Shaheen: Already signs Canadian tourism interest is down
Shaheen: Already signs of declining tourism inquiries from Canada
U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., led a bipartisan Senate delegation to Canada last week with meet with new Prime Minister Mark Carney and his cabinet.
U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said Tuesday some North Country inns have already reported slumping inquiries from potential Canadian visitors since President Donald Trump announced plans to impose tariffs on its neighbor to the north.
Owners of Settlers Green Outlet Village in Conway told Shaheen at a chamber forum that visits to the website from Canadians are down 75% from what they have been in the past.
Another business owner said its inquiries were down 66%, Shaheen said.
'We don't want that to continue,' Shaheen said during a telephone interview.
Last week, Shaheen led a bipartisan delegation of five senators to go to Ottawa and meet with new Prime Minister Mark Carney and his cabinet.
Carney spoke positively about the Oval Office meeting he had with Trump last month, Shaheen said.
Four of the five senators on the trip came from border states with Canada, which was either the number one or two trading partner with their home state.
'The concern about trade is if Canada is no longer doing business with our states, they are going to go elsewhere and we are going to lose out on those business relationships,' Shaheen said.
The U.S. Senate did approve legislation to overturn the emergency declarations Trump used to announce his tariffs. This was merely a message since the Republican-led U.S. House won't support it, Shaheen said.
'Congress is not happy with what the president is doing on Canada and we need to continue to insist that he reassess and work to maintain the strong relationship we have always had,' Shaheen said.
Several of Carney's cabinet members served in the previous Justin Trudeau-led government and Shaheen said she worked with them while attending an annual security forum on Halifax Island.
'Those connections are really important,' Shaheen added.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tim Walz Said We Need To "Bully The Sh—t Out" Of Donald Trump And It's REALLY Making MAGA Mad
We've long discussed left-leaners repeatedly expressing fatigue with the Democratic Party over what they perceive to be a lack of effort displayed by its leaders. Well, it looks like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is starting to agree. During a May speech at the South Carolina Democratic Party's annual convention, Walz referred to President Donald Trump as a "wannabe dictator" before suggesting, "Maybe it's time for us to be a little meaner. Maybe it's time for us to be a little more fierce." Twitter: @mmpadellan Speaking from his experience as a former teacher, Walz continued, "The thing that bothers a teacher more than anything is to watch a bully... And when it's a child, you talk to them and you tell them why bullying is wrong." Related: A Republican's Response To A "Tax The Rich" Chant At His Town Hall Is Going Viral "But when it's an adult like Donald Trump," he said, "you bully the shit out of him back." "Because at heart, this is a weak, cruel man that takes it out and punches down at people. What they don't want to do is stand toe to toe and punch back with someone who's calling them out for what they do." Related: "I Am So Torn With What You Are Doing" — 11 Posts From MAGA Business Owners Who Are So Close To Getting It And this isn't the first time Walz has expressed a need for Dems to "fight back." Just two months ago, the former vice presidential hopeful shared a video of Americans expressing grievances under the Trump Administration with the title "Tim Walz: It's time to fight back." "I think elected officials have been too damn timid to not stand up for these things. Bullshit," he says in the video. "It's good stuff that makes a difference." Well! One peek at the comment section under Walz's South Carolina speech will show you how deeply MAGA is rallying against his words. But what are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: People Can't Believe This "Disgusting" Donald Trump Jr. Post About Joe Biden's Cancer Diagnosis Is Real Also in In the News: Miss USA's 2024 "National Costume" Has Been Revealed, And It's Obviously An Interesting Choice Also in In the News: One Body Language Expert Spotted Something Very Telling When Donald Trump "Held His Own Hand" At His Recent Press Conference
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The GOP's New Medicaid Denialism
Congressional Republicans claim to have achieved something truly miraculous. Their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, they argue, would cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid spending over 10 years without causing any Americans to lose health care—or, at least, without making anyone who loses health care worse off. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by imposing Medicaid work requirements, the bill would eventually increase the uninsured population by at least 8.6 million. At first, Republican officials tried to defend this outcome on the grounds that it would affect only lazy people who refuse to work. This is clearly untrue, however. As voluminous research literature shows, work requirements achieve savings by implementing burdensome paperwork obligations that mostly take Medicaid from eligible beneficiaries, not 25-year-old guys who prefer playing video games to getting a job. Perhaps for that reason, some Republicans in Washington are now making even more audacious claims. On CNN over the weekend, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought insisted that 'no one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.' Likewise, Joni Ernst, a Republican senator from Iowa, recently told voters at a town hall, 'Everyone says that Medicaid is being cut, people are going to see their benefits cut; that's not true.' After one attendee shouted, 'People will die,' Ernst replied, 'We all are going to die,' and later doubled down on her comment on social media, attempting to equate concern that Medicaid cuts could harm people with believing in the tooth fairy. Officials such as Vought and Ernst have not provided a detailed explanation of their blithe assurances. But there is one center of conservative thought that has attempted to defend these claims: the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Last week, it published an editorial headlined 'The Medicaid Scare Campaign.' The thesis is that the Medicaid cuts would 'improve healthcare by expanding private insurance options, which provide better access and health outcomes than Medicaid.' This would be, as they say, huge if true: The GOP has found a way to give low-income Americans better health care while saving hundreds of billions in taxpayer money. The timing is even more remarkable, given that this wondrous solution has come along at precisely the moment when congressional Republicans are desperate for budget savings to partially offset the costs of a regressive and fiscally irresponsible tax cut. Sadly, a close reading of The Wall Street Journal's editorial reveals that no such miracle is in the offing. Instead, the argument relies on a series of misunderstandings and non sequiturs to obscure the obvious fact that cutting Medicaid would make poor people sicker and more likely to die. [Jonathan Chait: The cynical Republican plan to cut Medicaid] The editorial begins by acknowledging a recent study's conclusion that Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act reduced mortality by 2.5 percent among low-income American adults. This would imply that taking Medicaid away from people would cause many of them to die. Not so fast, the editorial insists: 'The 2.5% difference in mortality for low-income adults between the expansion and non-expansion states wasn't statistically significant when disabled adults were included.' The implication is that the lifesaving effect of the Medicaid expansion disappears if you include disabled adults. In fact, Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago economist and a co-author of the study, told me that the reason the study excluded disabled adults is that they were already eligible for public health insurance before the expansion. The way to measure the effect of a change is to focus on the population that was treated to the change. So either the Wall Street Journal editorial board is misleading its audience intentionally or it does not understand statistics. (Decades of Journal editorials provide ample grounds for both explanations.) The editorial then suggests that Obamacare has not overcome other social factors that are causing people to die: 'What's clear is that the ObamaCare expansion hasn't reduced deaths among lower-income, able-bodied adults. U.S. life expectancy remains about the same as it was in 2014 owing largely to increased deaths among such adults from drug overdoses and chronic diseases.' This passage, like the previous one, is intended to sound like a claim that giving people access to medical care does not reduce their likelihood of suffering a premature death. But that is not really what it's saying. The editorial is merely noting that the drug epidemic and other factors worked against the effects of the Medicaid expansion. Presumably, if the government had started throwing people off their health insurance at the same time that the drug-overdose epidemic was surging, then life expectancy would have gotten even worse. The article goes on to explain that Medicaid reimburses doctors and hospitals at a lower rate than private insurance does. That is absolutely correct: In the United States, Medicaid is the cheapest existing way to give people access to medical care. The editorial laments that Medicaid recipients have worse outcomes than people on private insurance do. But the Republican plan isn't to put Medicaid recipients on private insurance, which would cost money. The plan is to take away even their extremely cheap insurance and leave them with nothing. (Well, not nothing: The editorial notes that the bill would double 'the health-savings account contribution limit to $17,100 from $8,550 for families earning up to $150,000.' For reference, in most states, a four-person household must earn less than $45,000 a year to be eligible for Medicaid.) Finally, the editorial asserts, 'The GOP bill is unlikely to cause many Americans to lose Medicaid coverage.' Here is where I would analyze the editorial's support for this remarkable claim, but there is none. The sentence just floats by itself in a sea of text that bears no relationship to it. Indeed, the editorial doesn't even attempt to explain why the official Congressional Budget Office estimate is dramatically wrong. Nor does it engage with the mountain of evidence showing that people who obtain Medicaid coverage tend, naturally enough, to be better off as a result. The near-universal belief that being able to see a doctor and buy medicine makes you healthier is the kind of presumption that would take extraordinary evidence to refute. The Wall Street Journal editorial offers none at all. Advocates of the House bill have cultivated an aura of condescension toward anybody who states its plain implications. But even the most detailed attempt to substantiate their position consists entirely of deflections and half-truths. If this is the best case that can be made for worrying about the GOP's plan for Medicaid, then Americans should be worried indeed. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump pushes for Jack Ciattarelli, saying New Jersey 'ready to pop out of blue horror show'
The Brief Trump implored voters in New Jersey's primary for governor to vote for Republican Jack Ciattarelli. "New Jersey is ready to pop out of that blue horror show," the president said. The president announced his endorsement of Ciattarelli last month. NEW JERSEY - President Donald Trump on Monday implored voters in New Jersey's primary for governor to support Republican Jack Ciattarelli when early in-person voting begins Tuesday and said the state was ready for a change after years of Democratic control. What they're saying The president, who has golf clubs around the state and frequently stays at his Bedminster property, announced his endorsement for Ciattarelli last month. On Monday, Trump held a telephone rally for the candidate, a former state lawmaker who transformed from a critic to vocal backer of the president. The phone call lasted about 10 minutes, with the president saying that voters will decide whether New Jersey remains a "high-tax, high-crime sanctuary state." "New Jersey is ready to pop out of that blue horror show and really get in there and vote for somebody that's going to make things happen," the president said. Dig deeper Trump's call for early voting echoed the pitch he made to voters in the 2024 presidential election. Ciattarelli said his first executive order if elected would be to end any sanctuary policies for immigrants in the country illegally. Currently, the state attorney general has directed local law enforcement not to assist federal agents in civil immigration matters. There is no legal definition for sanctuary city policies, but they generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers. Ciattarelli also said the attorney general he appoints if he wins won't be bringing lawsuits against the White House. New Jersey's current attorney general has pursued several high-profile challenges to the president's agenda, including a case challenging Trump's order calling for the end of birthright citizenship. Ciattarelli is running against former radio talk host Bill Spadea, state Sen. Jon Bramnick, former Englewood Cliffs Mayor Mario Kranjac and a southern New Jersey contractor named Justin Barbera. What's next Early in-person voting begins Tuesday and goes through Sunday. Primary day is June 10, though voters have been sending mail-in ballots in since late April. Though the primary isn't over, Ciattarelli hinted at what attacks against his eventual Democratic challenger in the general election might be, saying the party's eight years in the governorship and more than two decades of power in the legislature have been a failure. The Democratic field isn't set. There's a six-way contest between Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Mikie Sherrill; Mayors Ras Baraka of Newark and Steven Fulop of Jersey City; former state Senate President Steve Sweeney; and teacher's union president Sean Spiller. New Jersey tilts Democratic in presidential and Senate elections in particular, and the party has a roughly 800,000 voter registration advantage over Republicans. But independents make up a significant bloc as well, and voters have tended to alternate between Democratic and Republican administrations for governor. The Source Information from this article was provided by the Associated Press.
