In Donald Trump’s private moments, it’s small talk and compliments
What do world leaders talk about when they are alone? Not much, it seems. President Donald Trump spent part of his two-day visit to Israel with open microphones nearby, giving the world a small glimpse into his private banter with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu between official appearances. They chatted about paint on the walls, their wives and where to stand during a ceremony. And they exchanged compliments — lots of compliments. This presidential small talk provided just some of the memorable moments of Trump’s swing through the Middle East, the first stop on his first overseas trip as president. There was an awkward Saudi sword dance, an airport selfie with a pushy Israeli lawmaker and a possible snub by Melania Trump. With Trump now in Rome to meet the pope, here is a look at some of the highlights: SAUDI ARABIA —The Orb: While Trump’s speech before Muslim leaders grabbed headlines, the buzz on social media was the image of him, Saudi King Salman and Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sissi with their hands on a lighted sphere to mark the opening of state-of-the-art counterterrorism center in the capital, Riyadh. Some joked it looked like the orb from Woody Allen’s 1973 film “Sleeper.” —Always With the Right: In another widely shared moment on social media, Trump and the Saudi monarch are seen drinking traditional Arabic coffee in small cups. Trump is about to take a sip, holding the cup with his left hand — a taboo in the Muslim world — when Salman explains “with the right hand” in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. Trump replies: “Always the right hand, right. Always the right hand.” The video has been viewed more than 184,000 times. —Sword Dance: Taking part in local customs and traditions is a must for American presidents when they travel the world. On Saturday night, Trump and his entourage were treated to a royal dinner hosted by King Salman. The delegation was greeted to a traditional all-male Saudi sword dance. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Saudi king, Trump swayed side to side and briefly joined the groove. —Golf Cart View: In another part of town, American country star Toby Keith performed with an Arabian lute player at a free, male-only concert in Riyadh. Keith performed cover songs of American classics and steered clear of performing his ballads “Whiskey Girl” and “Beer for My Horses” since alcohol is banned in the deeply conservative kingdom. In a bizarre moment, Trump caught a glimpse of the concert with first lady Melania Trump when, in a golf cart, they slowly rolled past a screen broadcasting it live. —Pantsuits and Dresses: Trump’s daughter and adviser, Ivanka, sparked an online sensation when she arrived in Riyadh wearing a long-sleeved, billowy navy dress as her blonde hair blew in the breeze. The hashtag “bint Trump,” meaning Trump’s daughter in Arabic, began trending, with one Twitter user even proposing in an online video. Like other high-level female visitors to Saudi Arabia, Mrs. Trump also did not cover her hair while in the kingdom. For her arrival to Riyadh, she wore a long-sleeved, black pantsuit accented with a wide, gold-colored belt and gold necklace. —Was It a Bow? Trump accepted Saudi Arabia’s highest civilian honor and ignited a debate over whether he bowed to the king. King Salman placed the Collar of Abdulaziz Al Saud — a gold medal hanging from a long, gold chain — around Trump’s neck hours after he arrived in the kingdom. Trump had to bend down so the king could put the medal around his neck, and that ignited debate over whether he had bowed to the king. Russian President Vladimir Putin, British Prime Minister Theresa May and Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, have all received the award. Republicans — including Trump — criticized Obama for a move during his 2009 visit to Saudi Arabia, interpreting it as an American president subserviently bowing to a foreign dignitary. ISRAEL —The Selfie: Israel is known for its boisterous and informal behavior, and Trump got a first-hand taste of this at his airport arrival ceremony. Just moments after he landed, a hard-line Cabinet minister asked Trump to recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, one of the most explosive issues in the conflict with the Palestinians. Then, a backbench lawmaker who had not even been invited to the ceremony pulled Trump aside for a selfie. With Trump waiting patiently after a camera glitch, and Netanyahu unsuccessfully reaching out to block the scene from unfolding, lawmaker Oren Hazan snapped the shot that made him famous. “Thank you, Mr. President – it was my pleasure!” Hazan tweeted alongside the picture. —Speak to the Hand. The selfie was not the only time that Trump was caught off guard. As he and his wife Melania walked on the red carpet, he turned and reached out to grab her hand. The expressionless Mrs. Trump, wearing dark sunglasses, appeared to brush away his hand, raising speculation in local media of a possible first family fracas. It happened again in Rome on Tuesday: as the couple emerged from the plane, Trump waved to the crowd and seemed to look for her hand. She quickly moved it away, raising it to her head to brush her hair aside. —Budding Bromance: Netanyahu had a strained relationship with Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama. But he appeared to have an easy rapport with Trump, with the two men repeatedly embracing and professing their deep friendship. At the airport ceremony, Netanyahu playfully warned Trump about the confusing protocol. “What is the protocol? Do you have any idea?” Trump asked. “Who knows?” Netanyahu responded with a smile. —I Share Your Pain: Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, also found common ground with Mrs. Trump. Speaking to the first couple at the airport, Mrs. Netanyahu complained that they were both victims of an unfair press. “The majority of the people of Israel, unlike the media, they love us so we tell them how you are great and they love you,” Mrs. Netanyahu said. “We have very much in common,” Trump said. —Home Sweet Home.
Mo Brooks introduces legislation to reform TPS immigration program
Congressman Mo Brooks this week introduced a bill that would tighten-up an oft “abused” immigration program that lends itself to de facto amnesty. Established in 1990 as a temporary immigration status — granted to eligible nationals of a country as a result of a natural disaster, civil violence, or other extraordinary conditions making the country “unable, temporarily, to adequately handle the return of its nationals” — the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program is essentially a nascent green-card program of sorts providing recipients a work permit, Social Security number, driver’s license, and access to certain welfare benefits. While it’s not an immediate path to citizenship, under current law “Temporary” Protected Status is de facto permanent and is often renewed time and again, permanently extending the TPS status. Meaning hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from countries across the globe, who would otherwise be deported, spend years, even decades, enjoying the protections and benefits of the program, even well-past the time the extraordinary conditions which qualified them for it had dissipated due to this never-ending “temporary” measure. Which is why Brooks introduced H.R. 2604: the Temporary Protected Status Reform Act of 2017. The TPS Reform Act would shift authority from the Executive and empower Congress to designate a nation’s participation in the TPS program. Further, it would set strict, clear time limitations for TPS duration, aiming to make the law, which was designed to be inherently temporary, temporary once more. “The United States provides Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to more than 300,000 foreign residents. As the name implies, the TPS statute purports to provide temporary relief to foreign residents for a period of 6 to 18 months. However, the Executive repeatedly renews protected status, effectively providing a free and permanent pass into America – including all the benefits that come with it,” said Brooks. “My bill, the TPS Reform Act would ensure that ‘temporary’ means temporary by establishing clear time limitations and creating statutory tests that must be met to grant the TPS designation. This legislation provides the needed reform for what has become a long-running amnesty program.” Among the supporters of the bill is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a non-profit that advocates for immigration reform based out of Washington, DC, who claim TPS is “misnamed.” “By now, we should have learned from experience that TPS is misnamed—what we offer as ‘temporary’ protection is rarely, if ever, temporary,” Federation for American Immigration Reform Executive Director, Dan Stein noted. “Most often, unfortunately, it’s used by aliens residing in the United States as a foot in the door to permanent residence. They are certainly happy to receive TPS because it apparently never expires. The true test of TPS as a policy tool is if it ever is, truly temporary. Our laws should not reward illegal immigrants to the United States regardless of the political or natural upheavals in their homelands. Otherwise, experience shows that we will encourage further illegal immigration.” The Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian, agreed. “It’s long past time to fix the TPS statute so that ‘temporary’ no longer means permanent,” said Krikorian. “Past administrations have been abusing this temporary, humanitarian program for 27 years, using it as a de facto amnesty program,” Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations at NumbersUSA added. “This bill would restore critical oversight by Congress.” Original cosponsors of the TPS Reform Act include: Texas-Republicans Louie Gohmert and Michael McCaul, and Iowa-Republican Steve King. NumbersUSA and FAIR both endorsed the bill.
Agency-by-agency look at Donald Trump’s budget
How President Donald Trump‘s proposed $4.1 trillion federal spending plan would affect individual government agencies. — AGRICULTURE Up or down? Down 5 percent Highlight: The proposed budget would limit subsidies to farmers, including a cut in government help for purchasing crop insurance. Crop insurance is an overwhelmingly popular program with farm-state senators in both parties, and previous farm bills have only increased spending. The budget would also limit spending on environmentally friendly conservation programs and some rural development dollars that help small towns build infrastructure. Trump isn’t the first president to try to limit farm subsidies. Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush also proposed major reductions, but farm-state lawmakers have always kept them going. The Republican chairmen of the Senate and House agriculture committees both said Tuesday they oppose Trump’s proposed cuts. Total spending: $132.3 billion. Spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $18 billion. — COMMERCE Up or down? Down 15.4 percent Highlight: The budget would eliminate three economic development agencies and several grant programs aimed at preserving the environment and dealing with climate change. The Minority Business Development Agency, the Economic Development Administration and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership would be eliminated. The budget would also eliminate several grant programs run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: the Sea Grant, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Coastal Zone Management Grants, the Office of Education and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. Total spending: $8 billion. Spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $7.8 billion. — DEFENSE Up or down? Up 3.3 percent Highlight: The Pentagon’s proposed 2018 budget would fund increases of almost 43,000 in the size of the active duty military and 13,000 in the Reserves. It provides troops a 2.1 percent pay raise, adds F/A-18 fighter jets and seeks a new round of base closures, which Congress routinely rejects. It also increases the amount of money used for training Afghan forces and conducting counterterror operations in Afghanistan. The budget includes $64.6 billion for military operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Africa. Total spending: $647 billion. Spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $639.1 billion. — EDUCATION Up or down? Down 46.9 percent Highlight: Eliminates after-school and teacher training programs, ends subsidized federal student loans and loan forgiveness programs for public servants, funds year-round Pell grants and expands funding for school choice for low-income students. Total spending: $61 billion Spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $59 billion — ENERGY Up or Down? Down 5.7 percent Highlight: Trump’s budget would sell off nearly half the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 270 million barrels, over the next 10 years as a way to reduce the budget deficit. The reserve is an emergency fuel storage maintained underground in Louisiana and Texas. Budget director Mick Mulvaney said the sale would not cause a security risk because of an increase in oil production from fracking. The administration says the plan would bring in a projected $17 billion over 10 years. The budget also would hike spending for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is responsible for maintaining the nuclear stockpile, while cutting other energy spending. The budget seeks $120 million to revive the mothballed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which is hugely unpopular in Nevada and was largely stopped by the efforts of former Democratic Sen. Harry Reid. Total spending: $28 billion Spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $28 billion — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Up or down? Down 31 percent. Highlight: The budget cuts EPA by nearly one-third, eliminating more than 3,800 jobs while imposing dramatic cuts to clean air and water programs. Adjusted for inflation, the proposed budget would represent the nation’s lowest funding for environmental protection since the mid-1970s. The Superfund pollution cleanup program would be cut by $330 million, to $762 million. Total spending: $5.7 billion. Spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $5.7 billion. — HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Up or down? Down 1.3 percent Highlight: The budget initiates deep cuts to health insurance programs for people with modest incomes, including coverage for children. Those cuts would go beyond the House GOP bill that repeals much of the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” and limits future federal financing for Medicaid. Total spending: $1.1 trillion Spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $65.3 billion — HOMELAND SECURITY Up or down? Down 3.2 percent Highlight: The budget asks Congress for $2.6 billion for border security that would include a down payment for Trump’s long-promised wall and increased technology along the U.S.-Mexican border. The budget calls for $314 million to hire 500 new Border Patrol agents and 1,000 agents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also requests a $1.5 billion increase for ICE to arrest, detain and deport immigrants in the country illegally. The plan also proposes cutting about $667 million in grants administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. That includes proposed cuts to the Urban Area Security Initiative and eliminating the Transportation Security Administration’s law enforcement grants. Total spending: $49.4 billion Spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $44.1 billion — HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Up or down? Down 22.9 percent Highlight: The budget would eliminate HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program, a $3 billion effort that funds local improvement projects, affordable housing construction and other social supports like meals for seniors and enrichment programs for low-income children. The budget proposal says the program is not well targeted to poor populations and hasn’t showed measurable impact on communities. The administration’s budget also seeks to cut costs to the department’s rental assistance programs – a $2 billion decrease to $35.2 billion. Rental assistance programs comprise about 80 percent of the agency’s total funding. Total spending: $40 billion. Estimated spending that needs Congress’ annual approval: $40 billion. — INTERIOR Up or Down? Down 9.2 percent Highlight: The budget calls for opening Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, where it is now prohibited, while eliminating offshore oil revenues used by Gulf Coast states to restore disappearing shorelines. Arctic drilling, a contentious issue that would require congressional approval, would generate an estimated
Advocates: Federal role crucial for cleanup of America’s waterways
The Trump administration makes a straightforward case for slashing $427 million in federal spending to heal ailing regional water bodies such as the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound: State and local governments should do the work and foot the bill. Supporters of the programs argue it’s not that simple. Cleaning up the nation’s iconic waterways is a team effort involving all levels of government, with nonprofit groups, universities and other players pitching in and the federal government serving as coach and sometimes as referee. If Washington walks away, some participants fear, the partnerships could unravel and the cleanups falter. “Federal involvement is critical to keeping the states working together,” said Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which advocates for restoration of the nation’s largest estuary. “The states put in a lot of money, but the federal partnership is crucial.” The proposed Environmental Protection Agency budget for fiscal 2018 released Tuesday calls for eliminating a series of initiatives targeting regional waters plagued with pollution that threatens human health, kills fish and harms tourism. A White House summary said the programs fund “primarily local efforts,” although they “have received significant federal funding, coordination and oversight to date.” It adds, “State and local groups are engaged and capable of taking on management of clean-up and restoration of these water bodies.” Congress will have the final say about the suggested cuts, which have drawn criticism from lawmakers in both parties. The programs are popular with constituents who treasure clean beaches and good fishing. Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican and member of the staunchly conservative Freedom Caucus, was among the signatories of a Feb. 23 letter to President Donald Trump supporting continued funding of the Chesapeake Bay rescue. “We must ensure that this important work continues, and that federal funds continue to be available to support this effort,” the letter said. Even with such strong bipartisan backing, advocates say Trump’s opposition leaves the programs highly vulnerable. Even if they survive, they might lose some of their funding at a time when strapped state and local governments would be hard-pressed to make up the difference. “Our state is having a tremendous budget challenge as it is,” said Sheida Sahandy, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership, a Washington state agency. Sahandy and other officials pointed out that many of the federal grants awarded under the water restoration programs require at least partial matching funds from other participants. State and local governments, Native American tribes, environmental groups and others already chip in substantial sums. But they look to EPA and other federal agencies to provide financial and administrative leadership. “The great threat is that you lose faith among state agencies and local communities that the federal government will do their share,” said Brian Moore, the National Audubon Society’s policy director for the Gulf of Mexico, another waterway with a cleanup program that would be defunded under the Trump budget. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has provided funds to remove contaminated sediments from harbors, fight invasive species, restore wildlife habitat and study harmful algal blooms – the most severe problems affecting the world’s largest freshwater system. It’s the biggest of the regional programs, usually receiving about $300 million a year – a total of more than $2 billion since President Barack Obama established it in 2010. The federal largesse not only helps pay for thousands of cleanup projects, supporters said. It gives the EPA leverage to help forge a common front among eight states – from Minnesota to New York – that compete with each other economically and can have sharp political differences. Cameron Davis, who oversaw the Great Lakes initiative as a former EPA senior adviser, said it was crucial in uniting the region around a strategy for preventing invasive Asian carp from reaching the lakes through a Chicago-area canal at a time when the states were feuding over the matter in court. “Funding has a magical way of bringing people to the table that otherwise might not pull up a chair,” Davis said. Federal involvement also helped spur action in the Chesapeake Bay, Baker said. The watershed includes parts of six states and Washington, D.C., which often were at odds over responsibilities of those nearest the bay and those farther upstream. Under the program, he said, the federal government brings funding, technical assistance and “a willingness to call out a state that is not participating and therefore dragging the collective group down.” “This is a prime example of the cooperative federalism that the administration talks about,” Baker said. “We’re totally perplexed as to why they’d want to end it.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Steve Flowers: Sizing up the U.S. Senate sprint
Well, folks, the field is set for the sprint to fill the open U.S. Senate seat of Jeff Sessions. The primary Aug. 15 is less than three months away. There will probably be a run-off Sept. 26, and the winner of that GOP run-off will be our Junior Senator from Alabama. In the Heart of Dixie, winning the Republican nomination is tantamount to election. The Dec. 12 General Election will be a coronation for the winner of the Sept. 26 Republican primary. It was an interesting closing day of qualifying Wednesday. It was unbelievable how many people showed up to qualify. Eleven candidates are running in the Republican primary and amazingly, the Democrats fielded eight candidates. It was like ants coming out of the woodwork. It was similar to our olden days of Alabama politics when everybody and their brother ran for an open governor’s race or a seldom seen open Senate race. We ought to refer to this race as an ant race rather than a horse race. Of the 19 candidates, only about five are viable contenders. Therefore, about 14 of these folks are running for the fun of it. In fact, we use to refer to them as “run for the fun of it” candidates. The most colorful run for the fun of it candidate in Alabama political history was Ralph “Shorty” Price. Shorty ran for governor every four years. He usually finished last. His slogan was smoke Tampa Nugget cigars, drink Budweiser beer and vote for Shorty Price. His campaign platform declared that he would change the term of governor from four years to two years. He would say if you are not smart enough to steal enough as governor in two years, you ain’t smart enough to be governor. My guess is that if someone put Shorty’s name on this Aug. 15 ballot, he would run sixth out of the 12-person GOP field, posthumously. He would probably win the Democratic nomination from the grave. The party leaders were probably glad to see them all show up. The raked in $3,400 a pop from each qualifier. You wonder what motivates those also-ran candidates to put their names on the ballot. Maybe they just want to see their name on the ballot, maybe their Aunt Susie left them $5,000 with the stipulation that they had to use it to run for the U.S. Senate, or they want to tell their grandchildren one day that they ran for the U.S. Senate. They can omit that they ran 11th. Maybe they won a 4-H speaking contest when they were in school and figured their destiny was to be a U.S. Senator. It is similar to someone trying to walk on to Bear Bryant’s or Nick Saban’s football team, and Bryant or Saban grants them permission to get a uniform if only for a day and try out. That bold soul who had to be hit by John Hannah like a tackling dummy can truthfully say to their grandson, “I played football at Alabama for Bear Bryant.” Actually, Alabama’s Sixth Congressional Jefferson/Shelby U.S. Representative, Gary Palmer, was elected to Congress by his doing the above thing while in college at Alabama. Some people suspect that his saying he played for Bear Bryant helped propel him to victory when he was elected a few years ago. Well, let’s give them just due and list them for you. I will list them in order of how I would handicap the field as the race for the Republican nomination begins. The two frontrunners are Roy Moore, followed by Luther Strange. Congressman Mo Brooks is within striking distance of Big Luther. State Senator Trip Pittman and Dr. Randy Brinson could be players if they come up with $5 million to spend on the race. Right now, they are unknown to more than 95 percent of the electorate. If Mo Brooks can raise and spend $3 million, or if Brinson or Pittman can pony up $5 million, one of these three could probably knock Luther out of the run-off. Roy Moore is in the run-off – he leads the crowded field. These six brave souls are in for the fun of it. Hopefully, their next-door neighbor or grandmother will vote for them, James Paul Baretta, Joseph Breault, Dom Gentile, Karen Jackson, Mary Maxwell and Bryan Peeples. Enjoy the race. I will keep you posted. Next week I will analyze and handicap the race in-depth. See you next week. ___ Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state Legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
Donald Trump’s health care budget means deep cuts for safety net
Candidate Donald Trump promised to improve health care, but as president his first full budget calls for deep cuts to popular insurance programs. And it omits any proposal for negotiating prescription drug prices, a Trump talking point. While not addressing Medicare’s long term financial problems, the budget targets the much smaller Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. And Trump’s Medicaid cuts appear even bigger than those in the health care bill recently passed by House Republicans, above what would be needed to fulfill the GOP vow to repeal “Obamacare.” Both safety net programs are federal-state collaborations, and such cuts would leave states with hard choices: spend more of their own money; restrict enrollment; cut benefits, or reduce payments to hospitals and doctors. “If states get fewer dollars from the federal government, there are only so many options, because states have to balance the budget every year,” said Elizabeth Carpenter, a health policy expert with the consulting firm Avalare Health. Trump’s budget was silent on bargaining with the pharmaceutical industry to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, a topic the president has often touched on. But the budget repeated Trump’s previous proposals for double-digit percentage cuts to the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, considered nonstarters even by Republican lawmakers. The trillion-dollar-plus Department of Health and Human Services, whose programs cover more than 130 million people, did not hold its customary budget briefing on Tuesday. From Europe where he is attending a world health conference, HHS Secretary Tom Price released a statement that said the budget “outlines a clear path toward fiscal responsibility by creating efficiencies that both improve services and save money.” As a candidate and as president Trump has frequently talked about making health care more affordable for regular folks, including by lowering premiums and deductibles. He promised not to cut Medicare, and initially, Medicaid as well. But to some experts, Trump’s budget looks more like a cost shift from the federal government to the states and to people now benefiting from coverage expansions in the Obama years. “I think it will be challenging for states to try to figure out what to do,” said Trish Riley, executive director of the nonpartisan National Academy for State Health Policy, which advises states. Children’s health insurance previously had not figured as a major issue for the administration. The CHIP program covers about 7 million children, and traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Trump’s budget would extend CHIP for another two years, but it would also cut $5.8 billion. “It’s a big impact,” said Riley. States would receive significantly lower overall payments from the federal government, and Washington would no longer match state spending on coverage for kids whose families make more than two-and-a-half times the federal poverty level, about $51,000 for a family of three. More than half the states now cover children above the administration’s proposed cutoff, Riley said. Administration officials say that the limitation proposed in the budget would focus taxpayer money on families who need it the most. Medicaid is facing even bigger cuts. Already, the House GOP bill would roll back former President Barack Obama‘s Medicaid expansion while also capping future federal financing for the program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $839 billion over 10 years. Trump’s budget would squeeze additional savings beyond that, but congressional aides say how much is not exactly clear. White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney has indicated that the budget uses a lower growth rate for the federal government’s share of future Medicaid spending. “The Trump budget assumes hundreds of billions more in Medicaid cuts than the House bill,” said Edwin Park, a health policy expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income people. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
