Two developments in the past few weeks suggest that America’s China policy is on a cusp.

The more publicly discussed event involves the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Dewey, which conducted a freedom of navigation operation near Mischief Reef in the Spratlys island group.

This is the first freedom of navigation action conducted by the Trump administration. It is the first true freedom of navigation conducted since at least 2012.

By contrast, the Obama administration had undertaken a handful of “innocent passage” activities in the South China Sea, which failed to demonstrate the critical issues at stake.

The actions carried out in the previous administration were intended to argue that the U.S. did not need permission from China to enter the waters around its artificial islands—while ignoring the bigger question of whether China’s artificial islands exerted any sovereign claim to water at all.

Recommitting to Freedom of Navigation

The contrast is telling. With the Obama administration actions, there was an implicit endorsement that China’s artificial islands were, in fact, islands, because “innocent passage” involves rapid transit through the territorial waters of another nation.

Moreover, in an “innocent passage” operation, the transiting ship cannot conduct any kind of military activity, in deference to the idea that the waters being transited are not international in nature.

The Obama administration further muddied the waters by choosing features whose sovereignty was in dispute—and therefore could claim that it was not singling out Chinese-claimed features.

Even after the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that the various features in the South China Sea were not, in fact, islands and therefore could not lay claim to a 12-nautical mile territorial sea, the Obama administration nonetheless refused to reinforce the point by conducting a genuine freedom of navigation operation.

By contrast, the USS Dewey not only transited within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef, but more importantly, conducted a “man overboard” drill. Such an action would contravene an “innocent passage” exercise, but is perfectly within the scope of a “freedom of navigation” operation. Indeed, it underscores the message that Mischief Reef is not an island, and therefore does not merit a claim to exerting territorial waters.

For the first time since at least 2012, the United States is signaling Beijing that its efforts to dominate the South China Sea will not be meekly accepted, but will be challenged.

Defending Human Rights

In the same period, the family of Chinese dissident lawyer Xie Yang was successfully smuggled out of a Thai prison, where they were being held for extradition to China. Xie is one of several lawyers and human rights activists who have been arrested as Beijing has cracked down on dissent.

The decisive American action stands in contrast to the fumbling by American embassy officials in the case of Chen Guancheng. When the blind human rights lawyer sought refuge in the American embassy in May 2012, American officials were diffident about his status. Chen himself indicated in contemporary interviews that he felt pressured to leave the embassy, as American officials were unable to offer guarantees of his wife’s safety.

It remains unclear what the Trump administration’s overall strategy is for Asia. North Korea continues to push development of longer range missiles able to reach the United States.

The People’s Republic of China, despite promises by President Xi Jinping to President Donald Trump to pressure Pyongyang, has demonstrated limited impact on North Korea; Chinese statistics even suggest that trade between China and North Korea has increased.

While the administration has suggested bilateral trade deals in the region in place of U.S. membership in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, whether there are any takers and what exactly its new trade strategy is remains unclear.

But for one Chinese dissident’s family, the United States has demonstrated that its commitment to basic principles can take concrete form. And in the middle of the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy appears to be back in the business of defending freedom of the seas. The auguries seem to be improving. (For more from the author of “Trump Signals New US Approach to China With Tough Actions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A federal appeals court dealt another blow to President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban targeting six-Muslim majority countries on Thursday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that blocks the Republican’s administration from temporarily suspending new visas for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban, which Trump’s administration had hoped would avoid the legal problems that the first version encountered. (Read more from “Appeals Court Deals Blow to Trump Administration Travel Ban” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Medicaid, the huge government health program for the poor and the indigent, is broken.

Both the Trump administration’s recent budget submission and the House-passed American Health Care Act, designed to partially repeal and replace Obamacare, propose Medicaid fixes.

Dubious assumptions burden the Trump budget proposal, and the House health care reform bill labors under some serious deficiencies. Both are correct, however, in resetting the general direction on Medicaid policy.

Medicaid is beset by two serious problems.

The first is a fiscal problem. Medicaid is an “open-ended” federal entitlement, and thus it contributes, like other major federal entitlements, to deficits and dangerous levels of national debt.

As the Congressional Budget Office has described current Medicaid financing:

All federal reimbursement for medical services is open-ended, meaning that if a state spends more because enrollment increases or costs per enrollee rise, additional federal payments are automatically generated.

America can no longer afford automatic federal entitlement spending. This is a bipartisan conclusion.

In 2008, for example, a politically diverse group of senior analysts and economists, in “Taking Back Our Fiscal Future,” concluded:

The first step toward establishing budget responsibility is to reform the budget decision process so that the major drivers of escalating deficits—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—are no longer on autopilot.

The signatories included top analysts from The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, Progressive Policy Institute, New America Foundation, and Urban Institute.

These analysts issue a further recommendation:

Congress and the president enact explicit long-term budgets for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that are sustainable, set limits on automatic spending growth, and reduce the relatively favorable budgetary treatment of these programs compared with other types of expenditures.

Both the Trump budget proposal and the House health care reform bill are taking a first big step in that direction: capping the annual growth in Medicaid spending. This is a fundamental and fiscally responsible decision. Medicaid should no longer be an “open-ended” entitlement.

The second Medicaid problem is its programmatic performance.

Medicaid serves the poor and the indigent—mostly poor women and children, the disabled, and the poor elderly, including nursing home care as part of its long-term care supports and services.

The program is not doing a good job. Compared to the privately insured, based on various studies, Medicaid patients have less access to care, longer hospital stays, and higher mortality rates.

This is not surprising since Medicaid pays doctors about 66 percent of what Medicare pays, and Medicare already pays doctors about 20 percent below private market rates.

Medicaid is not delivering the value commensurate with its rising cost. The best way to secure value—better care at lower costs—is to encourage competition based on personal choice and control over the dollars and decisions.

Obviously, such a market-based model is not appropriate for all Medicaid beneficiaries. A block grant approach, with ample state flexibility to manage care in their interest, may be the best option.

For able-bodied persons, however, Congress and the administration should go beyond block grants and create a new Medicaid option, harnessing the market forces of choice and competition.

This can best be done through a defined contribution (a “premium support”) to competing private health plans and providers that able-bodied Medicaid beneficiaries choose.

With broader networks of doctors and other medical professionals, such a policy would offer Medicaid beneficiaries superior coverage and better access to care than they have today. That kind of change would be transformational. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Budget Puts Medicaid on a Path to Long-Needed Reform” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

With this week’s release of President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget, the congressional appropriations season is officially underway.

Although discretionary appropriations only account for one-third of the federal budget, they are critical in reducing the size and role of the government and provide an opportunity to make a down payment towards the national debt.

Since it was mere weeks ago that fiscal year 2017 appropriations were finalized, it is hard to be optimistic about the prospects for 2018.

Nevertheless, Congress should look to the following principles as it begins its important work on the budget:

1. Stick to the Budget Control Act Caps

The Budget Control Act was passed in 2011 with the intention of reducing total spending by more than $2 trillion and controlling the growth of federal programs. To do so, it adopted discretionary caps for defense and nondefense categories, enforced by automatic cuts (called sequestration), as well as a mandatory spending sequestration.

While the law has been moderately successful in controlling discretionary spending, Congress has undermined its effectiveness by amending the spending caps each year of their existence.

In 2013, implementation of the sequester was delayed for several months as part of the fiscal cliff deal and for 2014-2017 the caps were raised again, first by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and later by the Obama-Boehner budget deal.

With total discretionary funding set to decrease by $6 billion in 2018, there is likely to be a desire from some in Congress to pass another budget deal that raises the spending caps.

Congress must resist this urge to spend more and should pursue prudent cuts, or stick to the current levels, at the very least. The president’s budget proposes a total discretionary spending level of $1.1 billion, in line with the Budget Control Act caps. This is the maximum level of funding that Congress should support in 2018.

2. Break the Spending Firewall and Fully Fund Defense

As part of the Budget Control Act, discretionary spending was arbitrarily divided into defense and nondefense categories. Providing for national defense is the primary responsibility envisioned by the Founding Fathers when they established our government.

Trump’s budget calls for abandoning the defense and nondefense categories, instead raising defense spending by $54 billion and offsetting that increase with cuts to domestic programs. That’s the fiscally responsible way to properly prioritize among competing demands for taxpayer dollars.

The increase proposed by the resident is the minimum needed to begin rebuilding a stronger military. According to the Heritage Foundation director of the Center for National Defense, “This increase on its own is insufficient to begin the rebuilding. It simply represents an ‘on-ramp’ to rebuilding.”

The Budget Control Act cap on defense spending has been a detriment to our national security and must be abandoned. Congress should adopt the level of funding needed to fully equip our military against growing threats worldwide.

These increases should be offset by the reduction or elimination of inefficient domestic programs that limit individual and economic freedom and that have usurped functions that are better left to the private sector, and states and localities.

3. Return to Regular Order

The last time that Congress passed all 12 annual appropriations bills prior to the start of the fiscal year was 1996. Instead, lawmakers continue to rely on continuing resolutions and massive omnibus spending bills. This is not an effective way to govern and it does a disservice to taxpayers.

With the president’s budget delayed more than three months and Congress not expected to release its own budgets until at least mid-June, Congress is already way behind schedule.

Regardless of the late start, Congress should look to pass as many appropriations bills as possible, starting with Department of Defense appropriations, through regular order. Following the congressional budget process facilitates a higher level of debate and increased oversight and accountability over federal government programs and agencies.

4. Stop Providing Appropriations for Unauthorized Purposes

In fiscal year 2016, Congress provided more than $310 billion in appropriations to unauthorized agencies and programs. Authorizing programs is a key component of Congress’ oversight responsibility. It provides an opportunity to examine and prioritize the activities that receive taxpayer dollars carefully. Lack of oversight has contributed to increased spending and rising debt levels.

Congress should immediately stop providing unauthorized appropriations and return accountability to the budget process.

5. Seize the Opportunity for reform.

Congress must use the fiscal year 2018 appropriations process as an opportunity to reassert its commitment to control spending. Congress should reject any attempt to increase the overall discretionary spending level.

Defense should be the highest priority and needed increases should be fully offset with cuts to nondefense programs. With republicans in control of the White House and Congress, there is no better time than now to pursue a conservative budget.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Blueprint for Balance” lays out more than 100 discretionary policy options that could be implemented in 2018, saving taxpayers $87 billion in 2018 alone.

Continuing the failed policies and spending addiction of the past few years is not the answer. (For more from the author of “Congress Must Embrace These 5 Principles to Create a More Responsible Budget” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.