Cabinet should discuss implementation of guarantees: BJP
The BJP has demanded the Revanth Reddy Cabinet discuss the implementation of guarantees and promises made in the ruling Congress's manifesto in the Cabinet meeting scheduled to be held on Thursday.
Addressing a press conference at the party office, legislature party leader A. Maheshwar Reddy said it has been 18 months since the Congress government took charge but so far there has been no word on the promises made to farmers, youth, women and students like enhancing financial assistance and stipends.
He demanded the government to release money to the farmers under 'Rythu Bharosa', provide for the farm labour and tenant farmers as well as complete the pending ₹9,000 crore due under the loan waiver scheme. The government is not even implementing the PM Fasal Bhima Yojana which will fetch insurance to the farm produce.
Similarly, scores of students careers are under jeopardy due to the non-release of fee reimbursement scheme with the college managements refusing to part with the degree certificates, he said.
In another press meet, MLA P. Rakesh Reddy wanted the government to focus on the farmers' woes due to the early monsoon and issues in paddy procurement accusing it of concentrating more on the Miss World contest at the cost of other administrative actions.
Later at the airport, national leader Abhay Patil claimed that the Modi government has been liberal in sanctioning crores of funds for the State under various schemes and projects, hence it is not fair to criticise the party. Both the BRS regime and now the Congress are guilty of shoddy administration, he charged and advised the latter to pull up its socks for the sake of the welfare of people as well as development of the State.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
20 minutes ago
- The Print
Pak writing its own epitaph: Naqvi
New Delhi, Jun 7 (PTI) BJP leader and former Union minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said on Saturday that Pakistan is writing its own epitaph by offering a sanctuary to terrorists and asserted that it amounted to bleeding Islam. Talking to reporters while celebrating Eid ul-Azha, Naqvi said Pakistan has given a licence to 'barbarian beasts' to wound humanity and Islam and made terrorism and terrorists its 'national industry and national assets', according to a statement.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump's expanding use of emergency powers raises alarms among experts
Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's levelling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president, said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. The temptation is clear, said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Programme and an expert in emergency powers. What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit, Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action. The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces an unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. In analysing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Centre for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-September 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges, said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act. Trump, Yoo said, has just elevated it to another level. Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. We believe and we're right that we are in an emergency, Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies, Vance said. I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain. Vance continued, These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a path toward autocracy and suppression.
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
It's the Republicans, not Musk, who are serious about cutting spending
Elon Musk and House Republicans both promised to tackle federal spending. It turns out only one of them was serious, and it wasn't Musk. Musk, who broke with President Trump this week after labeling Republicans' reconciliation bill a 'disgusting abomination," might claim some authority. As leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, he was the public face of Trump's assault on government. Remember him feeding the U.S. Agency for International Development into the wood chipper? Encouraging civil servants to quit or be fired? The chain saw? Musk loves the theatrical: He helped scuttle an omnibus spending bill last year mainly because of its page length. The DOGE cuts thrilled Trump's base, horrified Democrats and traumatized civil servants. But theatrical didn't mean substantive. Fire every civil servant and cut foreign aid to zero and you save about $300 billion. The deficit last year was $1.8 trillion. DOGE claims to have cut spending by $175 billion. But The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and others found DOGE routinely overstated savings. Federal spending in the current fiscal year is actually up 9% from a year earlier. (Trump sent a slimmed-down budget to Congress last month that seeks to entrench some of DOGE's cuts.) The big money, as everyone except Musk and Trump seem to acknowledge, is in entitlements. Not fraud, waste and abuse, but checks correctly issued to eligible recipients. Such programs, including Social Security, health programs, food stamps and welfare, plus interest on the national debt, equal 73% of spending. Entitlements are infamously difficult to cut. Yet that's what House Republicans propose. Far from being full of 'crazy spending increases," as Musk claims, the bill would reduce spending over the coming decade by $1.3 trillion, relative to current law, and that would be predominantly from entitlements, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So why does the bill add to deficits? Because it reduces revenues even more, by $3.7 trillion, by extending tax cuts enacted in 2017, then adding a bunch more. If Musk is upset about this bill adding to the national debt, it's the tax cuts, not the spending, he should be attacking. Healthcare is the single biggest source of federal spending growth. Since 2000, federal health programs, mainly Medicare, Obamacare, and Medicaid, have grown from 3.1% of gross domestic product to 5.6%. Given the aging of the population and rising medical costs, that is expected to grow. For years, budget hawks have pleaded with Congress to address this. Give Republicans some credit: They have. Past cost-cutting often meant paying providers less, and providers would then change their behavior. It's why so few doctors accept Medicaid. This time, Republicans are going the less popular but potentially more durable route of giving less money to beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office estimates policy changes under Trump will mean 16 million fewer people will have health insurance. Is that good or bad? That depends on your politics. Democrats and progressives think it is cruel. Republicans, though, could point out that many of those people entered the U.S. illegally or gained benefits because of discretionary or temporary program changes. For example, nearly a third of that 16 million is because Republicans aren't renewing a temporary expansion of Obamacare subsidies passed by Democrats under Joe Biden, and the Trump administration is tightening up enrollment and eligibility verification. A further half reflects changes to Medicaid eligibility, such as penalizing states that cover certain immigrants, verifying eligibility more often, or ending a loophole through which states and insurers extract more dollars from Washington. Five million people would lose Medicaid because of work requirements on able-bodied adult recipients without dependents. This provision is arguably the harshest: Many of those people can't or won't work because of personal circumstances or age, or can't process the necessary paperwork. There's lots for budget hawks to hate about the Republican bill. It leaves debt on track to hit records. It doesn't touch the big drivers of spending—Social Security and Medicare. It shifts costs, such as for food stamps, to the states. It lards the tax code with breaks that reward Trump's base rather than help economic growth, and sunsets them in 2028 to artificially reduce the cost. It front loads the tax cuts and back loads the spending cuts. Nonetheless, the proposed legislation is superior to anything Musk has done in one crucial respect: It is legislation. The Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. DOGE and Trump have largely trampled on that principle, gutting foreign aid, research and countless other programs without authorization or input from the public or their representatives. Republicans in Congress mostly stood by and let this happen. With this bill, they're taking back control of the purse. Perhaps they could make that a habit. Write to Greg Ip at
