Nine Senate Democrats pull support for stablecoin bill, putting future in doubt: CNBC Crypto World
On today's episode of CNBC Crypto World, bitcoin falls to start the week. And, a group of Senate Democrats say they would now oppose the chamber's GENIUS Act stablecoin regulation bill in its current form, even though some of them previously backed the legislation. Plus, Hadley Stern, chief commercial officer at Marinade, weighs in on the potential timeline for stablecoin legislation in the U.S. following that hiccup.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Trump Signs Ban on California EV Rules, Sparking Nationwide Reactions
President Trump has signed congressional resolutions overturning California's ability to mandate electric vehicle (EV) sales and establish its tailpipe and emissions standards via a federal waiver. Trump's resolutions immediately halt California's 2035 ban on new gas-powered car sales-a plan adopted by 11 states and Washington, D.C. In total, 17 other states representing 30% of the U.S. auto market have adopted some or all of California's stricter vehicle emissions standards. California also won't be able to enforce an increase in zero-emission heavy-duty truck sales and a low-nitrogen oxide regulation for heavy-duty highway and off-road vehicles/engines. "Today we're saving California, and we're saving our entire country from a disaster," Trump said, according to The Hill. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, announced last month that his state would go to court to protect its federal waiver allowing its own clean air rules, claiming it exists outside of the Congressional Review Act's scope, which repealed the waiver. Now, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington are among the states joining California's legal battle. In March, the Government Accountability Office said California's waivers can't be repealed under the Congressional Review Act, and the Senate parliamentarian had advised not moving forward with the act, making the Senate's decision to go against the parliamentarian extremely rare. Former President Biden's waiver allowed 80% of the new vehicles that California sells to be all-electric by 2035, with the rest being advanced plug-in hybrids. The mandate's ramp-up period included 35% of new 2026 model cars sold in the state being zero-emission, increasing to 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. California Governor Gavin Newsom ordered the Air Resources Board to craft another mandate for cars and trucks to either support its existing mandates or replace them in the case of a court loss. Newsom also instructed the board to create a public list of automakers and truck manufacturers following California's emissions rules and companies acting early to convert fleets to zero-emission trucks, "regardless of the status of those regulations under federal law," Cal Matters reports. While Trump's signings generated backlash, The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Stellantis, and other automakers, supported the president's decision, describing California's previous mandate as unachievable and something that would raise car prices. EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said, "This is nothing more than California throwing a temper tantrum because the American people don't want the state's terrible policies," according to Reuters. More than a quarter of California's new car sales are EVs, with New Jersey and New York following at 15% and 12%, respectively, The Alliance for Automotive Innovation reports. Meeting California's EV mandates would've been challenging for automakers. Still, Congress's decision to block the state from setting its emissions standards sets off a domino effect that could significantly slow EV development throughout the country. Michael Gerrard, the founder of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said: "The chief winners of this move are the oil industry and China. Electric vehicles are the main threat to the demand for oil, and this move further cements China as the global leader in producing electric vehicles," according to NBC. A decrease in EV adoption resulting from Congress's repeal could also pose health risks, as California stated its EV sales mandate would prevent around 1,300 cardiopulmonary deaths between 2026 and 2040. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal Social Security needs some major changes, but they aren't in the new tax bill. Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. Social Security is one of the biggest issues politicians in Washington must address in the next few years. Many retirees are feeling the pressure on their budgets due to rising inflation, despite automated cost-of-living adjustments for their monthly benefits. Meanwhile, the Social Security trust fund is in danger of depletion by early next decade if Congress fails to make any reforms to the program. Not only will that impact the amount future retirees will receive, but it'll cut benefits for the tens of millions of people relying on retirement benefits right now. President Donald Trump made several promises to voters about Social Security during his 2024 campaign. He said the government won't cut benefits, and it won't raise the retirement age for new beneficiaries (which is just another form of cuts). His biggest promise of all, though, aimed to help stretch each dollar of Social Security further for retirees. Trump proposed doing away with taxes on Social Security benefits. Not only are taxes on Social Security income complicated, they can significantly reduce the value of each retiree's monthly checks. But in the version of the new tax bill the House of Representatives just passed last month, there's no tax cut on Social Security benefits at all. While many retirees may find that disappointing, the truth is that they may be better off without it. How the government taxes Social Security As mentioned, taxes on Social Security income can be quite complex. The government uses a metric called combined income to determine what percentage (if any) of your Social Security benefits count as taxable income. Combined income is equal to half your Social Security income, plus your adjusted gross income, plus any untaxed interest income. If your combined income exceeds certain thresholds, you'll have to pay taxes on up to 85% of your Social Security benefits. Here's how it breaks down. As you can see, the thresholds are extremely low. That's because they haven't been updated for inflation since they went into effect over 30 years ago. Nonetheless, Social Security benefits have gotten annual adjustments to the point where the average retiree collects about $2,000 per month from Social Security. As such, more and more retirees are facing a tax bill on their Social Security income each year. Eliminating that tax sounds like a great relief for many seniors, but the policy could actually harm lower-income retirees the most over the long run, while leaving very few Americans better off. The unfortunate truth about Social Security's future As mentioned, Social Security is facing a significant shortfall if Congress fails to reform the program. Demographic shifts and extending life expectancies have led to higher cumulative benefits payouts without the requisite income to support those payments. The latest Trustees Report estimates the Social Security trust fund for retirement benefits will drop to $0 by 2033. At that point, the incoming funds will only support about 79% of benefits due. There are three components of how the Social Security trust fund generates revenue to support benefits payments. First is the tax on wages that's usually split between employers and employees. Every dollar of wages in America (up to $176,100 per person in 2025) incurs a 12.4% tax that goes directly to Social Security. That brought in $1.1 trillion last year. The second source of income comes from investing the funds held in the trust in government bonds. Net interest income totaled almost $64 billion last year. The third source of income is taxation on benefits themselves. In other words, Trump's plan to get rid of the tax on Social Security benefits will accelerate the depletion of the Social Security trust fund. And while those taxes generated just $54 billion last year, they're a growing source of revenue, and the impact is very noticeable. It could accelerate the trust fund depletion by over a year and require a 25% cut in benefits (instead of 21%), according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Eliminating taxes on Social Security will harm everyone in the long run, but the policy will only benefit a small percentage of Americans in the near term. Low-income households pay very little taxes on Social Security income. The bottom 40% of households by income receiving benefits pay an average of less than 1% in taxes on their benefits. Even high-income households don't face significant tax burdens. The top quintile of retirees, those with more than $205,800 in household income, pay just 20% in taxes on Social Security benefits, on average. Here's what the "One Big Beautiful Bill" offers instead Instead of cutting taxes on Social Security benefits, Americans age 65 and older will get an additional $4,000 tax deduction as long as their income remains below certain thresholds. That could give seniors some relief without as much negative impact on Social Security in the long run. As a result, most seniors will be better off under the current plan than if Trump got his way and fully eliminated taxes on Social Security. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Dems 'deliberately obfuscating' truth about 'big, beautiful bill' with this claim: Watchdog
After House Republicans passed reconciliation language banning taxpayer funds from paying for sex change treatments, Democrats began using language to drum up opposition that conservative watchdog group the American Principles Project says is meant "to confuse people and make it sound like we're trying to ban normal healthcare, medically necessary healthcare." The House-passed version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes provisions that prohibit federal Medicaid and Affordable Care Act funding from being spent on "gender transition procedures for any age" in all 50 states. In response, Democrats and left-wing groups have begun claiming the GOP's spending package seeks to eliminate "medically-necessary care." However, according to APP President Terry Schilling, "it's a lie" and an effort to combat the prevailing notion among Americans that taxpayer funds should not be paying for transgender procedures. "They're deliberately obfuscating here, and it's because they don't have any good arguments," Schilling told Fox News Digital. "We shouldn't be paying for any cosmetic sex change procedures with our tax dollars, and that's what we're cutting here. "But they're introducing and now ramping up these highly weaponized and high-powered words to confuse people and make it sound like we're trying to ban normal healthcare, medically necessary healthcare." After Republicans in the House of Representatives passed their version of the GOP spending package last month, the Congressional Equality Caucus complained that "Congress should be working to make healthcare more affordable – not banning coverage of medically necessary care." "House Republicans changed a previous anti-trans provision so it now cuts off federal Medicaid and Affordable Care Act funding for medically-necessary care for ALL transgender people — no matter their age," a press release from the pro-trans Human Rights Campaign said after the House passed its spending bill. According to APP's Schilling, arguments that Republicans are taking away "medically necessary" healthcare from anyone are "just not true." To make his point, APP's Schilling pointed to one of the left's frequent sources for transgender medical recommendations, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Schilling pointed out that WPATH's guidelines and standards explicitly state there is no "one-size-fits-all approach" to treating individuals with gender dysphoria. "These are not medically necessary [treatments]. It's a lie. These are cosmetic," Schilling argued. "If you look at WPATH, even according to their own standards, transgender-identifying people don't actually have to medically transition. They say there's no one size fits all. Well, I'm sorry, but medically necessary means you need it in order to survive. You need it for your health. And they're saying in their own writings that it's not medically necessary, that it's not a one-size-fits-all." Schilling added that they're "arguing out of both sides of their mouth." "We're calling out the transgender industry, and we're trying to stop them from confusing even more people as we pass a very, very good and important bill," he said. In a statement to Fox News Digital, the Human Rights Campaign argued "gender-affirming care" is considered "best practice" and "evidence-based" by every major medical association in the country, noting that studies have shown it significantly improves mental health outcomes for transgender youth. "Healthcare decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors — not the American Principles Project," HRC said. Schilling said he has run numerous polls and focus groups about whether Americans agree with taxpayer funds supporting individuals' gender transitions, and he told Fox News Digital that the overwhelming sentiment from people across the political spectrum is that they should not. "Here's where Americans are at," Schilling said. "They want to ban the procedures for anyone under 18. And, anyone over 18, they want you to pay for it yourself. That's where they're at, and that's where [APP is] at, and that's where Donald Trump is at. That's where Republicans in the House and Senate are at." The Congressional Equality Caucus did not respond to requests for comment on this article.
