Senate Republican bill would end $7,500 EV tax credit 180 days after approval
WASHINGTON, June 16 (Reuters) - Senate Republicans on Monday proposed a tax and budget bill that would end the $7,500 tax credit on new electric vehicles 180 days after the measure is signed into law, and it would end a $4,000 used-vehicle EV tax credit 90 days after the bill's approval.
The House of Representatives version would allow the $7,500 new-EV tax credit to continue through the end of 2025, and through the end of 2026 for automakers that have not yet sold 200,000 EVs. The Republican Senate Finance Committee bill would exempt interest paid on auto loans from taxes for new cars made in the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judge deems some of Trump's National Institutes of Health grant cuts illegal
Donald Trump's administration broke the law when it terminated more than $1 billion in medical research grants the president claimed were linked to "DEI", a federal court has ruled. In a blistering judgement issued on Monday, District Judge William Young — a Reagan appointee — said he had "never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable" in his 40 years as a jurist. He ordered the government to immediately reinstate numerous National Institutes of Health research grants canceled as part of Trump's war against any program perceived to favor people of color, transgender people, or other minorities. "You are bearing down on people of color because of their color," Young told the defendants. "The Constitution will not permit that... have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?' The lawsuit blocks a small portion of the 2,100 research grants that Trump has canceled — representing a total of about $9.5bn in funding — with other grants to be decided later. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH's parent agency, said it was "exploring all legal options" and might appeal the judgement. "HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,", the spokesperson said. Judge Young's ruling concerned two separate lawsuits that were heard together, one by a coalition of academic researchers and unions led by the American Public Health Association and one by a group of Democrat-led states. The scientists' lawsuit argued that NIH had violated its usual science-based review process, as well as federal regulations and specific orders from Congress to fund research into health disparities. The grants varied widely in topic, from cardiovascular health through alcohol abuse in minors to the differing impact of certain medications on different racial groups. The Trump administration has claimed that it is slashing "DEI" initiatives because they discriminate against other Americans by unfairly privileging minorities. In court, Trump's lawyers said that the NIH's grant cuts were "sufficiently reasoned" and that the agency has "broad discretion" to offer or rescind grants "in alignment with its priorities". But Judge Young held that although the Trump administration had a legal right to "extirpate affirmative action" if it saw fit, the grant cancelations had been "arbitrary and capricious" and broken government rules.
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
How Trump's pride and joy is set to cause 13,000 preventable deaths... are you at risk?
Health experts are sounding the alarm over the president's One Big Beautiful Bill, estimating the proposed cuts to government-funded health insurance could lead to the needless deaths of thousands. The bill, which is expected to be passed July 4, would slash Medicaid coverage, reimbursement and funding by $793 billion over 10 years, as well as implement restrictive requirements for benefits. This gutting of the federal insurance program is estimated to have big implications for the 71 million people enrolled in Medicaid. Now, an in-depth study led by Dr Adam Gaffney, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, concluded it could undermine the coverage, financial well-being, medical care, and health of low-income Americans, resulting in up to 12,600 medically preventable deaths annually. And an even higher mounting death toll would occur off the back of necessary healthcare services being reduced for vulnerable populations. This could include, for instance, those battling chronic conditions like heart disease, HIV, and cancer, who rely on regular, low-cost medication and treatment. Supporters of the bill say it will cut taxes, help boost the economy and increase take-home pay. But critics argue the bill primarily benefits the wealthy and could lead to increased national debt. The researchers warn: 'Today, despite its many shortcomings, Medicaid enjoys wide support from the electorate and serves as the foundation of the nation's health care safety net. 'The cuts under consideration, intended to offset the cost of tax cuts that would predominantly benefit wealthier Americans, would strip care from millions and likely lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths.' Researchers identified six potential Medicaid cuts that the House of Representatives ' Budget Committee estimates would each reduce the federal government's Medicaid outlays by at least $100billion over 10 years. They include reduction of the Medicaid matching floor; reduced funding of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid Expansion; Medicaid per capita caps; Medicaid work requirements; reduced Medicaid provider taxes; and repeal of the Biden-era Medicaid eligibility rule. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul, which expanded eligibility and created a national minimum income threshold. The team also assessed the overall effects of the current House bill, which includes three of the six options along with multiple smaller policy changes, such as shortening the duration of Medicaid's retroactive coverage and increasing cost-sharing for some Medicaid enrollees. The researchers project that individually, these six Medicaid cuts would lead to an annual increase of between 651 and 12,626 medically preventable deaths. These cuts would increase the number of uninsured Americans by between 600,000 and 3.9 million, and the annual number of people foregoing needed medical care will range from 129,060 to 838,890. It could lead to 1.9 million people losing their personal doctor, 1.3 million foregoing needed medications and 380,270 women going without a mammogram. The authors assert that policy makers should weigh the likely health and financial harms to patients and providers of reducing Medicaid expenditures against the desirability of tax reductions, which would benefit mostly wealthy Americans. Under the current proposal, childless adults without disabilities who want Medicaid coverage would have to prove that they had worked, volunteered or attended school for 80 hours in the month enrolling. But if you have a medically diagnosed illness or disability that prevents you from working, you may be exempt from Medicaid work requirements. This exemption falls under the category of being 'medically frail' or having 'special medical needs'. Many details of the bill have yet to be ironed out, leaving beneficiaries with a host of unknowns and causing worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them from the work requirements. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees also worry that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. A tracking poll conducted by health policy research firm Kaiser Fund Foundation in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum, including those who voted for Trump. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about seven in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. Republicans have suggested a work requirement similar to the conditions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - food stamps. Those ages 16 to 59 must work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month if they are not in school, caring for a child under age six, disabled, pregnant or homeless. Republicans say, however, the requirement could motivate people to find employment — maybe even a job that comes with health insurance. Other cuts on the table include a proposal to change TO the federal government's reimbursement, which would shift the costs to states, forcing them to make tough choices about who or what they cover. Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown Center for Children and Families, SAID: 'People still have health care needs even if you cut their coverage. Their health care needs are not going to go away.'
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon flashes ominous warning about economic doom
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has issued yet another ominous warning for the US economy. Dimon, considered one of America's most influential Wall Street figures, has been sounding the alarm for months on the chances of a recession and a possible return of stagflation. Now the bank leader has warned that recent upbeat economic news could be hiding a much more sinister state of affairs. 'You're going to see real numbers, and I think there's a chance real numbers will deteriorate soon,' Dimon told the the Morgan Stanley US Financial Conference in New York on Wednesday. Dimon believes the full effects of Trump's aggressive tariff policies have yet to be felt in the larger economy. He warned that a recent jobs report that showed hiring had slowed less than expected and an inflation report that showed inflation cooling does not mean the economy is not headed for a downturn. 'You haven't seen an effect yet other than in the sentiment,' Dimon said. 'And maybe in July, August, September, October, you'll start to see, did it have an effect? My guess is it did, hopefully not dramatic.' Consumer sentiment and the stock market have rebounded since the initial shock of Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs. However, Dimon warned not to put too much stock in such measures, as neither 'consumer sentiment nor businesses' determine the key 'inflection points' of an economic downturn. What really matters is hard economic data such as job and inflation reports, he said. 'Employment will come down a little bit. Inflation will go up a little bit. 'Hopefully, it's just a little bit,' he added. The latest inflation report revealed that prices rose less than expected last month. Prices rose 2.4 percent in May compared to the same time last year. Although it is a slight increase on the month before, when prices rose 2.3 percent year-on-year, the increase of 0.1 percent suggests inflation is actually slowing as it is a smaller jump than previous months. An economic downturn could see even more stores close across the US Dimon added that although tariffs will disrupt the economy, they won't make the 'ship go down.' Dimon has previously warned that the US economy could head in to a period of stagflation, where prices rise but economic growth slows leading to higher unemployment. 'There's a chance that (we'll) have stagflation (in the US),' Dimon said last month. 'We have to be prepared for something like that,' he warned. The comments were later supported by research by JPMorgan that argued stagflation could hit the economy as early as this summer. Under Dimon's leadership JPMorgan has grown to be the world's biggest and most powerful bank with $4 trillion. Its prominent retail and investment arms makes it one of the most closely watched institutions on Wall Street. Dimon himself has amassed a personal net worth of around $2.5 billion. But he is not alone in issuing ominous forecasts about the US economy. The World Bank cut its forecast for US growth in 2025 from its January prediction of 2.3 percent down to 1.4 percent. Economists said 'a substantial rise in trade barriers' — referring to Trump's aggressive trade policies — were to blame for the downgrade. The new predictions suggest the US will grow half as fast as it did last year when it hit 2.8 percent.
