3 stories credited to CT Mirror
Latest story Sep 21, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for CT Mirror
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 3 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to CT Mirror, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from CT Mirror
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| April 2026 | 2 | 2,576 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 1 | 598 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Budget/Spending2
67% of 3 stories · 31% across all outlets
- Abortion/Reproductive Rights1
33% of 3 stories · 1% across all outlets
- Economy1
33% of 3 stories · 24% across all outlets
- Healthcare1
33% of 3 stories · 7% across all outlets
- Labor/Unions1
33% of 3 stories · 4% across all outlets
- Social Security/Medicare1
33% of 3 stories · 0% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 7 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 7 story–official pairs, from 3 stories.
- Republican71% · 5 pairs
- Democrat29% · 2 pairs
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 3 stories.
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not CT Mirror’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 3 stories.
- Good Look
- 0 (0%)
- Mixed
- 2 (67%)
- Informational
- 1 (33%)
- Bad Look
- 0 (0%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from ctmirror.org
7
Rep. John Larson won’t seek third-party run after primary defeat
Larson lost the four-way primary to Luke Bronin in August. Larson's term ends in early January, marking the end of his 28-year tenure.
Medicaid rule targeting abortion providers set to expire
A controversial rule enacted last year that denies federal Medicaid funding to abortion providers is likely to expire this summer, despite anti-abortion pressure on Republicans to renew it. Leaders in Congress in recent days have insisted that a new federal spending bill needs to be as stripped down as possible and focused on funding related to immigration enforcement amid a two-month partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. They also have suggested the rule could still be revisited in future legislation, but likely not before the current budget measure expires on July 4. The legislation Congress is considering now “has to be very narrow and tight,” said Republican Senate Majority Leader Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, in a statement shared by a spokesperson. “But we will be looking for, obviously, opportunities to address not only Planned Parenthood, but some of the other issues that might fit in a reconciliation bill.” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana is not considering a renewal of the rule in the House version of the bill either, the Washington Examiner recently reported. The broad tax and spending measure President Donald Trump signed into law last summer strips federal Medicaid funding from organizations that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in reimbursements in fiscal year 2023. The rule primarily affects Planned Parenthood, as well as independent health care nonprofits such as Health Imperatives in Massachusetts and Maine Family Planning. Medicaid, which provides health insurance mostly to people with lower incomes, is funded jointly by the federal government and the states, with the federal government covering roughly two-thirds of the cost. The rule included in Trump’s tax and spending law was presented by supporters as a ban on funding for abortions, but actually prevented clinics from being reimbursed under federal Medicaid for birth control, infection testing and treatment, and a wide range of other reproductive and primary care services. A federal rule already prevents federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment. Some states already allow state Medicaid to cover abortion services. Others, such as South Carolina, have excluded Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. South Carolina’s law was upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. At the anti-abortion movement’s annual March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., in January, Johnson spoke about the Medicaid provision as a major policy victory for Republicans. “We stand here today with one united voice to affirm the federal government should not be subsidizing any industry that profits from the elimination of human life,” Johnson said. The rule has survived multiple legal challenges, and its effects have been felt throughout the country. Planned Parenthood says more than 50 health centers across 18 states closed last year, 23 due to the Medicaid rule, according to a recent Democratic congressional report, and the rest due to the temporary loss of federal grants for family planning and preventive health care and other factors. The organization has also reported that visits for contraception and cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics have dropped by double digits. “So much damage has already been done,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, in a written statement. “Since Planned Parenthood was ‘defunded,’ fewer patients went to Planned Parenthood health centers for breast exams, birth control, and IUDs and other long-acting reversible contraception compared to the same period the year before.” Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, a co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, called the report a “biased review.” “Planned Parenthood is probably the world‘s largest abortion provider, and abortion is in fact its main book of business,” Harris said. “A majority of Americans believe that taxpayer funding should not be used to pay for abortion. If Planned Parenthood wants to stop doing abortions, and, in fact, go into the business of providing other healthcare, that would be different.” Some clinics, such as Health Imperatives in Massachusetts, have continued seeing Medicaid patients, in some cases with states’ help. “While we are encouraged by news that Congress is unlikely to include an extension of the defunding provision in the upcoming bill, the federal government is continuing its orchestrated assault through other avenues on the rights of the people we serve, particularly women, immigrants, and trans youth,” said Health Imperatives President and CEO Julia Kehoe in a written statement. “Our focus remains on providing the highest quality health care to all, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay.” Maine Family Planning had to close three of its primary care clinics due to the loss of federal reimbursements. But with its recently passed budget, the state is one of the first to provide a safety net for reproductive health services, including $5 million annually to support nonabortion services such as contraceptive care, infertility treatments, cancer screenings, prenatal and obstetric care, and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. Other states — including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington — have committed a total of $300 million to replace the federal Medicaid money. But that amount won’t completely fill the gap left by the absence of the federal dollars, as Planned Parenthood reports its health centers provided an estimated $700 million in care annually to Medicaid patients before the new rule. McGill Johnson said more than 150 health centers are at risk of closing, and more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care. Letting the federal Medicaid rule expire would be a blow to the anti-abortion movement, which has pushed to extend the rule to 10 years and many of whose policy demands the Trump administration has not fulfilled, such as restricting nationwide access to medication abortion. Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, one of the most outspoken abortion opponents in the Senate, posted on X earlier this month that failing to renew the rule “would be a massive betrayal. Under no circumstance can Planned Parenthood be allowed to get taxpayer money for their abortions and gender transition insanity. Period.” Hawley posted late last week that he would offer an amendment to ban federal money for Planned Parenthood. John Mize, CEO of the national lobbying group Americans United for Life, wrote in a recent op-ed in the Washington Examiner that a yearlong extension of the rule is “the minimum acceptable outcome.” “If reconciliation is not pursued, abortion providers are likely to have federal funds restored until after the 2028 elections, if not another two years,” Mize wrote. “Republicans cannot take for granted the majority they have now.” Planned Parenthood is also not taking the provision’s expected expiration for granted. “We know it’s a question of when — not if — anti-abortion lawmakers will attack Planned Parenthood and their constituents’ access to health care again,” McGill Johnson said in the statement. This story was first published April 20, 2026 by Stateline.
Medicaid rule targeting abortion providers set to expire
A controversial rule enacted last year that denies federal Medicaid funding to abortion providers is likely to expire this summer, despite anti-abortion pressure on Republicans to renew it. Leaders in Congress in recent days have insisted that a new federal spending bill needs to be as stripped down as possible and focused on funding related to immigration enforcement amid a two-month partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. They also have suggested the rule could still be revisited in future legislation, but likely not before the current budget measure expires on July 4. The legislation Congress is considering now “has to be very narrow and tight,” said Republican Senate Majority Leader Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, in a statement shared by a spokesperson. “But we will be looking for, obviously, opportunities to address not only Planned Parenthood, but some of the other issues that might fit in a reconciliation bill.” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana is not considering a renewal of the rule in the House version of the bill either, the Washington Examiner recently reported. The broad tax and spending measure President Donald Trump signed into law last summer strips federal Medicaid funding from organizations that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in reimbursements in fiscal year 2023. The rule primarily affects Planned Parenthood, as well as independent health care nonprofits such as Health Imperatives in Massachusetts and Maine Family Planning. Medicaid, which provides health insurance mostly to people with lower incomes, is funded jointly by the federal government and the states, with the federal government covering roughly two-thirds of the cost. The rule included in Trump’s tax and spending law was presented by supporters as a ban on funding for abortions, but actually prevented clinics from being reimbursed under federal Medicaid for birth control, infection testing and treatment, and a wide range of other reproductive and primary care services. A federal rule already prevents federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment. Some states already allow state Medicaid to cover abortion services. Others, such as South Carolina, have excluded Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. South Carolina’s law was upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. At the anti-abortion movement’s annual March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., in January, Johnson spoke about the Medicaid provision as a major policy victory for Republicans. “We stand here today with one united voice to affirm the federal government should not be subsidizing any industry that profits from the elimination of human life,” Johnson said. The rule has survived multiple legal challenges, and its effects have been felt throughout the country. Planned Parenthood says more than 50 health centers across 18 states closed last year, 23 due to the Medicaid rule, according to a recent Democratic congressional report, and the rest due to the temporary loss of federal grants for family planning and preventive health care and other factors. The organization has also reported that visits for contraception and cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics have dropped by double digits. “So much damage has already been done,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, in a written statement. “Since Planned Parenthood was ‘defunded,’ fewer patients went to Planned Parenthood health centers for breast exams, birth control, and IUDs and other long-acting reversible contraception compared to the same period the year before.” Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, a co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, called the report a “biased review.” “Planned Parenthood is probably the world‘s largest abortion provider, and abortion is in fact its main book of business,” Harris said. “A majority of Americans believe that taxpayer funding should not be used to pay for abortion. If Planned Parenthood wants to stop doing abortions, and, in fact, go into the business of providing other healthcare, that would be different.” Some clinics, such as Health Imperatives in Massachusetts, have continued seeing Medicaid patients, in some cases with states’ help. “While we are encouraged by news that Congress is unlikely to include an extension of the defunding provision in the upcoming bill, the federal government is continuing its orchestrated assault through other avenues on the rights of the people we serve, particularly women, immigrants, and trans youth,” said Health Imperatives President and CEO Julia Kehoe in a written statement. “Our focus remains on providing the highest quality health care to all, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay.” Maine Family Planning had to close three of its primary care clinics due to the loss of federal reimbursements. But with its recently passed budget, the state is one of the first to provide a safety net for reproductive health services, including $5 million annually to support nonabortion services such as contraceptive care, infertility treatments, cancer screenings, prenatal and obstetric care, and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. Other states — including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington — have committed a total of $300 million to replace the federal Medicaid money. But that amount won’t completely fill the gap left by the absence of the federal dollars, as Planned Parenthood reports its health centers provided an estimated $700 million in care annually to Medicaid patients before the new rule. McGill Johnson said more than 150 health centers are at risk of closing, and more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care. Letting the federal Medicaid rule expire would be a blow to the anti-abortion movement, which has pushed to extend the rule to 10 years and many of whose policy demands the Trump administration has not fulfilled, such as restricting nationwide access to medication abortion. Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, one of the most outspoken abortion opponents in the Senate, posted on X earlier this month that failing to renew the rule “would be a massive betrayal. Under no circumstance can Planned Parenthood be allowed to get taxpayer money for their abortions and gender transition insanity. Period.” Hawley posted late last week that he would offer an amendment to ban federal money for Planned Parenthood. John Mize, CEO of the national lobbying group Americans United for Life, wrote in a recent op-ed in the Washington Examiner that a yearlong extension of the rule is “the minimum acceptable outcome.” “If reconciliation is not pursued, abortion providers are likely to have federal funds restored until after the 2028 elections, if not another two years,” Mize wrote. “Republicans cannot take for granted the majority they have now.” Planned Parenthood is also not taking the provision’s expected expiration for granted. “We know it’s a question of when — not if — anti-abortion lawmakers will attack Planned Parenthood and their constituents’ access to health care again,” McGill Johnson said in the statement. This story was first published April 20, 2026 by Stateline.
Medicaid rule targeting abortion providers set to expire
A controversial rule enacted last year that denies federal Medicaid funding to abortion providers is likely to expire this summer, despite anti-abortion pressure on Republicans to renew it. Leaders in Congress in recent days have insisted that a new federal spending bill needs to be as stripped down as possible and focused on funding related to immigration enforcement amid a two-month partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. They also have suggested the rule could still be revisited in future legislation, but likely not before the current budget measure expires on July 4. The legislation Congress is considering now “has to be very narrow and tight,” said Republican Senate Majority Leader Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, in a statement shared by a spokesperson. “But we will be looking for, obviously, opportunities to address not only Planned Parenthood, but some of the other issues that might fit in a reconciliation bill.” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana is not considering a renewal of the rule in the House version of the bill either, the Washington Examiner recently reported. The broad tax and spending measure President Donald Trump signed into law last summer strips federal Medicaid funding from organizations that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in reimbursements in fiscal year 2023. The rule primarily affects Planned Parenthood, as well as independent health care nonprofits such as Health Imperatives in Massachusetts and Maine Family Planning. Medicaid, which provides health insurance mostly to people with lower incomes, is funded jointly by the federal government and the states, with the federal government covering roughly two-thirds of the cost. The rule included in Trump’s tax and spending law was presented by supporters as a ban on funding for abortions, but actually prevented clinics from being reimbursed under federal Medicaid for birth control, infection testing and treatment, and a wide range of other reproductive and primary care services. A federal rule already prevents federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment. Some states already allow state Medicaid to cover abortion services. Others, such as South Carolina, have excluded Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. South Carolina’s law was upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. At the anti-abortion movement’s annual March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., in January, Johnson spoke about the Medicaid provision as a major policy victory for Republicans. “We stand here today with one united voice to affirm the federal government should not be subsidizing any industry that profits from the elimination of human life,” Johnson said. The rule has survived multiple legal challenges, and its effects have been felt throughout the country. Planned Parenthood says more than 50 health centers across 18 states closed last year, 23 due to the Medicaid rule, according to a recent Democratic congressional report, and the rest due to the temporary loss of federal grants for family planning and preventive health care and other factors. The organization has also reported that visits for contraception and cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics have dropped by double digits. “So much damage has already been done,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, in a written statement. “Since Planned Parenthood was ‘defunded,’ fewer patients went to Planned Parenthood health centers for breast exams, birth control, and IUDs and other long-acting reversible contraception compared to the same period the year before.” Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, a co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, called the report a “biased review.” “Planned Parenthood is probably the world‘s largest abortion provider, and abortion is in fact its main book of business,” Harris said. “A majority of Americans believe that taxpayer funding should not be used to pay for abortion. If Planned Parenthood wants to stop doing abortions, and, in fact, go into the business of providing other healthcare, that would be different.” Some clinics, such as Health Imperatives in Massachusetts, have continued seeing Medicaid patients, in some cases with states’ help. “While we are encouraged by news that Congress is unlikely to include an extension of the defunding provision in the upcoming bill, the federal government is continuing its orchestrated assault through other avenues on the rights of the people we serve, particularly women, immigrants, and trans youth,” said Health Imperatives President and CEO Julia Kehoe in a written statement. “Our focus remains on providing the highest quality health care to all, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay.” Maine Family Planning had to close three of its primary care clinics due to the loss of federal reimbursements. But with its recently passed budget, the state is one of the first to provide a safety net for reproductive health services, including $5 million annually to support nonabortion services such as contraceptive care, infertility treatments, cancer screenings, prenatal and obstetric care, and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. Other states — including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington — have committed a total of $300 million to replace the federal Medicaid money. But that amount won’t completely fill the gap left by the absence of the federal dollars, as Planned Parenthood reports its health centers provided an estimated $700 million in care annually to Medicaid patients before the new rule. McGill Johnson said more than 150 health centers are at risk of closing, and more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care. Letting the federal Medicaid rule expire would be a blow to the anti-abortion movement, which has pushed to extend the rule to 10 years and many of whose policy demands the Trump administration has not fulfilled, such as restricting nationwide access to medication abortion. Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, one of the most outspoken abortion opponents in the Senate, posted on X earlier this month that failing to renew the rule “would be a massive betrayal. Under no circumstance can Planned Parenthood be allowed to get taxpayer money for their abortions and gender transition insanity. Period.” Hawley posted late last week that he would offer an amendment to ban federal money for Planned Parenthood. John Mize, CEO of the national lobbying group Americans United for Life, wrote in a recent op-ed in the Washington Examiner that a yearlong extension of the rule is “the minimum acceptable outcome.” “If reconciliation is not pursued, abortion providers are likely to have federal funds restored until after the 2028 elections, if not another two years,” Mize wrote. “Republicans cannot take for granted the majority they have now.” Planned Parenthood is also not taking the provision’s expected expiration for granted. “We know it’s a question of when — not if — anti-abortion lawmakers will attack Planned Parenthood and their constituents’ access to health care again,” McGill Johnson said in the statement. This story was first published April 20, 2026 by Stateline.
Trump proposal to streamline job training would cut funding to states
WASHINGTON — Tucked into President Donald Trump’s new budget request is a plan that could dramatically change — and, critics say, slash — how much money and help states provide to people needing jobs and training. Trump’s latest budget proposes a federal “Make America Skilled Again’’ grant that would combine a dozen current programs and provide $3.4 billion in spending for certain employment and training programs, down from $4.65 billion anticipated this fiscal year. The president’s plan would fund block, or general, grants to states, which could then tailor the spending to employment and training needs. There’s no formula in the budget proposal detailing how or where the money would be distributed, other than a requirement that at least 10% be spent on an apprenticeship program and 3% on innovations. The secretary of the Department of Labor could also reserve up to 0.75% on “program accountability” and technical support. Congressional Republicans are moving ahead with other ways to fund, and in some cases revamp, federal job programs, though they showed little interest in Trump’s MASA proposal that was also in his budget request last year. The Trump plan The MASA effort is another in a series of administration initiatives aimed at streamlining job training programs’ administrative costs and making them more responsive to changes in the workplace. The Labor Department referred questions about the plan to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to questions. At the National Skills Coalition, an advocacy organization for skills-based training, Megan Evans saw the MASA effort as a way of making deep cuts that ultimately hurt workers and employers, she said in an interview. “The administration says it’s trying to streamline,” said Evans, the coalition’s senior government affairs manager. “But in reality it’s combining deep cuts with risky consolidations and rollbacks.” The White House last year issued a detailed report and a video on its strategy, outlining how “workforce programs are fragmented across agencies, stifled by red tape, and too often misaligned with the skills employers need.” These issues, it said, “pose particular risks as the United States advances toward a bold reindustrialization agenda and navigates the transformational impact of AI (artificial intelligence) on the workforce.” In the budget released this month, the administration called the program “a key part of the administration’s strategy to fill the growing demand for skilled trades and other occupations,” along with some other programs, including the tax cuts enacted last year. Changes in getting money and help While MASA aims to reduce administrative costs, a long-sought goal of administrators across the country, popular programs would be consolidated under the block grant, including several with strong constituencies. Among them are programs for adult training and employment, youth training and employment, the Labor Department’s Re-integration of Ex-Offenders program, Native American programs and others. The National Skills Coalition saw trouble in folding these programs into a single grant. “These programs weren’t created in a vacuum,” it said in a blog post last year. “They each serve distinct populations.” Merging them would be “making it harder for people to access training that fits their lives and needs,” the group said. It also had doubts about whether block grants would in fact be more efficient. “By combining multiple workforce programs into a single grant, it becomes significantly harder to track program outcomes, monitor equity and assess whether specific populations–such as veterans, youth, people with disabilities, or former incarcerated pepole–are being effectively served,” the coalition said Some state and local officials share the concern. “Washington state is already facing significant budget shortfalls, and this proposal would further widen that gap,” said Marisol Tapia Hopper, director of strategic partnerships & funding at the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County. She said combining the programs into a block grant “functions as a reduction in workforce investment, applying a one-size-fits-all approach to a system that is already chronically underfunded.” The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group comprising all the nation’s governors, has taken no position on the proposal. “Workforce training is a huge bipartisan priority for governors,” said Jack Porter, NGA program director for workforce development & economic policy. “Federal support is critical to standing up effective workforce programs, but the federally funded workforce system as it stands now comes with a lot of red tape that shifts time and focus away from the goal, which is (to) provide workers with training,” he said. Congressional reluctance Congress has shown little enthusiasm for the administration’s consolidation. Earlier this month, the Republican-led U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee proposed a comprehensive job training blueprint. Among its ideas: providing funding for on-the-job learning and strengthening the system that holds state and local workforce boards responsible “for delivering positive outcomes for workers and job seekers.” The bill would have adult education programs governed by the Labor Department. The aim would be to “connect adult education to apprenticeships, sector partnerships, and employer-led training especially as artificial intelligence reshapes skill demands.” Included in the legislation, which a committee spokeswoman says is clearly “in line with the broad goals proposed in the president’s budget,” is a Make America Skilled Again pilot program. It would permit states to apply to combine different workforce funding streams and then spend them on programs that best suit their needs. The bill, said committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., in a statement, “modernizes a struggling and underutilized workforce development system, delivering reforms that strengthen participant outcomes and ensure greater accountability for taxpayer dollars.” In the U.S. Senate, Republicans began pushing changes that will help people get access to current programs. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Republicans’ aim is to “increase Americans’ access to job opportunities by eliminating red tape, increasing flexibility, and modernizing the workforce system.” The goal is to create one-stop centers where people can get information about jobs and training. The measure would “help Nebraskans find great jobs more efficiently,” said Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Nebraska Republican who co-sponsored the bill. Spending bill season At the moment, Democrats and Republicans appear deadlocked on how to proceed. The House Appropriations Committee plans to write labor spending legislation in June. The Senate has not announced a schedule. The partisan lines are forming. The Trump labor budget “attacks workers and small businesses by undermining workforce development programs at the Department of Labor,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., top Democrat on the House workforce panel, in a statement. Without the specific programs, he said, “many workers will struggle to provide for their families.” Walberg sees a need for big change. “The workforce is evolving rapidly, and legislation designed over a decade ago is no longer meeting today’s demands,” he said.
Trump proposal to streamline job training would cut funding to states
WASHINGTON — Tucked into President Donald Trump’s new budget request is a plan that could dramatically change — and, critics say, slash — how much money and help states provide to people needing jobs and training. Trump’s latest budget proposes a federal “Make America Skilled Again’’ grant that would combine a dozen current programs and provide $3.4 billion in spending for certain employment and training programs, down from $4.65 billion anticipated this fiscal year. The president’s plan would fund block, or general, grants to states, which could then tailor the spending to employment and training needs. There’s no formula in the budget proposal detailing how or where the money would be distributed, other than a requirement that at least 10% be spent on an apprenticeship program and 3% on innovations. The secretary of the Department of Labor could also reserve up to 0.75% on “program accountability” and technical support. Congressional Republicans are moving ahead with other ways to fund, and in some cases revamp, federal job programs, though they showed little interest in Trump’s MASA proposal that was also in his budget request last year. The Trump plan The MASA effort is another in a series of administration initiatives aimed at streamlining job training programs’ administrative costs and making them more responsive to changes in the workplace. The Labor Department referred questions about the plan to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to questions. At the National Skills Coalition, an advocacy organization for skills-based training, Megan Evans saw the MASA effort as a way of making deep cuts that ultimately hurt workers and employers, she said in an interview. “The administration says it’s trying to streamline,” said Evans, the coalition’s senior government affairs manager. “But in reality it’s combining deep cuts with risky consolidations and rollbacks.” The White House last year issued a detailed report and a video on its strategy, outlining how “workforce programs are fragmented across agencies, stifled by red tape, and too often misaligned with the skills employers need.” These issues, it said, “pose particular risks as the United States advances toward a bold reindustrialization agenda and navigates the transformational impact of AI (artificial intelligence) on the workforce.” In the budget released this month, the administration called the program “a key part of the administration’s strategy to fill the growing demand for skilled trades and other occupations,” along with some other programs, including the tax cuts enacted last year. Changes in getting money and help While MASA aims to reduce administrative costs, a long-sought goal of administrators across the country, popular programs would be consolidated under the block grant, including several with strong constituencies. Among them are programs for adult training and employment, youth training and employment, the Labor Department’s Re-integration of Ex-Offenders program, Native American programs and others. The National Skills Coalition saw trouble in folding these programs into a single grant. “These programs weren’t created in a vacuum,” it said in a blog post last year. “They each serve distinct populations.” Merging them would be “making it harder for people to access training that fits their lives and needs,” the group said. It also had doubts about whether block grants would in fact be more efficient. “By combining multiple workforce programs into a single grant, it becomes significantly harder to track program outcomes, monitor equity and assess whether specific populations–such as veterans, youth, people with disabilities, or former incarcerated pepole–are being effectively served,” the coalition said Some state and local officials share the concern. “Washington state is already facing significant budget shortfalls, and this proposal would further widen that gap,” said Marisol Tapia Hopper, director of strategic partnerships & funding at the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County. She said combining the programs into a block grant “functions as a reduction in workforce investment, applying a one-size-fits-all approach to a system that is already chronically underfunded.” The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group comprising all the nation’s governors, has taken no position on the proposal. “Workforce training is a huge bipartisan priority for governors,” said Jack Porter, NGA program director for workforce development & economic policy. “Federal support is critical to standing up effective workforce programs, but the federally funded workforce system as it stands now comes with a lot of red tape that shifts time and focus away from the goal, which is (to) provide workers with training,” he said. Congressional reluctance Congress has shown little enthusiasm for the administration’s consolidation. Earlier this month, the Republican-led U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee proposed a comprehensive job training blueprint. Among its ideas: providing funding for on-the-job learning and strengthening the system that holds state and local workforce boards responsible “for delivering positive outcomes for workers and job seekers.” The bill would have adult education programs governed by the Labor Department. The aim would be to “connect adult education to apprenticeships, sector partnerships, and employer-led training especially as artificial intelligence reshapes skill demands.” Included in the legislation, which a committee spokeswoman says is clearly “in line with the broad goals proposed in the president’s budget,” is a Make America Skilled Again pilot program. It would permit states to apply to combine different workforce funding streams and then spend them on programs that best suit their needs. The bill, said committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., in a statement, “modernizes a struggling and underutilized workforce development system, delivering reforms that strengthen participant outcomes and ensure greater accountability for taxpayer dollars.” In the U.S. Senate, Republicans began pushing changes that will help people get access to current programs. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Republicans’ aim is to “increase Americans’ access to job opportunities by eliminating red tape, increasing flexibility, and modernizing the workforce system.” The goal is to create one-stop centers where people can get information about jobs and training. The measure would “help Nebraskans find great jobs more efficiently,” said Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Nebraska Republican who co-sponsored the bill. Spending bill season At the moment, Democrats and Republicans appear deadlocked on how to proceed. The House Appropriations Committee plans to write labor spending legislation in June. The Senate has not announced a schedule. The partisan lines are forming. The Trump labor budget “attacks workers and small businesses by undermining workforce development programs at the Department of Labor,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., top Democrat on the House workforce panel, in a statement. Without the specific programs, he said, “many workers will struggle to provide for their families.” Walberg sees a need for big change. “The workforce is evolving rapidly, and legislation designed over a decade ago is no longer meeting today’s demands,” he said.
Trump proposal to streamline job training would cut funding to states
WASHINGTON — Tucked into President Donald Trump’s new budget request is a plan that could dramatically change — and, critics say, slash — how much money and help states provide to people needing jobs and training. Trump’s latest budget proposes a federal “Make America Skilled Again’’ grant that would combine a dozen current programs and provide $3.4 billion in spending for certain employment and training programs, down from $4.65 billion anticipated this fiscal year. The president’s plan would fund block, or general, grants to states, which could then tailor the spending to employment and training needs. There’s no formula in the budget proposal detailing how or where the money would be distributed, other than a requirement that at least 10% be spent on an apprenticeship program and 3% on innovations. The secretary of the Department of Labor could also reserve up to 0.75% on “program accountability” and technical support. Congressional Republicans are moving ahead with other ways to fund, and in some cases revamp, federal job programs, though they showed little interest in Trump’s MASA proposal that was also in his budget request last year. The Trump plan The MASA effort is another in a series of administration initiatives aimed at streamlining job training programs’ administrative costs and making them more responsive to changes in the workplace. The Labor Department referred questions about the plan to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to questions. At the National Skills Coalition, an advocacy organization for skills-based training, Megan Evans saw the MASA effort as a way of making deep cuts that ultimately hurt workers and employers, she said in an interview. “The administration says it’s trying to streamline,” said Evans, the coalition’s senior government affairs manager. “But in reality it’s combining deep cuts with risky consolidations and rollbacks.” The White House last year issued a detailed report and a video on its strategy, outlining how “workforce programs are fragmented across agencies, stifled by red tape, and too often misaligned with the skills employers need.” These issues, it said, “pose particular risks as the United States advances toward a bold reindustrialization agenda and navigates the transformational impact of AI (artificial intelligence) on the workforce.” In the budget released this month, the administration called the program “a key part of the administration’s strategy to fill the growing demand for skilled trades and other occupations,” along with some other programs, including the tax cuts enacted last year. Changes in getting money and help While MASA aims to reduce administrative costs, a long-sought goal of administrators across the country, popular programs would be consolidated under the block grant, including several with strong constituencies. Among them are programs for adult training and employment, youth training and employment, the Labor Department’s Re-integration of Ex-Offenders program, Native American programs and others. The National Skills Coalition saw trouble in folding these programs into a single grant. “These programs weren’t created in a vacuum,” it said in a blog post last year. “They each serve distinct populations.” Merging them would be “making it harder for people to access training that fits their lives and needs,” the group said. It also had doubts about whether block grants would in fact be more efficient. “By combining multiple workforce programs into a single grant, it becomes significantly harder to track program outcomes, monitor equity and assess whether specific populations–such as veterans, youth, people with disabilities, or former incarcerated pepole–are being effectively served,” the coalition said Some state and local officials share the concern. “Washington state is already facing significant budget shortfalls, and this proposal would further widen that gap,” said Marisol Tapia Hopper, director of strategic partnerships & funding at the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County. She said combining the programs into a block grant “functions as a reduction in workforce investment, applying a one-size-fits-all approach to a system that is already chronically underfunded.” The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group comprising all the nation’s governors, has taken no position on the proposal. “Workforce training is a huge bipartisan priority for governors,” said Jack Porter, NGA program director for workforce development & economic policy. “Federal support is critical to standing up effective workforce programs, but the federally funded workforce system as it stands now comes with a lot of red tape that shifts time and focus away from the goal, which is (to) provide workers with training,” he said. Congressional reluctance Congress has shown little enthusiasm for the administration’s consolidation. Earlier this month, the Republican-led U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee proposed a comprehensive job training blueprint. Among its ideas: providing funding for on-the-job learning and strengthening the system that holds state and local workforce boards responsible “for delivering positive outcomes for workers and job seekers.” The bill would have adult education programs governed by the Labor Department. The aim would be to “connect adult education to apprenticeships, sector partnerships, and employer-led training especially as artificial intelligence reshapes skill demands.” Included in the legislation, which a committee spokeswoman says is clearly “in line with the broad goals proposed in the president’s budget,” is a Make America Skilled Again pilot program. It would permit states to apply to combine different workforce funding streams and then spend them on programs that best suit their needs. The bill, said committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., in a statement, “modernizes a struggling and underutilized workforce development system, delivering reforms that strengthen participant outcomes and ensure greater accountability for taxpayer dollars.” In the U.S. Senate, Republicans began pushing changes that will help people get access to current programs. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Republicans’ aim is to “increase Americans’ access to job opportunities by eliminating red tape, increasing flexibility, and modernizing the workforce system.” The goal is to create one-stop centers where people can get information about jobs and training. The measure would “help Nebraskans find great jobs more efficiently,” said Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Nebraska Republican who co-sponsored the bill. Spending bill season At the moment, Democrats and Republicans appear deadlocked on how to proceed. The House Appropriations Committee plans to write labor spending legislation in June. The Senate has not announced a schedule. The partisan lines are forming. The Trump labor budget “attacks workers and small businesses by undermining workforce development programs at the Department of Labor,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., top Democrat on the House workforce panel, in a statement. Without the specific programs, he said, “many workers will struggle to provide for their families.” Walberg sees a need for big change. “The workforce is evolving rapidly, and legislation designed over a decade ago is no longer meeting today’s demands,” he said.