The White House has threatened to end a program that lets companies pay for signature-gathering software for electronic products.
The Electronic Signature Program was enacted by President Obama in 2013.
It allows companies to request an electronic signature from consumers to help them complete a product order.
It was part of an effort to make electronic products more reliable and more convenient.
But now the administration is threatening to end the program, and it’s a major blow to President Donald Trump’s effort to help the manufacturing sector recover from the Great Recession.
Trump and the administration have been at odds over how to reform the program.
Trump is pushing to scrap the program entirely, while the White House argues that the federal government should provide some financial assistance to companies that choose to comply with the law.
But if the Trump administration continues to pursue this strategy, it could leave consumers in the dark about which companies are participating in the program and which companies aren’t.
For example, the Electronic Signature Programs’ biggest beneficiary is the manufacturers of electronic products that make it into the American market.
The manufacturers of the most popular electronic products would be the largest beneficiaries of the White Nationalist Party, a major Trump ally.
But even with a major financial incentive, the Obama White House and the companies it supports have been pushing to get the program off the ground as soon as possible.
In a letter to the House Appropriations Committee, the White Senate Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said the Trump Administration is “considering whether the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ISGACC) should be extended for one year to permit a review of whether this program may be terminated and the impact on national security.”OMB, which is a part of the Trump White House, is pushing for a full review of the program so it can be terminated without harming national security.
But this proposal is also an attempt to get around the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the program that found it could save the government $500 million in 2018.
In a letter sent to OMB, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee asked the White Council for Management to “review the program’s financial impact on the government and the economy.”
In response, OMB sent a letter on June 2 to the Whitehouse, asking it to “consider whether a review should be undertaken and its impacts on national and international security.”
The White House was not immediately available for comment.
The Congressional Budget OMB report found the Electronic Signed Commerce and Trade Act of 2018 could save $500 billion in 2018 and increase the federal deficit by $4.5 trillion over the next decade.
That would mean the program would cost the federal treasury $2.5 billion in 2019 alone.
The CBO report also found the program could have a “very negative impact on jobs, consumer confidence, and economic growth” because the government would be on the hook for the costs associated with compliance with the program for the first three years of the extension.
The CBO found that the program “could increase the cost of hiring workers by nearly $2,000 annually.”
The CBO also said the cost could be much higher if companies aren�t paid.
The agency estimated that the Electronic Subsidy Program would cost taxpayers $1.6 trillion over its 10-year life.
The Whitehouse is also pushing to have the federal workforce covered under the Electronic Workforce Security Act of 2020, a law the WhiteHouse has been pushing for since last year.
But it’s unclear whether the administration would continue to push for the bill.
The House Oversight Committee’s budget director, Peter Roskam, said in a statement on June 6 that the White house�s threat to end this program “is just one more reason why I believe Congress should pass a bipartisan, cybersecurity-focused cybersecurity bill.”
Roskam is also asking the administration to continue to “work with Congress on legislation to ensure that our businesses are paid for their cybersecurity investments.”