Colombia Suspends Fiscal Rule That Curbed Government Deficits
Colombia will activate the so-called escape clause that suspends its fiscal rule, Finance Minister German Avila told reporters in Bogota.
The rule was introduced by a law in 2011 and limited the government's ability to run up debt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Why Trump's Birthday Parade Risks Being a Dark Turning Point
One of the fundamental differences between democracies and dictatorships is how the military is viewed. In democracies, the armed forces are an instrument of national defense, serving the people. But in authoritarian states, the military becomes a weapon the government wields against its own citizens. This week, for the first time in our history, Americans are asking whether we have crossed a dangerous line in that regard. It is the right question to ask. As deeply disturbing and offensive as has been the deployment of troops in response to relatively small, largely peaceful protests in Los Angeles, it is very likely only the beginning. For years, since he was first elected as President, Donald Trump has sought the ability to use the United States military as a blunt instrument against those he perceives to be his domestic opponents. While I was writing my book, 'American Resistance,' former senior officials in his administration reported to me his deep frustration and visible anger whenever he was presented with constraints on his power. He wanted the military and its civilian leaders to do what he said. And virtually all of them warned that, if Trump were to be re-elected, his goal would be to sweep away such constraints. Many expressed deep concern that the result would be him becoming the authoritarian he clearly longed to be. Today, many of those former officials see their warnings being realized. In fact, when I speak to them today, as I regularly do, they are among those who are most disturbed by what is happening. This week, on the 'Words Matter' podcast that I host with political expert Norm Ornstein, our guest was one of those former officials, Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security during Trump's first term. Taylor, perhaps best known as the author of the 'Anonymous' op-ed in the New York Times that first expressed concerns from within Trump's orbit, was blunt in his warning. He said he believes that too many in the media are understating the dangers of Trump's incipient authoritarianism. Taylor made reference to how those closest to Trump, like current Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, have carefully studied those instances when the law gives U.S. presidents emergency powers—and how they can be exploited. Through Project 2025 and their own planning, they have sought to construct an administration where as many of the personnel and institutional guardrails limiting what a president can do would be removed. Since the inauguration this past January, we have seen plenty of evidence of these efforts. The team around Trump was picked based not on qualifications or experience but rather on the basis of whether they would do exactly as Trump has said. You saw that manifested in the swiftness with which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth deployed Marines to Los Angeles; to the degree to which Trump's immigration team—Miller, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and 'border czar' Tom Homan—have sought to use assertions of 'national emergency' or 'invasion' to justify sidestepping the rule of law in their efforts to round up 'illegal' immigrants. Indeed, in case after case, Trump and his team of enablers have sought to use the language of crisis (see the president's social media posts about 'insurrectionists' in LA and his wild lies about the extent of the damage they were doing) precisely because it provides a legal justification for him seizing additional powers and removing constraints on the use of that power. While Trump has avoided invoking 'the Insurrection Act' or declaring martial law thus far, with each week of this administration he has moved further in that direction. And this week, with the actions in Los Angeles, he took a particularly ominous stride down that path. Even if they over-reach and the courts serve as a check on their plans—which they still sometimes do despite the efforts of the Supreme Court to help transform Trump into our first monarch since George III—Trump and his team know that legal battles take a long time and often afford them the chance in the interim to bully, cancel, intimidate, arrest, deport and otherwise seek to strip away the fundamental rights and protections hitherto enjoyed by the residents of this country. They might not win every case, but the impact they have while the wheels of justice are grinding as slowly as they often do can boost the president's effective power and advance his agenda. Trump's role models are clear. His contempt for our laws is a matter of record. He and his team have been preparing for years to make his second term different from any presidency in U.S. history. He is unchallenged within his administration, by Congress or, much of the time, by the majority on our highest court. He has—through that court's immunity decision—power unlike any chief executive in our history. He also burns with the desire to impose his will both on behalf of his family and friends but also against those he perceives as his opponents. (Taylor, for example, has been accused of nothing less than 'treason' simply for expressing his views. He is not alone.) For these reasons, for those who know or who have studied Trump, the events of this week are so profoundly chilling. Whether it is boots on the ground in Los Angeles or the polished boots that will be marching a four-mile parade route through our nation's capital this weekend, we now have a president who sees the military as an extension of his own personal power—his most lavish and ostentatious acquisition yet. The unnecessary display of force in California and the D.C. parade alone are expected to cost in the neighborhood of $200 million. The juxtaposition of his turning the unparalleled resources of the world's most powerful armed forces against its own people and then presiding on his birthday over a Soviet-style show of might seems deeply intentional. As a consequence of the agenda Trump has been implementing since he re-took office, many big questions will loom over the parade in dark counterpoint to the celebratory fly-bys of military aircraft. Will we or our children ever look at a parade in the same way again? Will the salutes and fanfare be for the troops or for a would-be American dictator? And will we see the events of this past week, as do many of those who know Trump best, as a dark turning point in our history, a foreshadowing of the undoing of all that America's soldiers have fought and died for during the past 250 years?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘We don't want to go back to court', says women's group over gender ruling delay
The group responsible for the landmark ruling on the definition of a woman said it may have to take the Scottish Government back to court if it does not speed up its implementation of the decision. For Women Scotland (FWS) challenged the meaning of a woman in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act, with the UK's highest court ruling the definition in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for transgender people in accessing services, but the Scottish Government has declined to make changes to guidance until the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issues its own guidance, which is expected to take place in the coming months. But speaking at a fringe event at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh, FWS co-director Susan Smith said the group was considering a further legal challenge against the Government. Speaking to journalists after the event, she said: 'We have spoken to the Scottish Government and asked them to withdraw some of this guidance, just to say that it's under review – they don't have to re-issue anything at this point – because it's clearly unlawful, we really do need some action. 'They're telling us they have to wait for the EHRC revised guidance and we don't believe this is true.' Ms Smith added that, if a woman were to be assaulted in prison by a transgender prisoner, the Government could be taken to court by the victim. 'I think they need to step up and take a bit of responsibility because these things are under their remit,' she said. She added: 'We don't want to go back to court, we really, really don't, but if we don't see some action that may be something we will have to consider.' Ms Smith said the group is speaking with its lawyers but she would not say if there was a timeline for action to begin. The co-director stressed that if ministers were concerned about a challenge to their guidance from the pro-trans rights side of the argument, they should be worried about one from FWS and other such groups too. 'They seem worried about a legal challenge from the other side,' she said. 'But my message to them would be they should be more worried about a legal challenge from the people who have the law on their side.' Ms Smith was joined at the fringe meeting – which was hosted by Tory MSP Pam Gosal – by former foreign secretary James Cleverly. Mr Cleverly was part of the Conservative-led government which blocked the Scottish Government's controversial gender reforms. The Government proposed removing the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria as a requirement for obtaining a gender recognition certificate – a process known as self identification. The move was scuppered by then-Scottish secretary Alister Jack, who used Section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the legislation. Mr Cleverly told attendees the move showed the 'importance of the union'. 'This issue was clearly spiralling out of control, badly out of control,' he said.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government plan to keep Pip payouts for 13 weeks ‘not very much', says MP
A Labour MP has described the Government's plans to avert a rebellion on welfare cuts as 'not very much really'. Dr Simon Opher, a GP and the MP for Stroud, told the BBC he is 'going to rebel' in a vote and 'a number of colleagues are in the same situation'. The 'non-negotiable' protections that Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall is to include in the Welfare Reform Bill are understood to include a guarantee that those who no longer qualify for personal independence payments (Pip) will still receive the payments for 13 weeks. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday, Dr Opher said: 'It's a slight delay in the disability cuts – it's 13 weeks rather than four weeks – so it's something, but not very much really. 'And it doesn't change the basic fact that they're… planning to cut disability payment to quite a lot of people really. 'So not terribly impressed, but it's something at least.' The Government has faced a backlash from its own MPs over the package of measures, aimed at reducing the number of working age people on sickness benefits. Dozens of Labour MPs last month urged the Prime Minister to pause and reassess planned cuts, saying the proposals were 'impossible to support'. Asked whether he would rebel if the measures came to a vote in the Commons, Dr Opher told the programme: 'I am going to rebel. 'And this comes hard to me, I've never actually voted against the Government and I know a number of colleagues in the same situation. 'So I just urge the Government really to just consider parts of this again.' A Green Paper laid out proposals for a 'transitional protection for those who are no longer eligible for Pip', but the Government's plans revealed this week clarify the 13-week length. Ms Kendall told The Guardian earlier this week: 'When we set out our reforms we promised to protect those most in need, particularly those who can never work. 'I know from my 15 years as a constituency MP how important this is. It is something I take seriously and will never compromise on. 'That is why we are putting additional protections on the face of the Bill to support the most vulnerable and help people affected by the changes. 'These protections will be written into law, a clear sign they are non-negotiable.' A Government impact assessment published alongside the reforms warned that 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, across England, Scotland and Wales could fall into relative poverty after housing costs as a result of the changes.
