dChan
Anonymous ID: 8432d7 June 1, 2025, 9:49 p.m. No.23111092   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1103

Populists expected to win in Poland

 

June 2 (Reuters) - Nationalist and eurosceptic Karol Nawrocki was expected to win Poland's presidential election based on all votes counted, the news website Onet reported on Monday, in results that would deal a blow to the reform agenda of the pro-European government.

The Polish Electoral Commission said on its website that it had counted all of the votes. Official results are expected some time on Monday morning, the Commission had said earlier.

 

Based on the final count, Nawrocki had 50.9% of the vote, while his rival, Rafal Trzaskowski, the liberal Warsaw mayor and an ally of the government led by Donald Tusk, had 49.1%, Onet reported on its website.

Nawrocki, 42, an historian and amateur boxer who ran a national remembrance institute, campaigned on a promise to ensure economic and social policies favour Poles over other nationalities, including refugees from neighbouring Ukraine.

While Poland's parliament holds most power, the president can veto legislation, and the vote was being watched closely in Ukraine as well as Russia, the United States and across the European Union.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-nationalist-nawrocki-expected-win-presidential-vote-news-website-onet-2025-06-02/

Anonymous ID: 8432d7 June 1, 2025, 9:56 p.m. No.23111120   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser wants to end sanctuary city status for DC

 

Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s budget proposal would make changes to health-care programs that insure undocumented immigrants and low-income adults, as city grapples with financial pressure and the impacts of President Donald Trump’s spending and tax cut bill.

Starting Aug. 1, the budget proposal calls for the city to begin phasing adults age 21 and older out of the Healthcare Alliance Program, which uses local dollars to cover 27,000 adults regardless of immigration status; and in March impose limits such as requiring people to reenroll in-person every six months. The 6,000 children in the program would be unaffected, city officials say.

The city would also save money by paying for care as participants use services, instead of per person enrolled. The changes would save the city $457 million over four years, budget documents released Tuesday show, though some advocates worry the cuts would cost thousands of residents their health care and hospitals would rack up more uncompensated care costs.

In addition, about 25,000 parents or caregivers and childless adults covered under the expansion of the Affordable Care Act who earn more than 133 percent of the federal poverty level would lose Medicaid coverage under the proposal. Instead, many of them would be eligible for a new basic plan on the exchange with similar coverage, city officials said.

 

The mayor’s proposal, which the D.C. Council must now consider, reflects the competing interests the Bowser (D) administration has weighed when crafting a budget that is financially responsible and anticipates federal changes without abandoning the city’s most vulnerable residents.

Unlike other cities, the District is subject to the whims of the Republican-controlled Congress, which must sign off on its laws and budget and can tinker with specific line items lawmakers don’t like. The House last week narrowly passed a budget bill that includes additional limits on Medicaid eligibility and would cut federal Medicaid payments to a handful of states and D.C. that currently use local dollars to cover adults regardless of immigration status.

“We are not unmindful of the fact that if the Senate passes what the House did, and the president signs it, [that] to continue Alliance in any form or any size at any cost would have attracted a $100 million penalty, by our rough estimate,” Wayne Turnage, deputy director for health and human services, said in an interview Wednesday.

But Turnage stressed the changes under Bowser’s proposal “are driven solely by the spending pressure that the Medicaid program and the Alliance program created going into fiscal year ’26 and then somewhat exacerbated by the declining revenue picture.”

The budget documents released Tuesday included a $120 million Indigent Care fund for uninsured people. But Turnage said that was in error.

D.C.’s chief financial officer has predicted the city could endure a more than $1 billion revenue downturn over the next four years, largely due to the Trump (R) administration’s moves to shrink the federal government. Bowser officials warn that the city could lose 40,000 jobs as a result of those efforts, a reality they say necessitates more fiscal discipline and a push to diversify the city’s economy.

Overall, Bowser’s budget proposal would invest in pro-business policies in an attempt to attract and grow nonfederal industries at the same time as it makes significant cuts to government programs. Among the $250 million in cuts and policy changes that could save another $500 million are reductions in emergency rental assistance and pauses to planned cost-of-living adjustments in a cash assistance program for poorer families.

Patients, providers and advocates led by the D.C. Primary Care Association rallied last week on the steps of the John A. Wilson District Building to highlight the risk to health care on multiple fronts. The Senate is taking up Trump’s “big beautiful bill” in June and D.C. Council will begin holding hearings Thursday and with a vote scheduled for the end of July.

The proposed D.C. changes would mean “vulnerable residents will not have health care and will end up using emergency rooms more frequently and illnesses will not be diagnosed in a timely manner,” said Kate Coventry, deputy director of legislative strategy at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

“D. C. has always taken pride in the fact that almost every resident has access to health care coverage,” she said. “Health care is a human right and that shouldn’t be dependent on immigration status.”

Andrew Patterson, senior counsel with Legal Aid DC, said he was concerned that the organization’s clients who rely on the Alliance program could lose their insurance — and wants D.C. officials to stay committed to insuring undocumented residents regardless of congressional pressure and financial challenges.

“We want to see them maintain that dedication even in challenging budget times,” Patterson said. “We don’t think all of the hardship should fall on the most vulnerable people in our city.”

Although the city’s Alliance program does not use federal funds, the Trump administration has been explicit about increasing oversight on jurisdictions that use federal Medicaid funding for undocumented immigrants, including reviews to close loopholes and strengthen enforcement.

“Medicaid is not, and cannot be, a backdoor pathway to subsidize open borders,” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz said in a statement Tuesday. “States have a duty to uphold the law and protect taxpayer funds. We are putting them on notice — CMS will not allow federal dollars to be diverted to cover those who are not lawfully eligible.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently asked state lawmakers to scale back the health benefits that the state offers to undocumented immigrants in part because maintaining it would cost the state $30 billion if federal changes go through, data from KFF, a nonprofit group that conducts health policy research, show. New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Oregon are among the states with similar programs.

Congress has previously taken action to limit rights for noncitizens in recent years — with some Democratic support.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last month advanced a bill repeal a 2022 law that allows noncitizens to vote in local elections. The same bill passed the GOP-controlled House with 52 Democrats.

The committee in March also advanced the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, requiring the city to comply with federal immigration laws, including detainers of individuals. In the last Congress, a lawmaker offered an amendment to block D.C. from using local funds to house undocumented immigrants.

D.C. currently limits how much its local authorities can collaborate with federal immigration enforcement, but Bowser’s budget proposal would repeal that policy and start allowing local law enforcement to provide federal immigration agencies with information and access to D.C.’s jails.

Abel Nuñez, executive director of the immigrant-serving Central American Resource Center, said he was not surprised to see Bowser propose adjustments to the Alliance program, which he said was a large expense for a city now facing increased financial pressures. “We knew changes were coming,” he said.

Plus, Nuñez added, “At the end, when this budget is done, it still needs to go before the U.S. Congress, controlled by a Republican Party that has already targeted the District.”

“We’re in a very weak position at the moment,” he said.

Nuñez said he hoped to work with Bowser and the council to find a way for the city to continue providing adults with health coverage regardless of immigration status.

Because, Nuñez said, no matter what happens with the budget, “the mayor is still going to have to deal with sick people in her jurisdiction … they’re still going to need access to health care.”

 

https://archive.is/qTDCX#selection-449.0-923.193

Anonymous ID: 8432d7 June 1, 2025, 9:57 p.m. No.23111126   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1197 >>1240

Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser wants to end sanctuary city status for DC

 

Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s budget proposal would make changes to health-care programs that insure undocumented immigrants and low-income adults, as city grapples with financial pressure and the impacts of President Donald Trump’s spending and tax cut bill.

 

Starting Aug. 1, the budget proposal calls for the city to begin phasing adults age 21 and older out of the Healthcare Alliance Program, which uses local dollars to cover 27,000 adults regardless of immigration status; and in March impose limits such as requiring people to reenroll in-person every six months. The 6,000 children in the program would be unaffected, city officials say.

 

The city would also save money by paying for care as participants use services, instead of per person enrolled. The changes would save the city $457 million over four years, budget documents released Tuesday show, though some advocates worry the cuts would cost thousands of residents their health care and hospitals would rack up more uncompensated care costs.

 

In addition, about 25,000 parents or caregivers and childless adults covered under the expansion of the Affordable Care Act who earn more than 133 percent of the federal poverty level would lose Medicaid coverage under the proposal. Instead, many of them would be eligible for a new basic plan on the exchange with similar coverage, city officials said.

 

The mayor’s proposal, which the D.C. Council must now consider, reflects the competing interests the Bowser (D) administration has weighed when crafting a budget that is financially responsible and anticipates federal changes without abandoning the city’s most vulnerable residents.

 

Unlike other cities, the District is subject to the whims of the Republican-controlled Congress, which must sign off on its laws and budget and can tinker with specific line items lawmakers don’t like. The House last week narrowly passed a budget bill that includes additional limits on Medicaid eligibility and would cut federal Medicaid payments to a handful of states and D.C. that currently use local dollars to cover adults regardless of immigration status.

 

“We are not unmindful of the fact that if the Senate passes what the House did, and the president signs it, [that] to continue Alliance in any form or any size at any cost would have attracted a $100 million penalty, by our rough estimate,” Wayne Turnage, deputy director for health and human services, said in an interview Wednesday.

 

But Turnage stressed the changes under Bowser’s proposal “are driven solely by the spending pressure that the Medicaid program and the Alliance program created going into fiscal year ’26 and then somewhat exacerbated by the declining revenue picture.”

 

The budget documents released Tuesday included a $120 million Indigent Care fund for uninsured people. But Turnage said that was in error.

 

D.C.’s chief financial officer has predicted the city could endure a more than $1 billion revenue downturn over the next four years, largely due to the Trump (R) administration’s moves to shrink the federal government. Bowser officials warn that the city could lose 40,000 jobs as a result of those efforts, a reality they say necessitates more fiscal discipline and a push to diversify the city’s economy.

 

Overall, Bowser’s budget proposal would invest in pro-business policies in an attempt to attract and grow nonfederal industries at the same time as it makes significant cuts to government programs. Among the $250 million in cuts and policy changes that could save another $500 million are reductions in emergency rental assistance and pauses to planned cost-of-living adjustments in a cash assistance program for poorer families.

 

Patients, providers and advocates led by the D.C. Primary Care Association rallied last week on the steps of the John A. Wilson District Building to highlight the risk to health care on multiple fronts. The Senate is taking up Trump’s “big beautiful bill” in June and D.C. Council will begin holding hearings Thursday and with a vote scheduled for the end of July.

 

The proposed D.C. changes would mean “vulnerable residents will not have health care and will end up using emergency rooms more frequently and illnesses will not be diagnosed in a timely manner,” said Kate Coventry, deputy director of legislative strategy at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

 

“D. C. has always taken pride in the fact that almost every resident has access to health care coverage,” she said. “Health care is a human right and that shouldn’t be dependent on immigration status.”

 

Andrew Patterson, senior counsel with Legal Aid DC, said he was concerned that the organization’s clients who rely on the Alliance program could lose their insurance — and wants D.C. officials to stay committed to insuring undocumented residents regardless of congressional pressure and financial challenges.

 

“We want to see them maintain that dedication even in challenging budget times,” Patterson said. “We don’t think all of the hardship should fall on the most vulnerable people in our city.”

 

Although the city’s Alliance program does not use federal funds, the Trump administration has been explicit about increasing oversight on jurisdictions that use federal Medicaid funding for undocumented immigrants, including reviews to close loopholes and strengthen enforcement.

 

“Medicaid is not, and cannot be, a backdoor pathway to subsidize open borders,” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz said in a statement Tuesday. “States have a duty to uphold the law and protect taxpayer funds. We are putting them on notice — CMS will not allow federal dollars to be diverted to cover those who are not lawfully eligible.”

 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently asked state lawmakers to scale back the health benefits that the state offers to undocumented immigrants in part because maintaining it would cost the state $30 billion if federal changes go through, data from KFF, a nonprofit group that conducts health policy research, show. New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Oregon are among the states with similar programs.

 

Congress has previously taken action to limit rights for noncitizens in recent years — with some Democratic support.

 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last month advanced a bill repeal a 2022 law that allows noncitizens to vote in local elections. The same bill passed the GOP-controlled House with 52 Democrats.

 

The committee in March also advanced the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, requiring the city to comply with federal immigration laws, including detainers of individuals. In the last Congress, a lawmaker offered an amendment to block D.C. from using local funds to house undocumented immigrants.

 

D.C. currently limits how much its local authorities can collaborate with federal immigration enforcement, but Bowser’s budget proposal would repeal that policy and start allowing local law enforcement to provide federal immigration agencies with information and access to D.C.’s jails.

 

Abel Nuñez, executive director of the immigrant-serving Central American Resource Center, said he was not surprised to see Bowser propose adjustments to the Alliance program, which he said was a large expense for a city now facing increased financial pressures. “We knew changes were coming,” he said.

 

Plus, Nuñez added, “At the end, when this budget is done, it still needs to go before the U.S. Congress, controlled by a Republican Party that has already targeted the District.”

 

“We’re in a very weak position at the moment,” he said.

 

Nuñez said he hoped to work with Bowser and the council to find a way for the city to continue providing adults with health coverage regardless of immigration status.

 

Because, Nuñez said, no matter what happens with the budget, “the mayor is still going to have to deal with sick people in her jurisdiction … they’re still going to need access to health care.”

 

https://archive.is/qTDCX#selection-449.0-923.193

Anonymous ID: 8432d7 June 1, 2025, 10:08 p.m. No.23111153   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1197 >>1240

Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees To Curb Environmental Red Tape That Slows Down Construction Projects

 

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Utah railroad project on Thursday, setting a precedent that could make it easier to build things in the United States.

 

The case at hand—Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County—involved an 88-mile-long railroad track in an oil-rich and rural area of Utah. The project would have connected this area to the national rail network, making it easier and more efficient to transport crude oil extracted in the region to refineries in Gulf Coast states.

 

In 2020, a group of seven Utah counties known as the Seven Counties Infrastructure Coalition submitted its application to the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the project. During its review process, the board conducted six public meetings and collected over 1,900 comments to produce an environmental impact statement (EIS)—which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—that spanned over 3,600 pages. The board approved the project's construction in 2021.

 

Before construction could begin, however, Eagle County, Colorado, and several environmental groups filed suit, challenging the STB's approval. Specifically, this coalition argued that the STB did not consider the downstream environmental effects of the project—such as increased oil drilling in Utah and refining in the Gulf Coast. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs and vacated the railroad's construction approval.

 

In an 8–0 decision on Thursday (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case), the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling.

 

In its majority opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court clarified that under NEPA the STB "did not need to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the separate upstream and downstream projects." The Court concluded that the "proper judicial approach for NEPA cases is straightforward: Courts should review an agency's EIS to check that it addresses the environmental effects of the project at hand. The EIS need not address the effects of separate projects."

 

This statement "is particularly significant for infrastructure projects, such as pipelines or transmission lines, and should help reduce NEPA's burdens (at least at the margins)," wrote Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, in The Volokh Conspiracy. "The opinion will also likely hamper any future efforts, perhaps by Democratic administrations, to expand or restore more fulsome (and burdensome) NEPA requirements."

 

One recent example is former President Joe Biden, who finalized rules requiring federal agencies to consider a project's impacts on climate change—a global issue that is incredibly complex and hard to forecast—in their NEPA analyses. The Trump administration recently rescinded this requirement.

 

Kavanaugh's opinion also clarified that courts should "afford substantial deference" to federal agencies in their EIS reviews and "should not micromanage" agency choices "so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness."

 

This point could reduce one of the largest delays caused by NEPA: litigation. Since its passage in 1969, NEPA has been weaponized by environmental groups to stunt disfavored projects—which has disproportionately impacted clean energy projects. On average, these challenges delay a permitted project's start time by 4.2 years, according to The Breakthrough Institute.

 

The increased threat of litigation has forced federal agencies to better cover their bases, leading to longer and more expensive environmental reviews. With courts deferring more to agency decisions, litigation could be settled more quickly.

 

"NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents (who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment) to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects," wrote Kavanaugh. "All of that has led to more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation."

 

Projects that receive the necessary permits to start "often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary, both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the builder of the project," he added. "And that in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like."

 

For years, NEPA has delayed, or outright canceled, projects. The Court's decision could be a significant step in reducing the regulatory labyrinth that has stymied America's economy and environment.

 

https://reason.com/2025/05/29/supreme-court-unanimously-agrees-to-curb-environmental-red-tape-that-slows-down-construction-projects/

Anonymous ID: 8432d7 June 1, 2025, 10:15 p.m. No.23111171   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1197 >>1240

US raises flag in Syria for first time in 13 years

 

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — An American flag was hoisted outside of the long-shuttered U.S. ambassador’s residence in Damascus on Thursday, in a sign of growing ties between Washington and the new Syrian government.

 

The U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, who has also been appointed special envoy to Syria, arrived to inaugurate the residence, Syrian state-run news agency SANA reported.

 

He met with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and attended the signing of an agreement for a consortium of Qatari, Turkish and U.S. companies for development of a 5,000-megawatt energy project to revitalize much of Syria's war-battered electricity grid.

 

Under the deal signed Thursday, a consortium led by Qatar’s UCC Concession Investments — along with Power International USA and Turkey’s Kalyon GES Enerji Yatirimlari, Cengiz Enerji — will develop four combined-cycle gas turbines with a total generating capacity estimated at approximately 4,000 megawatts and a 1,000-megawatt solar power plant.

 

A statement sent out by UCC said that “once completed, these projects are expected to supply over 50% of the country's electricity needs.”

 

Washington hasn't formally reopened its embassy in Damascus, which closed in 2012 after protests against the government of then-President Bashar Assad, met by a brutal crackdown, spiraled into civil war. Assad was unseated in December in a lightning rebel offensive.

 

But Barrack’s visit and the raising of the flag were a significant signal of warming relations.

 

Washington was initially circumspect about Syria’s new leaders, led by Ahmad al-Sharaa, the former leader of an Islamist insurgent group that the U.S. still lists as a terrorist organization. However, the Trump administration — encouraged by two U.S. allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — has in recent weeks shown increasing openness to Damascus.

 

Trump held a surprise meeting with al-Sharaa in Riyadh earlier this month, and the U.S. has begun to roll back decades of sanctions slapped on Syria under the Assad dynasty.

 

Speaking at the ceremony celebrating the signing of the energy deals, Barrack praised the “bold decision” to lift sanctions and said the move comes with “no conditions, no requirements."

 

There is only "one simple expectation and that expectation sits behind me, the alignment of these amazing countries,” he said, referring to the flags of the U.S., Qatar, Turkey and Syria behind him.

 

The U.S. State Department posted a statement on X on Thursday attributed to Trump announcing Barrack's appointment as envoy to Syria.

 

“Tom understands there is great potential in working with Syria to stop Radicalism, improve Relations, and secure Peace in the Middle East. Together, we will Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN!” the statement said.

 

Barrack thanked Trump in an X post for “your bold vision, empowering a historically rich region, long oppressed, to reclaim its destiny through self-determination.”

 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/long-shuttered-us-ambassadors-residence-092951687.html