Search

The article focuses on the competition facing advocacy groups for research on various diseases for U.S. federal funding amidst tight budgets brought about by sequestration. Topics covered include the pressure on lawmakers to choose between spending on Alzheimer's and HIV/AIDS or cut spending from other promising lines of cure, the manner on how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) distributes money to specific diseases, and how appropriators are setting their funding priorities.

The article asserts that U.S. lawmakers can succeed in passing the legislation when the goals are small and they avoid the nation's biggest issues. It states that the Democrats and Republicans met the deadline to produce a framework that provided relief from sequestration, set top-line discretionary spending figures for 2014 and 2015 and cut the odds of another government shutdowns by avoiding to address the nation's most pressing issues. Signs of measured dealmaking are also mentioned.

The article considers the impact of automatic spending cuts in the U.S. It reveals that an across-the-board spending sequester under the 2011 Debt Limit Law has led to furloughs, canceled grants and contracts, and other cutbacks that have affected constituencies across the country. Lawmakers have failed to specify cuts needed to meet spending limits under the law. The possibility of another round of sequestration is discussed. INSET: What's Next in the Fiscal 2014 Appropriations Process.

The article discusses the implications of the 85 billion U.S. dollars spending sequester that become effective on March 1, 2013 for U.S. discretionary programs. It looks at the debate about which programs, services and activities are most prized across the 3.6 trillion U.S. dollars that the U.S. federal government will spend over the current fiscal year. It also notes that the largest share of the spending cuts will fall on discretionary programs and cites the programs' role in the economy.

The article talks about automatic spending reductions, known as sequestration, which are set to take effect in the U.S. in 2013 as lawmakers argue over alternatives. It notes alarming scenarios about lost jobs and lower wages that were cited by President Barack Obama. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, providing greater flexibility for the cuts might bring better policy results but would not have a significant influence on the effect of the sudden federal spending reduction. INSETS: No Shortage of Proposals Just a Shortage of Agreement;How the Sequester Will Be Implemented.

The article considers the implications of the U.S. government's proposed automatic budget cuts for the military and the defense industry. It discusses the potential job losses facing defense contractors and the growing concern on Capitol Hill that the budget sequestration might not be averted. It examines the estimated distribution of the fiscal 2013 defense budget cuts which include operations and maintenance, procurement, and un-obligated balances.

The article focuses on the financial pressures facing federal prisons and other agencies in the U.S. It notes the agencies are operating with two-year-old appropriations because of the U.S. Congress' failure to pass their regular spending bills. It also discusses the drawbacks of periodic continuing resolutions (CR) as an alternative to regular spending bills and the resemblance of CRs to slow-motion sequesters that limit an agency's ability to meet the needs it was built to address.

The article suggests that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) ability to direct spending rates may be used as a tool to buffer the impact of budget sequestration. It argues that OMB could use its "management" responsibility to allocate spending under and administrative process called apportionment. The responsibilities of the OMB under the basics of federal budgeting are examined.

The article examines the effectiveness of the 2011 deficit control law that came into force to place tight spending caps on government spending in the U.S. Topics discussed include clashes between President Barack Obama and American politician John A. Boehner over debt ceiling, views of House Appropriations Committee's former Democratic staff director Scott Lilly and remarks of Concord Coalition's executive director Robert L. Bixby on sequestration.

The article focuses on the bipartisan budget deal passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 12, 2013 that provides relief from sequestration and sets top-line discretionary spending figures for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Republican Senator Minority Whip John Cornyn of Texas predicts the deal would become law despite opposition from conservatives in the chamber.

The article highlights issues discussed during the opening session of a U.S. Congressional member panel charged with negotiating a budget agreement held on October 30, 2013. Members of the ad hoc groups of the member panel are mentioned, which include Senators Jeff Sessions and Bill Nelson and House Budget ranking member Chris Van Hollen. Also explored are the differing views of Democrats and Republicans over the issue of taxes.

The article discusses the determination of U.S. House-Senate budget conference committee members to make a compromise over the 2014 discretionary spending level and to restructure the automatic sequester that threatens all discretionary budgets with big cuts. Representative Paul D. Ryan and Senator Patty Murray both wish to avoid a second round of across-the-board cuts. It adds that both sides have downplayed expectations of a grand bargain but suggest a short-term agreement is attainable.

The article reports that the U.S. Senate has passed a continuing resolution (CR) to keep federal agencies funded until 2014 during the September 27, 2013 session. Certain provisions were removed by the Senate from the CR, including those designed to defund the 2010 health care reform and those that prioritize debt payments in the event of a government default. Under the resolution, spending will be maintained at the sequestration funding level of 986.3 billion dollars.

The article reports on the Congressional legislative outlook in fall 2013, with deadlines on major budget issues. It states that lawmakers have to determine whether to raise the Treasury's borrowing ceiling and address the spending sequester into one negotiation, and that Congress and the White House need a long-term solution for the full-year fiscal 2014 appropriations, the sequester and the debt limit. An effective deadline for any sequester agreement would reportedly be at year's end.

The article reports that the request for the U.S. Defense Department's base budget exceeds spending caps set for 2014 by about 52 billion U.S. dollars. According to the author, the White House is proposing 150 billion U.S. dollars in cuts to the planned U.S. Department of Defense's budget for the next decade as part of its deficit reduction plan. However, the majority of those reductions would come with the advent of another administration.

The article discusses the lack of legislative agreement between the U.S. House Democrats and Republicans in finding solutions to the automatic spending cuts scheduled under the fiscal cliff legislation. It speculates that the most likely outcome could be a vehicle for legislation that would replace the automatic spending cuts while legislating unfinished fiscal 2013 appropriations bills. It explains the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan that offers a new framework for additional cuts.

The article examines the implications of the U.S. government's budget sequestration program for Medicare providers and patients. Under the initiative, Medicare spending will be subjected to the sequester, but is limited to two percent each year until 2021. The two percent cuts, estimated at 123 billion U.S. dollars, would be in addition to a series of reductions in provider payments. The possibility that Medicare providers will get hit harder than two percent is considered.

The article offers an update on House Resolution (HR) 5872 in the U.S., which requires a report by government on how it would implement sequestration, as of July 23, 2012. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on July 18, 2012. A comparison of the view of the Republican and the Democratic senators on the bill is provided. The author examines the possible impact of delaying the passage of the bill.

The article discusses the impact of the forced-spending-cut or sequestration starts on the U.S. military in January 2013. According to U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, America would be left defenseless while Senate Armed Services Committee member and Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill says that sequestration would not be the end of U.S. military strength. The U.S. Department of Defense budget for the military for fiscal year 2013 is discussed.

The article reports that the U.S. Congress formed the budget conference committee in October 2013 composed of 29 conferees who will come up with an agreement on the fiscal 2014 budget. The committee will be chaired by Republican Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin with Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington as vice chairman. It discusses negotiating points of Republicans and Democrats such as discretionary spending, spending sequester rules and new revenues.

The article reports on the impasse on defense spending between Congress and the Pentagon in 2013, with neither not making the hard decisions needed to keep spending below mandatory budget limits. This may reportedly force another round of across-the-board sequester cuts to the military for fiscal year 2014. The article notes that some lawmakers see this as the easiest way to reduce the deficit, while the White House also sees spending through the lens of the whole government.

The article reports on the avoidance of massive federal employee furloughs in the U.S., seven months into spending cuts required by the budget sequester. Agency leaders claim that creative management and Congressional approval of their reprogramming funds request allowed them to reduce furloughs. According to Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, agency workers and their ability to do their jobs were affected by those cutbacks.

The article reports on the decision of the U.S. Senate to approve a fiscal 2014 Financial Services spending measure in 2013. It states that such legislative bill aims to improve funding for the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and financial regulatory agencies. It mentions the objection of Republic senators to the failure of the bill to account for budget cuts required by sequestration.

The article reports on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee's approval of the fiscal 2014 Military Construction spending bill on May 21, 2013. The bill provides 73.3 billion dollars for discretionary spending, largely for the health benefits of veterans. An amendment that would have replaced 150 billion dollars in cuts from sequestration with more than 182 billion dollars in tax increases and spending cuts was rejected by the panel.

The article discusses the threat of additional across-the-board percentage cuts or future budget sequestration if the spending limits set under the 2011 debt limit law are breached. It looks at the possibility that the U.S. Congress might enact a short-term continuing resolution in September 2013, or pass a continuing resolution that would set spending for fiscal 2014 at current-year levels. The sequester required for fiscal 2014 is considered.

The author comments on the failure of lawmakers in the U.S. to undo the sequestration which came into force on January 1, 2013, even though it has led to furloughs, canceled grants and contracts, and other cutbacks that have affected constituencies across the country. He recalls the 1985 Gramm-Rudman anti-deficit law and reflects on the threat of future sequesters. Prospects for the country's level of spending for 2014 are considered.

This article discusses the adoption of the first budget resolution of the U.S. Senate which differs from the House version on March 23, 2013. The Senate plans conform with the House budget that allow the federal government to spend more money in each of the next ten years than it will spend this year. The details of the Senate budget that calls for the replacement of the spending sequester are provided. The legislation assigned to be written by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus is cited.

The article highlights the support expressed by some conservative advocacy groups such as Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union and a variety of liberal groups to cutting the bloated budget of the U.S. Defense Department and reshaping Pentagon spending via sequester.

The author looks at how the U.S. public will be affected by the adverse consequences of the sequester which took effect on March 1, 2013. It notes that the such adverse effects may not materialize if Democrat U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican legislators come up with a breakthrough agreement to replace the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts with some other form of budgetary constraint. He also criticizes discretionary spending and the autopilot nature of budgeting.

The article reports that the U.S. Senate has cleared the House Rule (H.R.) 5872, a legislative bill requiring a U.S. White House report on sequestration, by unanimous consent on July 25, 2012 following its passage on the U.S. House on July 18, 2012.

The article reports on the bill approved by the U.S. House Budget Committee that would require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report to Congress on the effects of sequestration on domestic programs. An amendment introduced by ranking Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland prohibiting direct payments to farmers was rejected by the Committee. The Senate version of the measure calls or an analysis of the impact of budget cuts on programs for middle-class and most vulnerable families.

The article explains the political term sequestration.

The article reports that Utah's conservative Republican Representative Rob Bishop upheld his suspicions to land sequestrations in his state from development. It notes that he is not a fan of the National Landscape Conservation System. Inspector general Mary L. Kendall of the Interior Department confirmed Bishop's suspicion and forwarded a report to the U.S. Attorneys Office. However, the office informed that there are no criminal penalties for lobbying with Appropriated Moneys Act violation.