeybee colonies have put the species on the brink of extinction," Hiar writes. "The rusty patched bee lives in scattered populations in 12 states and one Canadian province, covering just 8 percent of its historical range." 

The listing means the pollinator "is the first federally protected bee in the continental U.S.," Hiar writes. "The rusty patched bee's endangered status makes it a crime to knowingly harass or kill the insect, which as of 20 years ago could be found in 28 Eastern and Midwestern states and Washington, D.C."

McConnell on proposed elimination of Appalachian Regional Commission: 'Not going to happen'

President Trump's proposed budget may be dead on arrival in Congress, but its proposed cuts to programs that have helped the most vulnerable Americans have raised eyebrows because many of them people in rural areas he won by large margins. And the political pushback from Republicans is increasing.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, says Trump's proposed elimination of the Appalachian Regional Commission is not only "not going to happen," the agency's budget will remain fully intact, reports WMYT-TV of Hazard. McConnell said in a speech Saturday in Corbin, "We are not going to allow any cuts to the Appalachian Regional Commission. It is very important to Eastern Kentucky. It has been for a number of years. That's not going to happen."

When the budget was announced last week McConnell's prepared statement didn't mention about the commission, a federal-state economic development agency that covers all of West Virginia and parts of Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. ARC operates in 420 counties, most of which Trump won in November. The plurality of its economically distressed counties are in Eastern Kentucky. That area's congressman, former House Appropriations Committee Chair Hal Rogers, strongly objected hours after the budget plan was announced. McConnell will be with Trump today in Louisville, which is outside the Appalachian region.

Sabrina Tavernise and Trip Gabriel of The New York Times report on some other examples of Trump's budget seemingly disregarding part of his political base. Regina Feltner, a retired nurse with lung cancer who has received help from a heating subsidy through the Highland County Community Action Organization, a small nonprofit in rural southern Ohio, told the Times that without the subsidy, which she stands to lose under the proposed budget, she said she would probably have to move in with her daughter.

Another proposed cut "would kill the Legal Services Corp., which funds 133 civil legal-aid programs in the 50 states at a cost of $385 million," reports the Times. Also on the chopping block is the Community Development Block Grant program, which "works to ensure decent affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses," says the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Trump's budget calls for major cuts in Appalachia, where he won most counties by large margins

Appalachian Region Commission map

President Trump's proposed budget calls for major cuts in Appalachia, especially coal country, a region where he won big at the polls.

Cuts would be made to the Appalachian Region Commission (ARC) and the U.S. Economic Development Administration, which "are charged with diversifying the economies of states like West Virginia and Kentucky to help them recover from coal’s decline," Valerie Volcovici reports for Reuters. ARC covers all of West Virginia and parts of Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Bill Estep, of the Lexington Herald-Leader, notes that ARC has spent more than $23 billion in Appalachia since being founded in 1965 after President Lyndon B. Johnson visited the region and declared a "War on Poverty."

Trump won 400 of the 420 counties that ARC operates in, Volcovici writes. "The 52-year old agency has run more than 650 projects in Appalachia's 13 states between 2011 and 2015 costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Its programs, some launched under Democratic former President Barack Obama, are expected to create or retain more than 23,670 jobs and train and educate over 49,000 students and workers, the organization."

For example, in Eastern Kentucky from October 2015 to January 2017 ARC said it supported 63 projects in Kentucky totaling $31.9 million," Estep writes. "That spending, which has been matched by more than $65 million in other aid, is projected to create or retain more than 1,200 jobs and provide education or workforce training to more than 2,300 people in the state’s 54 ARC counties, the agency said." Ben Hale, the Democratic judge-executive in Flod County told Estep, “We’re already down. There’s no need for them to step on our neck."

"ARC has been targeted before, with critics citing it as an example of wasteful, inefficient or politicized government spending," Estep writes. "President Ronald Reagan tried repeatedly to kill it, saying in his 1985 budget statement that such regional development programs 'serve no national economic purpose but instead cater, at taxpayer’s expense, to local and regional political interests,' The New York Times reported then. With the backing of local officials and members of Congress spread across 13 states, however, the agency has survived, albeit with significant cuts at times."

Lawmakers from the region, such Rep. as Hal Rogers of Kentucky's 5th District, one of the nation's poorest and most rural, believe ARC won't be cut, Estep writes. While he said "that many cuts proposed in Trump’s budget 'are draconian, careless and counterproductive'... he said he was optimistic Congress will work with Trump to 'responsibly' fund the government, including agencies that serve as 'vital economic lifelines' in struggling rural areas."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also a Republican from Kentucky, avoided answering questions about the future of ARC's budget, Estep writes. Instead he said, “I’m pleased to see an increased focus on our national security and veterans budgets. These are positive steps in the right direction. I look forward to reviewing this and the full budget when it is released later this spring. While this is only the first step in the budget process, I will work with the delegation to protect essential Kentucky priorities in the final budget.”

Democrats see Trump's budget cuts as a way to win over rural areas, but budget has little GOP support

Proposed changes; click on image to enlarge (Washington Post)

Democrats, who have been trying to find ways to win over rural voters after getting crushed at the polls in those areas in November, see President Trump's proposed budget as a way to get a foot in the door in rural America. The budget calls for cutting or killing many programs that benefit rural areas.

"With an eye toward winning back Trump voters from Appalachia to the Midwest, Democrats slammed rank-and-file Republicans on the White House’s pitch to slash everything from Pell Grants to the Environmental Protection Agency to the Meals on Wheels program that’s a lifeline to homebound seniors," Heather Caygle and Elana Schor report for Politico. "Democrats repeatedly cast Trump as gouging middle-class and lower-income voters with his budget, pairing it with similar arguments against the GOP’s troubled Obamacare repeal bill."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday: “The Republicans in Congress and this White House, as we’re seeing now just in a few weeks, never miss an opportunity to suck up money from the middle class. We see that in the health care bill. We see that in how they establish their budget priorities.”

The problem with that Democratic strategy is that Trump's budget hasn't won over many Republicans, Kelsey Snell and Karoun Demirjian report for The Washington Post. "Some of President Trump’s best friends in Congress sharply criticized his first budget Thursday, with defense hawks saying the proposed hike in Pentagon spending wasn’t big enough, while rural conservatives and others attacked plans to cut a wide range of federal agencies and programs."

House Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.) "raised concerns that farmers could be hit hard at a time when farm income is already down 50 percent compared with four years ago," reports the Post. "Agriculture cuts are a particularly sensitive issue because periodically lawmakers spend months, if not years, hammering out the details of a comprehensive farm bill." Conaway said in a statement: “Agriculture has done more than its fair share. The bottom line is this is the start of a longer, larger process. It is a proposal, not THE budget.”

The Post reports, "It is not uncommon for Congress to disagree with some priorities in a White House budget. But the blueprint risks putting GOP lawmakers on a collision course with Trump over demands for spending cuts they cannot deliver. Even those fiscal conservatives who do want to cut spending don’t necessarily think slashing major domestic programs is the answer."

Agriculture leaders criticize proposed budget cuts

Agriculture leaders slammed President Trump's proposed budget, which calls for 21 percent cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "saying it could take a toll on the rural communities that helped elect him last November," Karl Plume and P.J. Huffstutter report for Reuters.

"Trump has proposed slashing the USDA's discretionary budget by $4.7 billion to $17.9 billion by halting funding for rural clean water initiatives and rural business services, reducing some USDA statistical services and cutting county-level staff," reports Reuters. He "has already vowed to alter trade deals that have largely boosted farm incomes and targeted health care policies that have particularly benefited the rural poor." (Washington Post graphic: Proposed changes to USDA budget)

The American Farm Bureau Federation, the country's largest organization representing farmers, "said county-level USDA staffing cuts and reduced statistical services could hurt members," reports Reuters. John Newton, AFBF director of market intelligence, told reporters, "A lot of farmers and growers rely on USDA's statistical capabilities to make a lot of marketing and risk management decisions and planting decisions."

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas), told reporters, "America's farmers and ranchers are struggling, and we need to be extremely careful not to exacerbate these conditions." Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich), ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told reporters, "I strongly oppose the Trump administration's proposed budget cuts to programs that are critical to farmers, ranchers and families in small towns across America."

Trump's proposed federal budget calls for cutting or killing many programs that benefit rural areas

Proposed changes; click on image to enlarge (Washington Post)

Many federal programs that help rural areas would be eliminated or reduced under President Trump's proposed budget.

Some losers "may be some of the very constituencies that have been most supportive of the new president during his improbable rise to power," writes Peter Baker of The New York Times. If the cuts are enacted, "Rural communities will lose grants and loans to build water facilities and financing to keep their airports open." Federal support for long-distance Amtrak service, public broadcasting and the arts would also go away. So would the Appalachian Regional Commission and its smaller counterparts, such as the Delta Regional Authority and the Denali Commission.

Rogers with a Trump button at the
Republican National Convention.

Such ideas drew objection from Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky's 5th District, one of the nation's poorest and most rural. “I am disappointed that many of the reductions and eliminations proposed in the President’s skinny budget are draconian, careless and counterproductive," said Rogers, chair of the House Appropriations Committee in 2011-16. "In particular, the Appalachian Regional Commission has a longstanding history of bipartisan support in Congress because of its proven ability to help reduce poverty rates and extend basic necessities to communities across the Appalachian region.” He concluded, “I am optimistic that we can work with the administration to responsibly fund the federal government, including those agencies which serve as vital economic lifelines in rural parts of the country that are still working to overcome substantial challenges.”

The plan, which covers only discretionary spending, calls for a 21 percent cut—or $4.7 billion—to rural programs in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cuts to USDA and other programs are being made to make room for proposed $54 billion increases in defense, $2.6 billion for a border wall and $1.4 billion for school choice. The plan would not reduce the federal deficit.

Kim Soffen and Denise Lu of The Washington Post note, "Discretionary spending limits, addressed by this proposal, are set by congressional budget resolutions. Congress typically makes changes to the president’s proposal—last year, lawmakers disregarded Obama’s budget altogether. Mandatory spending, by contrast, is set by other laws and is often determined by the size of the benefit and the eligible population."

The Trump administration "plans to eliminate its water and waste-disposal loan and grant program, which helps with rural water and waste infrastructure, for a savings of nearly $500 million," Jose A. DelReal reports for the Post. "It also will seek to eliminate aspects of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, which supports business development and job opportunities, because the administration called it 'duplicative.' That cut would save $95 million."

The budget document states: “Rural communities can be served by private sector financing or other federal investments in rural water infrastructure, such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s state revolving funds."

"The document says funding for the National Forest System will be reduced, but it does not indicate by how much; the administration is focused on 'maintaining existing forests and grasslands' rather than pursuing new land purchases," DelReal writes. The Forest Service is part of USDA. "The Agricultural Research Service might also face cuts to focus departmental research on 'the highest priority agriculture and food issues, such as increasing farm productivity, sustaining natural resources . . . and addressing food safety and nutrition priorities,' the document says. The budget also says the USDA will reduce staffing by an unspecified number at various service centers."

Trump: Cut EPA 31%, decimate climate research, eliminate Great Lakes and Chesapeake projects

President Trump's proposed budget calls for a 31 percent cut—or $2.6 billion—to the Environmental Protection Agency, the largest percentage cut to any agency and higher than the estimated 25 percent cut reported last week, Evan Lehmann and Emily Holden report for Climatewire. The budget, which does not specify how many jobs would be cut, calls for eliminating former President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan "and 'reorienting' U.S. EPA on air pollution."

"The plan now goes to Congress, where lawmakers from both parties are bound to scrap many of Trump's politically painful cuts," Climatewire reports.

Under the budget, the EPA's Office of Research and Development, which does most of the agency's science work, would be cut from $488 million to $250 million, reports Climatewire. "Categorical grants to localities would fall 45 percent, from $1.1 billion to $597 million. Enforcement of environmental infractions and crimes would also see a 24 percent cut, from $548 million to $419 million."

The budget would also "eliminate funding for popular regional programs, including the $300 million Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which Congress authorized last year, and a large Chesapeake Bay cleanup project, which receives $73 million each year," reports Climatewire. "Geographic programs would see a total $427 million cut. Those proposed reductions are likely to spur fights on Capitol Hill."

"In all, the proposed budget would do away with 50 EPA programs that cost $347 million, including Energy Star, targeted air-pollution grants, endocrine-disrupter screening and infrastructure assistance to Alaska Native villages and the Mexico border," Climatewire reports.

Tennessee sues federal government over refugee resettlement, citing 10th Amendment

Tennessee is the nation's first state "to sue the federal government over refugee resettlement on the grounds of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," Joel Ebert reports for The Tennessean. A suit filed Monday claims the feds have violated the amendment "that says the federal government possesses only the powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution and that all other powers are reserved for the states."

"Other states have sued the federal government over refugee resettlement but on different legal grounds," Ebert writes. "The charge that the federal government is not complying with the Refugee Act of 1980, based on the 10th Amendment, makes Tennessee's lawsuit the first of its kind."

"The lawsuit argues that the federal government has unduly forced states to pay for the refugee resettlement program," Ebert writes. "The federal refugee act was designed to create a permanent procedure for the admission of refugees into the U.S. The lawsuit asks the court to force the federal government to stop resettling refugees in Tennessee until all costs associated with the settlement are incurred by the federal government."

Critic of Medicaid confirmed to lead program; urges governors to alter program along her lines

Seema Verma at Senate hearing
(Getty Images)

The newly confirmed director of the Medicaid program quickly served notice that she wants states to make changes like those she has helped make in Indiana, her home state and that of Vice President Pence, including work requirements.

The Senate by a 55-43 vote on Monday confirmed Seema Verma, an Indiana health care consultant and Pence protégé, to run the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Verma, a first-generation American whose parents emigrated from India, will lead "a $1 trillion agency that oversees health insurance programs for more than 130 million people, from elderly nursing home residents to newborns," Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar reports for The Associated Press.

On Tuesday Verma and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price sent a letter to governors, "urging states to alter the insurance program for poor and disabled people by charging them insurance premiums, requiring them to pay part of emergency room bills and prodding them to get jobs," Amy Goldstein reports for The Washington Post. The letter "also derides the Medicaid expansion that 31 states and the District of Columbia adopted under the Affordable Care Act."

The letter says "the expansion, which has extended Medicaid to 11 million people with incomes of up to about $16,000 for a single person or nearly $34,000 for a family of four, 'was a clear departure from the core, historical mission of the program," Goldstein writes. "By giving states greater help with these new beneficiaries, it contends the ACA has 'provided states with an incentive to de-prioritize the most vulnerable populations.' The three-page letter does not mention that, for the first three years, the federal government paid the entire cost of covering the expansion group and still pays nearly all of that," 95 percent this year, and scheduled to decline to 90 percent by 2020.

Beginning in 2020, the House Republican health-care bill backed by President Trump "would limit overall federal financing for Medicaid in the future. Taken together, those changes could leave 24 million more people uninsured by 2026, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday in an assessment." The impact would be greater in rural areas, The Wall Street Journal reports. To see a Democratic-compiled rundown of how CBO thinks the bill would affect each of the 435 congressional districts, click here.

"In Indiana, Verma designed a Medicaid expansion along conservative lines for Pence. Most beneficiaries are required to pay modest premiums. And the program uses financial rewards and penalties to steer patients to primary care providers instead of the emergency room. Critics say the plan has been confusing for beneficiaries and some have incurred penalties through no fault of their own," AP reports. "At her Senate confirmation hearing, Verma defended her approach by saying that low-income people are fully capable of making health care decisions based on rational incentives."

Verma also helped design a similar plan that Kentucky has asked the agency she now heads to approve.

Budget office says 24 million could lose coverage; rural counties would be hit hardest

The Congressional Budget Office predicted Monday "that 24 million fewer people would have coverage a decade from now than if the Affordable Care Act remains intact, nearly doubling the share of Americans who are uninsured from 10 percent to 19 percent," Amy Goldstein, Elise Viebeck, Kelsey Snell and Mike DeBonis report for The Washington Post.

The impact would be greater in rural areas, The Wall Street Journal reports. To see a Democratic-compiled rundown of how CBO thinks the bill would affect each of the 435 congressional districts, click here.

"The report predicted that premiums would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher in the first year compared with those under the Affordable Care Act but 10 percent lower on average after 2026," reports the Post. "By and large, older Americans would pay 'substantially' more and younger Americans less. But the GOP legislation, which has been speeding through House committees since it was introduced a week ago, would lower the deficit by $337 billion during that time, primarily by lessening spending on Medicaid and government aid for people buying health plans on their own." (Post graphic: The fall and projected rise in the uninsured ranks)

Losses would be particularly bad in rural areas, Anna Wilde Mathews and Dante Chinni report for The Wall Street Journal. Nationwide, "a rural 45-year-old making around $18,000 a year would pay about $2,291 a year more on average from his own wallet under the Republican bill than under the ACA, according to the analysis—compared with a $1,588 increase for a 45-year-old urban resident. For 62-year-olds earning about $18,000, the average increases in cost under the Republican bill's setup were far greater: $9,075 for rural and $6,954 for urban consumers."

"In extreme cases, the amount a consumer might owe for a plan could exceed that person's annual income," the Journal reports. "In Nebraska's Chase County, a 62-year-old currently earning about $18,000 a year could pay nearly $20,000 annually to get health-insurance coverage under the House GOP plan—compared with about $760 a year that person would owe toward premiums under the ACA," according to an analysis from consulting firm Oliver Wyman.

"The Oliver Wyman analysis highlights how rural areas, where individual insurance premiums are often higher, could see a major effect from the shift to flat-sum tax credits," reports the Journal. "Compounding that, rural populations are often older and poorer, so the proportion of those doing worse under the new subsidy setup may be higher. Of the 100 counties where 62-year-olds earning around $36,000 would see the biggest jump in annual costs, 97 were rural."

"People with higher incomes could see their costs go down under the Republican proposal," reports the Journal. "For instance, a rural 62-year-old making about $54,000 would spend about $2,588 less per year for a plan on average under the Republican bill's subsidy structure, which gives tax credits to people at higher income levels than the ACA does. The urban 62-year-old at that income level would spend $2,856 less."

Among President Trump's best 25 counties, mostly rural, 24 counties would suffer under the plan, the Post's Jeff Guo reports.

Tax-credits in Trump's top 25 counties (Washington Post graphic; click on it to enlarge)

A Post analysis also looked at the 35 counties that could lose the most under the plan, most of which Trump carried, and the 25 counties, mostly urban, where he got the lowest percentage of votes and how many of those counties would be better off under the new plan.

Gary Claxton, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told Guo, "It is simply cheaper and easier to provide health care in places with a lot of people. In urban areas, it’s all about being able to negotiate efficient, lower-cost networks. That’s why there’s much more ability to get lower-cost premiums in those areas. In a rural area there’s not really much you can do by negotiating with the few existing providers that are there.”

Public Tableau has created an interactive county-level map of tax credits under Obamacare vs. the new health care plan in 2020. This screenshot shows how the tax credit in McDowell County, West Virginia, one of the nation's poorest counties, would be about one-fourth of what it is now. Trump won 74 percent of the vote in McDowell County.

FDA says it's exempt from FOIA when it comes to naming groceries that carry contaminated food

If you want to know if your local grocery store carries items reported to be contaminated, you're out of luck. The Food and Drug Administration does not specify where contaminated items are located, "because that would violate its interpretation of an obscure trade secret rule," Caitlin Dewey reports for The Washington Post.

"This interpretation differs from that of other agencies in the federal food safety system, an overlapping and often illogical network of regulatory fiefdoms," Dewey writes. "The system, which is responsible for keeping food free of bacteria and other pathogens, frequently has to weigh the very real interests of private food companies against potential risks to the public. In the case of releasing retailer lists during major outbreaks, FDA has historically sided with business, ruling that such lists constitute 'confidential commercial information' and thus should not be available for public consumption."

FDA said in a statement "that it believes its disclosure measures are sufficient and blamed the lack of downstream recall information on federal disclosure rules," Dewey writes. "Federal regulations do limit the sort of information that can be released to the public. Under the Freedom of Information Act and Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, government agencies—and specifically, the FDA—are told to exempt trade secrets and commercial information from any of their releases. Peter Cassell, a spokesman for FDA, said confidential consumer information "is exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests, but can be shared through certain information sharing agreements (including with other federal agencies).”

Critics say refusing to release the information poses health dangers, "particularly in cases like the current E. coli outbreak, where parents may not know if their child consumed the recalled product," Dewey writes. Also, in cases where there is a hepatitis A outbreak, which can be treated with a vaccine for a limited period after exposure, it's important for consumers who may have gotten ill to know as soon as possible.

Coal and UMW leaders say proposed fossil energy budget cuts would harm industry

Coal industry and labor leaders sent a letter to President Trump March 10 asking him not to cut the budget of the U.S. Department of Energy’s fossil-energy office, saying cuts would harm the industry's attempts to recover, James Osborne reports for Fuel Fix. Trump promised during his campaign to revive the coal industry.

Earlier this year the Trump administration said it would cut spending by $10.5 trillion over the next decade, "with substantial cuts coming from the Departments of Energy and Commerce," Osborne writes. "The cuts were reportedly based on a spending plan written by the the conservative Heritage Foundation, which calls for eliminating the Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy—along with the Office of Electricity and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy."

The United Mine Workers of America and CEOs of the nation's three largest coal companies—Peabody Energy, Arch Coal and Cloud Peak Energy—said in the letter: "In light of recent calls for dramatic cuts to the federal budget, we want to stress that every dollar allocated to fossil energy research is an investment in the long-term future of America’s coal and fossil fuel industry."

NPR's Congress Tracker shows where each lawmaker stands on the health-care bill

NPR has created a tracker for the position of each senator and representative on the new health-care bill. "Our reporting finds that lawmakers' responses fall into four categories," Brett Neely reports for NPR. "Most Republicans on the record support the bill, but a large group of the most conservative members are vehemently opposed to the legislation, arguing that it's not a sufficient repeal of Obamacare. A smaller group of Republicans, primarily in the Senate, are concerned that bill will result in many residents of their states losing coverage via Medicaid. While Democrats are almost universally opposed, a small group of Democrats in districts won by Trump last November have struck a more equivocal tone."

"The bill would no longer require that Americans buy health insurance, and it would eliminate the current subsidies that are used to bring down the cost of premiums," Neely writes. "NPR's full coverage explains how those subsidies would be replaced with a fixed refundable tax credit and there would be big changes to Medicaid."

Also, the NPR Congress Tracker allows users "to submit a short quote that best summarizes the Congress member's position, such as: 'The President's executive order on refugees will harm, not enhance, our national security and marks a significant departure from our nation's proud history of welcoming people in need of protection.'"

Residents in poor counties that supported Trump could lose Medicaid coverage if he repeals ACA

McDowell County, West Virginia
(Wikipedia map)

McDowell County, West Virginia has high rates of poverty and unemployment, President Trump scored a lopsided victory in 2016 and many previously uninsured residents gained coverage from Medicaid through former President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If Trump repeals Obamacare, many of those same people who voted for him could stand to lose benefits. This same story could be written about countless counties across the nation.

"Before the law, most West Virginians without children or disabilities could not qualify for Medicaid, no matter how poor they were," Jessica Contrera reports for The Washington Post. "ACA expanded the program to cover more people" like Clyde Graham, a 54 year-old former coal miner who has been out of work for four years. Because of ACA, Clyde’s visit to Tug River Health Association is covered by Medicaid.

As for the other problems in his life, Graham "has put his hopes in Trump, who came to West Virginia saying he would bring back coal and put miners back to work," Contrera writes. "When Trump mentioned repealing Obamacare, Clyde wasn’t sure what that might mean for his Medicaid. But if he had a job that provided health insurance, he reasoned, he wouldn’t need Medicaid anyway, so he voted for Trump, along with 74 percent of McDowell County," which has the nation's short life expectancy.

Tug River Health Association "treats about 8,700 patients, resulting in some 20,000 visits a year to its five clinics," Contrera writes. "In 2016, 12,284 of those visits were from patients on Medicaid, up from 5,674 in 2013, before the ACA took effect here. Without the ACA, many of those patients wouldn’t be able to afford care."

"In other parts of the country, the primary impact of the ACA has been requiring people to have private health insurance, but in poor and sick communities like McDowell County, the law’s dominant effect has been the Medicaid expansion, which has given more people access to the kind of health care that wasn’t widely available or affordable to them before," Contrera writes. "With an insurance card in her pocket, the patient at Tammy’s window can venture into the realms of medical care that are typically out of reach to those without one: blood work, immunizations, specialized doctors, surgery, physical therapy."