Schumer draws line in government funding fight
Why it matters: The Democratic leader holds significant leverage over an upcoming government shutdown fight, and is monitoring closely how GOP leaders handle the measure to claw back billions in government funding.
"This is beyond a bait-and-switch — it is a bait and poison-to-kill," Schumer said to Senate Democrats in a "dear colleague" letter Monday. "Senate Republicans must reject this partisan path and instead work with Democrats on a bipartisan appropriations process."
Trump's rescissions package would claw back money already appropriated by Congress for foreign aid, Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio.
Congress faces a government funding deadline at the end of September.
The big picture: The White House's rescissions package needs just a simple majority of votes to get through the Senate. But any measure to avoid a shutdown before October will need Democratic support.
That places significant leverage in the hands of Schumer and Senate Democrats, who want the rescissions package killed or, at least, heavily modified.
"Senate Republicans face a defining choice with consequences that will be felt far beyond the halls of power," Schumer said in the letter.
Between the lines: Schumer faced intense internal and external backlash earlier this year when he voted with Senate Republicans to avoid a government shutdown in March.
Schumer reasoned then that a government shutdown was more harmful than passing the GOP-authored short term government funding measure.
Lawmakers and activists alike said they wanted Schumer to fight harder against Republican rule of the government and saw the looming government shutdown as the Democrats' biggest — and probably only — leverage point in negotiations.
But other Senate Democrats at the time agreed with Schumer's decision to vote to fund the government, arguing privately it was the right move.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What a weaker dollar means for inflation
The US dollar ( has fallen this year, and that can have big implications for inflation. RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas talks about that connection and when the impact of tariffs may start to show in the US economy. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime. turning out to the dollar index, it's seen many swings we know amid economic uncertainty. Joe, you highlight what the moves in the currency mean for inflation? Walk us through that. All right. When you get a sustained 10% decline in the value of the dollar, typically, you should expect to see a 1/2 of 1% increase in inflation over the next 6 to 12 months. We clearly are at that point, even though we had a nice rebound. I think it was 3.3% for the month of July, strongest month for the greenback this year, but nevertheless, the policy mix out of the administration, all points towards a weaker dollar, and I think that's what we're going to get. Moreover, when you take a look at import prices, especially import prices ex petroleum, it tells the tale. We're going to see more inflation and a weaker dollar going forward. Does Trump want a strong dollar? I would think he does, and I think, well, I think like all politicians, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He doesn't want de-dollarization, clearly, but he wants a weaker dollar because A, it really tends to juice the tech sector, and B, it will provide relief to the beleaguered manufacturing sector that's been in an effective recession for the past couple of years. Is it too soon to say the kind of impact the softer dollars had during this earnings season, particularly what it's meant for the multinationals? It's way too early to jump on that bandwagon. I think we're really going to be talking in the fourth quarter earnings, and then next year. Moreover, a lot of those firms that he wants to help are actually having real problems with the tariff issue because, you know, 45% of everything we import goes into domestic manufacturing. So policies at a cross purposes, a good portion of the time this year, which is why that economy slowed to 1.2% growth in the first half of the year, and we think it's not going to do much better. Our forecast for this year is 1.1%. Can I ask you when we talk about these tariff policies? We've been talking about them all show. There's the near to intermediate impact, but how long do we have to wait to see what the long-term impact is? Meaning, do I have to wait till does it have to be August 2026, and Joe and Josh are back on set for me to really know, okay, it's really boosted manufacturing job. It's really opened up all these new markets for American business. It's really raised this much revenue. It's a little worse, actually. So as of midnight last night, on once we get to October 5th, we're going to have an effective 18.3% tariff. The real problem is we won't really understand what any of this means, not till October 5th, 2026, but more like October 5th, 2027. Why? Why do you say that, Joe? Because it takes so long to pass through the tariff costs. You know, there are four points along the chain. You've got your retail, you've got your consumers, you've got your importers, and you've got your exporters. At each point of the supply chain, you're going to see a bit of it absorbed, a bit of it eaten. When we went through this in 2018, for example, we didn't see the full price of the increase in the price of washing machines, dryers, and dishwashers caused by tariffs show up on consumers' balance sheets until about two years later. Turned out 90% of that cost was eaten entirely by consumers. So when we talk about whether where the cost falls falls on the value chain, and there was this big debate, maybe it's really the key debate inside the Fed. Tell me if I'm wrong, but this debate about whether the the the tariff induced inflation is one time or transitory persistent. Even if it's one time, it could go on for some time. Is that part of the point? Well, that's right, and that's why they've been counseling patients because you just don't know. Right now, for all of the noise, right? The tariff rate that's showing up, which is causing revenues to rise, right? And from the Trump administration's point of view, that's an absolutely good thing. It's about 8.85%. It's not 30, it's not 50, it's not 15. But as we get into mid-October, it'll be closer to 20 is my sense because we're still not done with Mexico, and we're still not done with China, and then USMCA has to be renegotiated next year. So this is going to be a variable target. It's going to be a moving target, but nevertheless, if you cause the average price of goods imported in the United States to rise by 18.3%, that's going to be eaten. And here's why we say that. There's a lot of talk that, well, foreign exporters are just eating the price. You know, they're going to engage in invoice pricing. If that was the case, import prices would be falling significantly. They're not. They're actually rising. So that's just not happening. So that means it's not the exporter, it's going to be the importer, the retail, or the consumer. Those points on the chain where those are going to be eaten. Joe, I can honestly say that given the news flow today, you were the perfect guy to be sitting in that chair. That's very kind of you to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much, Joe.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas is redrawing congressional map for GOP gains, House Republicans acknowledge
Texas legislators are redrawing the state's congressional map to advantage Republican candidates, GOP lawmakers said at a state House hearing Friday, setting aside a legal justification offered by the U.S. Department of Justice and making their political motivations explicit for the first time. 'Different from everyone else, I'm telling you, I'm not beating around the bush,' Rep. Todd Hunter, the Corpus Christi Republican carrying the bill, said about the goal of the map. 'We have five new districts, and these five new districts are based on political performance.' Texas Republicans launched the redistricting effort after pressure from President Donald Trump's political operatives, who demanded state leaders redraw the map to help Republicans maintain their slim House majority ahead of a potentially difficult midterm election. The House redistricting committee released its proposed redo of the map Wednesday. It slices up districts in the Houston, Austin and the Dallas areas, yielding five additional districts that would have voted for Trump by at least 10 percentage points in 2024. In 2024, Trump won 56.2% of votes in Texas. Under the current lines, Republicans hold 66% of Texas' 38 House seats. The new map aims to push that share to 79%. 'Political performance does not guarantee electoral success — that's up to the candidates,' Hunter said. 'But it does allow Republican candidates the opportunity to compete in these districts.' Gov. Greg Abbott, in adding redistricting to the special session agenda, cited a letter from the Justice Department claiming that four Texas districts were unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered. But on Friday, state Republicans were unequivocal that their goal was not to fix racial gerrymandering — which several have testified under oath does not exist in the current map — but to give the GOP the greatest chance of controlling as many as 30 congressional districts. 'These districts were drawn primarily using political performance,' Hunter said, citing Republican gains made across the state since the Legislature last redistricted in 2021, especially among Latino voters. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that states can draw electoral maps on partisan grounds. But under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the map cannot diminish the voting power of people of color. At Friday's hearing, Democrats argued that the proposed map unconstitutionally packed voters of color into some districts while spreading them throughout others to reduce their ability to elect their preferred candidates. 'Every citizen should have equal access to choose their representation, instead of crowding Black people to the point that all the Black people in the state only have two representatives, and all the Latinos in the state are crowded up to the extent that their voting power is diminished,' U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Dallas told state lawmakers during the hearing. Though people of color make up most of Texas and have driven almost all of the state's population growth in recent years, the new map creates 24 districts that are majority-white — two more than the current map, which is under trial for possibly violating the Voting Rights Act. Republicans rejected the idea that the proposed map would suppress voters of color, noting that it would create one new majority Hispanic district and two new majority Black districts. But all three are almost precisely 50% Black or Hispanic, which Democratic lawmakers said at the hearing is not enough to ensure they're able to elect their candidates of choice. U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey of Fort Worth, whose seat would be partially dismantled under the new lines, noted that his district was drawn by a federal court 'to ensure that communities of color, Black and brown Texans, could finally have a voice in Congress.' 'Now, that voice is again under threat,' he said. 'This is a map that was drawn behind closed doors — as we've heard here today — to dismantle representation and weaken our power in turn.' It could take months, if not years, to resolve any legal challenge against the proposed map. A lawsuit against Texas' current maps, passed in 2021, finally went to trial last month, almost four years and several election cycles after they went into effect. In the meantime, Republicans in the Legislature have the votes to pass the map as it's drafted. Chairman Cody Vasut, an Angleton Republican, said the committee, which has 12 Republicans and nine Democrats, will vote to advance the map Friday evening or Saturday. It could be on the House floor as soon as Tuesday, he said. Democrats, locked out of power in the statehouse, have few tools at their disposal to fight the map's passage. The nuclear option is to flee the state and deny Republicans a quorum to pass any legislation — an expensive and politically tenuous move that state House Democrats were still considering ahead of the full chamber vote. At Friday's hearing, the only time the public would have to comment on the House's proposed map, Democrats begged Republicans to slow or stop redistricting entirely. 'This is not a Texas map. It is a Trump map,' said U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, an Austin Democrat. 'It was imposed by President Trump, who has a stranglehold on Congress, and the only question here is whether he also has a stranglehold on this Texas Legislature.' The lineup for The Texas Tribune Festival continues to grow! Be there when all-star leaders, innovators and newsmakers take the stage in downtown Austin, Nov. 13–15. The newest additions include comedian, actor and writer John Mulaney; Dallas mayor Eric Johnson; U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota; New York Media Editor-at-Large Kara Swisher; and U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso. Get your tickets today! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
Ernst highlights a major problem: Cost overruns are no big thing in Washington
Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell should be thanking Sen. Joni Ernst: The cost overruns her team dug up on mismanaged government projects make the Fed's renovation overspending look almost modest. On Wednesday, Ernst's office released a report detailing nearly $163 billion in overruns on more than a dozen infrastructure projects, urging Congress to claw back $13 billion in allocated funds. The biggest money-sucker is California's high-speed rail boondoggle, which was supposed to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles by 2020 on a $33 billion budget when it first passed back in 2008. Advertisement On Wednesday, Rep. Joni Ernst's office released a report detailing almost $163 billion in cost overruns on more than a dozen infrastructure projects, urging the federal government to claw back $13 billion in allocated funds. AP The end is far out of sight after years of delays thanks to absurdly optimistic planning, bad decisions and red tape: The very first track was only laid this past January; the latest projections have it costing $128 billion with completion more than a decade late. In the highly unlikely event it gets finished at all. The Trump administration rightly nixed $4 billion set aside for Cali's 'train to nowhere'; not another red cent of taxpayer dough should be flushed down that black hole. Advertisement Another major cash waste is the Department of Veterans Affairs' effort to transition to an electronic health record system, now running a cool $33.7 billion over budget. And Ernst lists plenty of smaller financial fiascos that prove overruns are the norm when it comes to government work. That includes an attempt to resurrect the LIRR's Rockaway Beach line, the tab for which has ballooned to $1.4 billion — more than three times the $400 million it was supposed to cost. Advertisement Meanwhile, the Camden Direct Connection Project in New Jersey, meant to reduce traffic and improve highway conditions, has ballooned from an $873 million job finishing in 2021, to (so far) $1.2 billion in work that won't finish 'til 2032. Fact is, most of these projects were boondoggles from the start — half-baked ideas that never should've gotten started. Advertisement No wonder the Fed's Powell shrugged off the extra $600 million for a $2.5 billion headquarters revamp when testifying to the Senate Banking Committee. Good on Ernst for drawing attention to this dysfunction: The first step is admitting you have a problem. But nothing will change unless Congress stops allocating federal funds for pipe-dream projects that suck up public cash for years with nothing to show for it.
