California Keeps Making the US Great
During the first week of November when he said he won 'the most epic political victory our country has ever seen,' which proved to be by the smallest popular vote margin of any president since Richard Nixon in 1968, Donald Trump posted this on his Truth Social website:
If he was referring to the leader of the US state with the largest gross domestic product, whose last name has five letters instead of six, Trump could have reminded all concerned that since he was elected the 45th president in 2016, California rose to No. 5 from No. 7 among the countries with the biggest GDP. And it is only a Nevada-sized economy away from supplanting Germany and Japan as soon as this year as No.3 in the world behind the US and China.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Slams Trump's Spending Bill: ‘A Disgusting Abomination'
A serious rift has erupted between Elon Musk and President Trump over the massive government spending bill the president has urged Congress to pass. Musk, who donated nearly $275 million toward Trump's 2024 election campaign, on Tuesday posted on X an unambiguous denunciation of the bill, which is called the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act. More from Variety London Mayor Sadiq Khan Hails 'Adolescence' for Having 'Mainstreamed' Conversation About 'Epidemic' of Violence Against Women Jon Stewart Tackles Elon Musk's Exit From the Trump Administration: 'This Guy Has Seen Some S--' Elon Musk Says New York Times Is 'Lying Their Ass Off' About His Alleged Drug Use; Newspaper Defends Coverage 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk wrote. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' The tech mogul wrote that the bill 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit' and that 'Congress is making America bankrupt.' Musk, the world's richest person, also posted a warning that voters would 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' in the 2026 midterm elections. On May 28, Musk announced the he would end his tenure as a 'special government employee' — leading the White House's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE — after 128 days. Per the U.S. Department of the Interior, a person cannot serve in such a role for more than 130 days in a consecutive year. Sen. Ran Paul (R-Kentucky) was among those chiming in to agree with Musk. 'We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another $5 trillion in debt is a huge mistake. We can and must do better,' he wrote, quoting Musk's post. Trump, on Truth Social, earlier in the day slammed Paul, writing 'Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming. He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not. The BBB is a big WINNER!!!' At a White House press briefing, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy asked press secretary Karoline Leavitt 'how mad do you think President Trump is going to be' about Musk's comments? Leavitt responded that Trump 'already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it.' The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act passed the Republican-controlled House but has yet to clear the Senate. The legislation would make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent (with wealthy Americans benefiting the most) and increase funding for the U.S. military and immigration enforcement. In addition, the version that passed the House cuts funding for health, nutrition, education and clean energy programs. Musk has criticized the 'Big Beautiful Bill' before, but using tamer terminology. Last week, for example, Musk criticized Trump's 'massive spending bill' in an interview with CBS's 'Sunday Morning,' saying the legislation 'undermines the work' of DOGE. Best of Variety What's Coming to Netflix in June 2025 New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
Chicago Tribune
32 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Column: Court says Trump tariffs are presidential overreach
The Trump administration's arbitrary moves to restructure the international trade environment to accommodate White House whims have suddenly run into reality, specifically established laws. This confrontation is still in the early stages, but it does not bode well for President Donald Trump and his ardent protectionist associates. On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade went back to basics in a decision featuring the reminder that, under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate trade. This fundamental power is not overridden by the ability of the president to address trade challenges in an emergency. 'The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage,' a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. 'That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.' The ruling came in response to two lawsuits. One was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonpartisan organization, on behalf of five small U.S. companies that import goods from countries targeted by Trump's tariffs. The other was filed by a dozen state governments within the U.S. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, is coordinating the states' efforts against the administration. He has declared the tariffs to be economically devastating, reckless and unlawful. Small businesses seeking relief include an importer of wine and other alcoholic beverages based in New York and a maker of educational kits and musical instruments located in Virginia. President Trump has been basing his unilateral tariff authority on the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter near the end of December 1977. The law authorizes the president to declare 'an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,' with the proviso that such threats must originate, 'in whole or substantial part outside the United States,' and requires the president to provide updates to Congress every six months. An incentive for this legislation was a desire in Congress to clarify and restrict presidential actions justified under the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, a law which reflected the emergency leading to U.S. entry into World War I as a formal declared combatant. The immediate incentive for our nation to enter that war was the declaration by Germany of unrestricted submarine warfare. The 1917 law had been used to justify a variety of presidential initiatives, not all related to foreign policy and international developments. Declared national emergencies then still technically in effect included the 1933 banking crisis related to the hoarding of cash and gold, the 1950 Korean War crisis, a 1970 emergency related to a strike by postal workers and a 1971 emergency related to the deteriorating fiscal condition of the federal government. Key powers granted include the ability to block transactions and take control of the assets of the parties involved in the threats. This section was used by the Trump administration to justify the new tariffs. IEEPA was passed during a time of congressional assertiveness. Another important factor, no doubt, was President Carter's fixation on clear, orderly administration, which he carried to extremes. The severe national crises, traumas and wars described above contrast with today's long-term growth and prosperity, and blessed absence of direct involvement in war. The judicial veto of presidential overreach shows our system is working.
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
SCOOP: House GOP circles wagons on Trump tax-and-spend bill as Senate seeks changes
The House GOP is quietly mounting a pressure campaign on the Senate to accept its version of President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" even as lawmakers in the upper chamber signal they'll be making changes. Tensions are simmering between Republicans in the two chambers as they work to pass a massive tax, immigration and energy bill via the budget reconciliation process. The House Budget Committee held a staff-level communications briefing on Monday, two sources told Fox News Digital, the same day the Senate returned from the Memorial Day week recess to begin consideration of the massive bill. Senate Republicans have vowed to tweak the House's offering to varying degrees, with some wanting to tackle even deeper spending cuts and others wanting to soften the blows to Medicaid and green energy subsidies. While lawmakers in the upper chamber are still working out the kinks of their approach, they agree the bill will be different. Both sources interpreted the meeting as a way to get ahead of Senate Republicans' criticism of certain aspects of the bill. Documents viewed by Fox News Digital that were handed to House Republican aides show specific talking points about the bill's taxpayer savings, Medicaid provisions and green energy subsidy rollbacks, among other topics. The document pushed back on the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate that the bill would add more than $2 trillion to the deficit over a decade. "The cost of the bill ($4.12 trillion) is surpassed by the savings ($4.29 trillion) associated with mandatory spending reforms ($1.7 trillion) and economic growth ($2.6 trillion)," the document said. It suggested House Republicans assume 2.6% economic growth over 10 years rather than the CBO's unprecedentedly low 1.8%. "House Budget is desperately circling the wagons with staff and members to make sure they do not forget the fight is not over on messaging why their bill is better than their Senate rivals," one House GOP aide told Fox News Digital. "They got jammed with the Senate version in the blueprint round and are using every tool at their disposal to make sure it doesn't happen again." A senior House GOP aide also told Fox News Digital, "The Senate should heed President Trump's wishes to get [the bill] to his desk before July 4th." The House passed its version of the legislation late last month after a marathon all-night session full of debate and Democrat procedural motions to delay. The mammoth bill is aimed at permanently extending Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while also including new tax relief for senior citizens and eliminating taxes on tipped and overtime wages. It would also send new funding to the U.S.-Mexico border and to enhance Immigrations and Customs Enforcement while rolling back a significant portion of the green energy subsidies from the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). To save money and cut down on what Republicans see as waste, fraud and abuse of government safety nets, the bill would introduce Medicaid work requirements for certain able-bodied recipients beginning in December 2026. It would penalize states that allowed illegal immigrants into the Affordable Care Act-expanded Medicaid population while rewarding states that did not. Both the IRA subsidies and Medicaid reforms are emerging as pain points for the Senate GOP's three-seat majority. The document obtained by Fox News Digital appears to target specific senators' concerns. For example, one portion of the Q&A specifically said, "No," the bill does not put rural hospitals at risk. "The bill reinvests funds to reopen rural emergency hospitals and ensure cost-effective care access," the messaging guidance said. On the rescinded IRA funds, it said, "The bill targets unused or duplicative funds from programs such as the Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants and sustainable jet fuel. These projects aligned more with ideological goals than infrastructure priorities." Another note mentioned the electric vehicle (EV) credit rollback, arguing it would "ensure all vehicles contribute to the Highway Trust Fund." "EVs cause more wear and tear due to their higher weight but pay no fuel taxes. The bill imposes modest user fees starting no later than the end of FY 2026 and terminates in FY 2035, indexed to inflation," it said. But it's not clear that senators with those concerns will heed the House's arguments right now. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told reporters Tuesday, "It's going to hurt rural hospitals in my state." Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged to reporters on Tuesday that while there was discontent over "individual pieces" of the bill, Republicans must agree on something that will pass the chamber. "Failure is not an option. We've got to get to 51, so we'll figure out the path forward to do that over the next couple of weeks," Thune said. Other senators, meanwhile, have argued they want to make deeper cuts than what the House came up with. "The House bill, they're not even scratching the surface. It's not even the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we need to do to return to a reasonable, pre-pandemic-level spending," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said on Fox Business last week. When reached for comment, the House Budget Committee referred Fox News Digital to recent comments by Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas. "Some senators will say we went too far on entitlement reform and health care and welfare, and then you'll have ... [f]olks like [Sens.] Rick Scott, Ron Johnson, who are dear friends of mine, all well-intentioned, will say we don't cut enough spending," Arrington said on Fox News last week. "Well, the fact is, you can only cut as much as you can get the vote to pass it out of your chamber. And we cut almost $1.7 trillion in spending, which is the largest spending cuts in American history by twofold." "There's always room for improvement, and I welcome that, especially on the fiscal reform side, but we've got to get the votes."
