The Rest of Today's News for May 24th

The Hill:

Here are the 66 programs eliminated in Trump's budget

President Trump's fiscal 2018 budget proposal would completely eliminate 66 federal programs, for a savings of $26.7 billion.

Some of the programs would receive funding for 2018 as part of a phasing-out plan.

To paraphrase the old lawyer joke, what do you call 66 federal programs at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

Among some of these great wastes of Americans' money:

• Green Climate Fund and Global Climate Change Initiative
• National Endowment for the Arts 
• National Endowment for the Humanities 
• McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
• Abandoned Mine Land Grants 
• State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (under the Justice Department)
• Energy Star and Voluntary Climate Programs
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
• Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Sadly, it is doubtful all 66 programs, or even a significant number of them, will be eliminated.

This is why:

The Hill:

GOP senators bristle at Trump's Medicaid cuts

GOP senators are balking at President Trump’s proposed steep cuts to the nation's healthcare system for the poor, worrying that it could leave millions without health plans.

Trump’s budget proposal would gut Medicaid by $627 billion over the next decade, on top of the $839 billion that would be cut under the House-passed ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill. Combined, Trump and House Republicans have proposed slashing $1.4 trillion from Medicaid.

The budget also includes a $5.8 billion cut to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which helps families that make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

Presidential budgets are largely wish lists of administrative priorities that Congress generally ignores. Former President Barack Obama’s final budget never even got a vote.

It was a nice thought, Mr. President. Welcome to Washington.

Fortunately, there are some people holding the president accountable:

The Hill:

Paul plans to force vote on $110B Saudi defense deal

Sen. Rand Paul intends to force a vote on a $110 billion defense deal President Trump signed with Saudi Arabia, according to an aide to the Kentucky Republican.

Paul is expected to introduce a measure to disapprove of the sale later on Wednesday, the aide said, over concerns that the deal may pull the U.S. into Yemen's civil war.

The move will allow Paul to force a vote in early June. Under the Arms Export Control Act, he can bring the measure up on the Senate floor after 10 calendar days, but the Senate is leaving town on Friday for a week-long Memorial Day break.

The Senate in September overwhelmingly rejected a similar move from Paul to halt a $1.15 billion arms sale between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

Feel free to explain why the U.S. needs to be funding a civil war in Yemen. Yemen's GDP was only $36 billion in 2013. We could probably buy Yemen for $110 billion.

Good move Senator Paul. Trump gets the shark for this one:

Finally...

Business Insider:

The Dakota Access pipeline sprung 2 new leaks

The United States' most notorious oil project is continuing to prove its detractors correct.

On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that the Dakota Access pipeline has already leaked on two more occasions in 2017 — bringing the total number to three since President Donald Trump  ordered the project to be completed in January.

Did you catch the fuzzy math there? So the pipeline leaked TWO more times in 2017, and THREE more times since January, which was also in 2017.

Math is hard.

Sadly, the leaks were even more insignificant than the writer's math skills: 84 gallons (twice) and 20 gallons, for a total of 188 gallons. If it were one spill, it wouldn't be significant:

None of these spills were large enough to warrant categorization as " significant " pipeline incidents by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which requires spills of at least five barrels — or 210 gallons — to be counted in that category. But they go a long way toward validating the concerns expressed by local indigenous tribes and their allies over the past year.  

We have exited "news story" and entered the "editorial" realm. Please remain seated, as the logic becomes bumpy here. Even the story/editorial itself calls this logic into question:

Oil flow was "immediately" cut off to contain the spill, and contaminated snow and soil were removed without any damage being done to local wildlife or waterways,  AP reports.

Business Insider really needs to get some new editors.