logo
NJ Democratic governor candidates want to fight Trump and tackle affordability

NJ Democratic governor candidates want to fight Trump and tackle affordability

Yahoo3 days ago

New Jersey voters in both parties have begun to vote to select their nominees for governor in the June 10 primary election.
This spring, the USA TODAY Network New Jersey Editorial Board convened conversations with nearly all of the major candidates. We talked broadly about their campaigns, their agendas if nominated and elected and about the impact of the administration of President Donald Trump.
Here are thoughts and impressions about candidates in the Democratic field, presented alphabetically:
Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark, 54, has spent a decade leading the Garden State's largest city and has been credited for taking innovative approaches to solving Newark's financial challenges while also working to fuel the city's ongoing renaissance.
In framing his candidacy with the USA TODAY Network New Jersey Editorial Board, Baraka, just days after he was detained by federal Homeland Security agents outside Delaney Hall detention center, positioned himself as a leader who could bring new relevancy to his party. Baraka said he would re-center the New Jersey Democratic Party as the champion of working people — something he said his party had squandered in its more recent embrace of elites.
'We forgot how to fight,' Baraka said of his party.
Baraka talked at length about his capacity to challenge the Trump administration, particularly on immigration. (The trespassing charge he was held on has since been dropped.) He also said he would continue to champion diversity, equity and inclusion policies if he clinches his party's nomination and the governorship.
Baraka also believes his candidacy is informed by his experience as a mayor. He talked at length about the state's need to get its fiscal house in better order by seeking to raise revenues by increasing income taxes on the state's wealthy. Baraka also talked about the need to reconsider school funding formulas and said he would seek to consolidate small school districts.
The 47-year-old mayor of Jersey City, who has held that office since 2013, declared his candidacy for governor in 2023.
From the start, Fulop has framed his run as a maverick effort. He has eschewed support from establishment Democrats, including county organizations and has said he has been buoyed by the elimination of the county line ballot design, which had traditionally favored candidates favored by the Democratic machine. In turn, he has been supporting his own slates of candidates seeking seats in the New Jersey Assembly this fall.
In conversations with the USA TODAY Network Editorial Board this spring, Fulop made the case that his experience as a mayor will suit him well as the Garden State's chief executive. Fulop was direct about his focus on fixing NJ Transit's funding and infrastructure woes. He was also unequivocal about his willingness to take on the Trump administration.
'I'm looking forward to fixing NJ Transit once and for all and being bold on that,' Fulop said. 'I think that's there's a lot of things we can do in a Trump era to send a message to the country that New Jersey has a different set of priorities.'
Fulop, who says he has more than 15,000 volunteers supporting his campaign across New Jersey, seems eager to continue to reshape the New Jersey Democratic Party. That said, he also pledged continuity and said he would invite New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin to continue his service in a Fulop administration.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer, the Tenafly Democrat who has served in Congress since 2016, has made a name for himself as a moderate who works across the aisle to pursue progress on various legislative priorities. He also presents a moderate choice for Democratic voters — with a vision for a term as governor that focuses on lowering taxes.
Gottheimer, who has co-chaired the bipartisan Problem Solvers' Caucus, has been a champion of restoring the SALT deduction. He has also sounded the alarm about the growing affordability crisis in New Jersey and points to an ambitious plan to reduce taxes as the centerpiece of his gubernatorial campaign platform. Gottheimer has said New Jersey voters he has spoken with on the campaign trail — often in diners, as he has noted — are anxious and concerned about costs. Rising utility costs and potential economic disruption caused by Trump policy are just the latest drivers of that anxiety, he said.
'How do we get taxes down? How do we get costs down? How do we get life more affordable?' Gottheimer asked in framing his agenda in a recent conversation with the USA TODAY Network Editorial Board.
Gottheimer says his tax plan deals with structural benefits and New Jersey's pension obligations. It would work to fuel economic growth in New Jersey, he said. Gottheimer is focused on growing New Jersey's business sector and adding jobs. Lower taxes, he said, will work to stem ongoing out-migration as New Jersey residents flee the Garden State. Gottheimer is also committed to creating a position in the gubernatorial administration that focuses on bringing federal dollars back to New Jersey.
Gottheimer, 49, has also positioned himself as a defender of New Jersey values as the Trump agenda unfolds, noting that he continues to hear from voters that the president's new term is only adding to their broad anxieties about the nation's direction and its economy.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill, the Democrat from Montclair who has represented the Morris County-centric 11th Congressional District since she was first elected to Congress in the blue wave of 2018, presents New Jersey Democratic voters with a centrist agenda focused on affordability and managing the state's affairs with minimal disruption from the Trump administration.
Sherrill has strongly advocated for the restoration of the SALT deduction, and has been a champion for reproductive, women's and LGBTQ rights. She has framed her campaign for governor around her commitment to affordability, and to protecting New Jersey values in the face of an ambitious Trump administration agenda that could level drastic cuts to federal programs — like Medicaid — in the Garden State.
In conversations with the USA TODAY Network New Jersey editorial board this spring, Sherrill talked at length about the urgent need to solve a vexing housing crisis that is fueled by soaring prices and rents. She also said she would work to stimulate repurposing of existing infrastructure — like vacant office buildings — for reuse as housing. And she pledged to break apart what she characterized as a complex and sometimes thorny regulatory environment that she said stymies housing development in New Jersey. Sherrill also spoke at some length about the Garden State's looming energy crisis — utility rates are set to increase next month — and did not rule out expanding the state's nuclear energy generation capacity.
Sherrill, 52, also pledged to assemble like-minded Democratic governors who oppose parts of the Trump agenda and said she would work to build coalitions of resistance and would continue to push back on administrative actions through ongoing lawsuits.
When asked what she was hearing from voters on the campaign trail, Sherrill focused specifically on the Trump agenda and affordability.
'I'm hearing largely two things,' Sherrill said. 'One is 'What's coming from Washington is like nothing I've ever seen. I'm very scared,' and two is. 'I'm not sure how much longer I'm going to be able to afford to live here.''
Sean Spiller, 49, a former mayor of Montclair who is president of the New Jersey Education Association, has framed his candidacy around delivering greater affordability to New Jersey by addressing housing costs, health care access, education access and energy affordability.
Putting his focus on affordability into specific terms, Spiller has said he would pursue a reconfiguration of New Jersey's state income tax brackets with a focus on extracting more revenue from the Garden State's wealthiest residents.
In addition, Spiller, the son of immigrants, told the USA TODAY New Jersey Editorial Board that he would actively resist aspects of the Trump agenda, including the push to deport undocumented migrants.
'People are fearful in many ways,' Spiller said, citing the uncertainties presented by the Trump agenda. 'People want to know, 'Hey, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to help?''
Spiller, a teacher, has the full backing of the powerful NJEA, which has pumped millions into his campaign. That support may have strings attached should Spiller run a successful campaign. He has advocated for 'pension justice' and has said he would reconfigure pension benefits for New Jersey's public-school educators.
Steve Sweeney, the former Senate President who presided over the upper chamber in Trenton on the watches of former Gov. Chris Christie and Gov. Phil Murphy, is attempting to stage a comeback in his run for governor. Sweeney, who lost reelection in 2021 at the hands of former state Sen. Ed Durr, has framed his candidacy for governor around his considerable experience in Trenton.
A former ironworker who served in the state Senate for 20 years with support from the powerful South Jersey Democratic Party machine, Sweeney, 65, makes the case that his years of experience helping to lead the Legislature sets him apart.
'I know where the lights in the bathroom are,' he quipped to the USA TODAY Network New Jersey editorial board.
Among Sweeney's top priorities — beyond addressing affordability and defending New Jersey from aspects of the Trump agenda — would be an effort to reconsider the state budget process in Trenton, which he said needs to be considered from a multi-year perspective. Such an effort would help state departments plan more efficiently and, in turn, save taxpayers money, Sweeney argued.
Further, Sweeney believes property taxes can be better stabilized if smaller New Jersey school districts were incentivized to merge.
Sweeney, who said he supports due process for all, nonetheless said he would not support New Jersey's Immigrant Trust Directive, which has limited interactions between state and local law enforcement and federal entities like ICE, since 2018.
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: NJ governor race: Democratic governor candidates want to fight Trump

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat

Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October "60 Minutes" interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. "I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner," state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. "We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats." Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the "60 Minutes" interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. "This is a really important case," said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. "Legislators are starting to raise alarms." Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. "We would have to have a lot more facts," Cummings said. "Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking." Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the "60 Minutes" edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. "It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act," the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. "If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law." Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay "a lot" of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. "You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector," Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a "60 Minutes" interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show "Face the Nation" used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, "60 Minutes" aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered "mental anguish" as a result of the interview. Read more: '60 Minutes,' the Associated Press, an Iowa newspaper: Trump's attacks on the media reach new heights CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team "essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns," Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS "60 Minutes" lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is "because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous," said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. "This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown," Stern said. Read more: Paramount adds three new board members amid Trump troubles and FCC review Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. "The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit," Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. "If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests." UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could "legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities," Cummings said. "He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' " "Even though they would be paying to get this deal through," Cummings said. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Texas bill would force local deputies to cooperate with ICE
Texas bill would force local deputies to cooperate with ICE

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Texas bill would force local deputies to cooperate with ICE

(NewsNation) — Sheriff's departments throughout Texas could be forced to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement if Gov. Greg Abbott signs a bill into law that was recently approved by the state legislature. The bill mandates that departments in 238 of the state's 254 counties enter into at least one form of a 287(g) agreement or a similar federal program, which gives deputies the authority to carry out immigration enforcement duties once they are trained. Seventy-three Texas counties have existing agreements with ICE. However, the proposed law would require full participation, and the Texas Attorney General could sue non-compliant departments. Walmart reportedly fires workers over immigration ruling Trump recently wrote on Truth Social that he is monitoring the bill, adding, 'It is important to Texas, and to our country.' Lawmakers who helped propel the bill to Abbott's desk claim it makes communities safer. Texas Rep. David Spiller, a Republican, told NewsNation that he believes if passed, the bill also offers a national blueprint on how to build cooperation between local and federal immigration agencies. 'We're identifying bad actors and people who have warrants for removal,' Spiller said. And if they committed acts that justify removal from the United States, those folks, they certainly don't need to be here.' However, some sheriffs are concerned about what they call unfunded mandates to participate in federal operations. Democrats also fear it could lead to racial profiling. Three 287(g) models exist, and under the proposed law, departments have the choice of how many options they employ. Jail Enforcement Model – This allows officers to interrogate incarcerated individuals to determine their immigration status, input their information into a Homeland Security database, take statements, and initiate the deportation process through an immigration detainer and notice to appear. Warrant Service Officer Model – Officers identify people as non-citizens during the booking process, referring those people to ICE for evaluation and possible deportation. Officers also serve ICE administrative warrants on people in custody. Task Force Model – This method allows local officers to enforce immigration laws during their routine duties in the community. Of the Texas 73 counties with agreements, 18 have officers trained in the task force model, while 70 participate use one of the jail-related agreements, The Texas Observer reported. Others have applications to become part of the 287 (g) program in place. The proposed bill provides grants to offset costs, ranging from $80,000 per year to $140,000, with the largest amounts reserved for counties with more than 1 million residents. Spiller said lawmakers are encouraging departments to follow the Warrant Service Officer model, which allows ICE to pick up an inmate within 48 hours once they are identified in the ICE database. He added that the bill is about identifying bad actors who have previously been ordered to leave the country, and not about deputies being required to enforce federal immigration law. DoorDasher drives onto tarmac at O'Hare Airport, exposing security flaw But he said full participation is needed. '(Some larger counties) know that some of these folks that they've arrested may have outstanding federal warrants, and they knowingly and willingly turn a blind eye and choose not to look,' Spiller said. 'We can't have these people turned back onto the street because they're a public safety concern.' Abbott has already 'made it clear' Texas cities and counties must fully cooperate with the federal government's efforts to arrest, jail, and deport illegal immigrants, the governor's spokesman told NewsNation. He did not specify when Abbott could sign the bill into law. Some sheriffs with existing 287 (g) agreements praise the mandatory participation, which allows flexibility without forcing deputies to 'go out and play Border Patrol or ICE', Terrell County Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland said. The Republican sheriff understands why some in his position may choose not to go that far, but calls having the ability to get inmates into federal custody faster a 'no-brainer.' 'You're being given the tools (under the bill) to make this country safer,' said Cleveland, who uses the two jail-related programs and has applied for the task force model training. 'I don't see what people wouldn't want to participate.' Just east of Houston, Chambers County Sheriff Brian Hawthorne announced this spring that not all Sheriff's Association of Texas members support the bill's required participation, Houston Public Media reported. Hawthorne, a Republican who has had a 287 (g) agreement in place for the past four years, said many departments were concerned about unfunded mandates, despite the availability of grant money. Some fear that the largest grants may not cover the costs of what departments are being asked to do. Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez announced in 2017 that the department maintains law and order in the state's largest county, which includes the city of Houston. The county ended its 287(g) agreement, and Gonzalez announced he was allocating the $675,000 he spent on the deal toward improving case clearance rates and other department priorities. While not every department will face that large of a financial burden to carry out respective 287 (g) agreements, Hawthorne, the legislative chairman of the state sheriffs' association, told NewsNation that forcing every department has raised concerns among some Democratic sheriffs who are worried about the political overtones of the issue that may be alarming and bothersome to some residents in more left-leaning counties. ICE agents, South Carolina cops arrest 80 in raid at illegal club Sheriffs have expressed their displeasure about the statewide mandate to Hawthorne, but all those already allow ICE into their jail facilities, as incarcerated inmates are transferred into federal custody. Ultimately, Hawthorne believes the flexibility built into the bill makes it more palatable for local departments, which are all tasked with protecting their communities. 'Remember, the sheriff works for the people, and I've never seen a sheriff who didn't believe in the rule of law,' Hawthorne said. 'But as you and I both know, sometimes, the rule of law has a whole lot of differing opinions and ideas.' State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a Democrat representing San Antonio, raised other potential red flags. 'Are you not afraid of the potentiality for racial profiling by police if they see what presumably looks like Mexican or Hispanic people in a truck, that they will not be pulled over simply because of the color of their skin?' Gutierrez asked the bill's senate sponsor, Republican Charles Schwertner, during the senate debate, according to the Texas Tribune. Sarah Cruz, the policy and advocacy strategist for border and immigrant rights with the Texas ACLU, voiced similar concerns after the bill passed the Texas legislature. '(The bill) will not make communities safer, but it will force sheriffs to do the work of ICE in support of the federal government's shameless mass deportation efforts,' Cruz said. Spiller, like Schwertner, maintains that the bill has nothing to do with race or nationality, but instead is more about helping ICE take those already in their base into custody and out of the jurisdiction of local sheriff's offices. Kristin Etter, the director of policy and legal services for the Texas Immigration Law Council, calls the measure a 'real slap in the face' to local law enforcement agencies tasked with protecting their communities. Etter told NewsNation that if Abbott signs the bill and it withstands legal challenges that similarly arose involving a 2017 law that abolished sanctuary cities in Texas, departments may find themselves in a precarious position. She also fears Texas could become the federal inspiration for forcing states to help drive Trump's immigration mission. '(The bill) is really placing Texas law enforcement agents under the service of the federal government,' Etter said. 'So, there's really no longer going to be any local control of how they protect their communities and keep their communities safe.' Spiller, however, disagrees and says the bill, while required, offers departments flexibility while also ensuring everyone is on the same page to better protect local counties and Texas as a whole. 'We're trying to make communities safer and the streets safer,' Spiller said, 'and this is the best way we have to do it.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

MTG Flip-Flops Again on Budget Bill She Didn't Even Read
MTG Flip-Flops Again on Budget Bill She Didn't Even Read

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

MTG Flip-Flops Again on Budget Bill She Didn't Even Read

DOGE Committee Chair Marjorie Taylor Greene is apparently 'proud' to have voted for the 'big, beautiful bill' that she trashed just Tuesday. During an exchange with Representative Robert Garcia in Wednesday's House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency meeting, Greene said that she was 'proud to have voted for that bill to fund border security.' 'The bill actually destroys what you guys voted for for the past four years,' the Georgia lawmaker said. But that was a far cry from the language that Greene used to describe the reconciliation package just 24 hours prior. On Tuesday, Greene admitted on X that she hadn't even read the bill in its entirety, and that she 'would have voted NO' if she knew of some of the things that had been added to it, such as a provision that will prevent states from drafting regulation around the artificial intelligence industry for the next decade. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' Greene wrote. 'When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it. We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around.' In an interview with NewsNation Tuesday, Greene specified that the AI detail is 'pretty terrifying.' 'We don't know what AI is going to be capable of within one year, we don't know what it will be capable of in five years, let alone 10 years,' Greene told the network. In the same interview, Greene attempted to ideologically saddle herself alongside Elon Musk, the ex-DOGE adviser who has gone on a multiday tirade against the bill. In dozens of posts, Musk has lambasted practically the entirety of Donald Trump's domestic agenda as 'pork-filled' and a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I fully understand what Elon is saying, and I agree with him to a certain extent,' Greene said, underscoring her support for the Department of Government Efficiency's cost-cutting mission. The bill passed the House by a vote of 215–214, with two Republicans joining all Democrats in voting against it. Republicans rushed the spending bill through the House, executing meetings and votes during late nights and over the weekend, in order to send it to the Senate. The GOP has spent months attempting to pencil out the bill's primary goal of extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts for multimillionaires and corporations, which the Congressional Budget Office projected Wednesday would add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit. To make the cuts a reality for America's elite, conservatives have taken a metaphorical chain saw to Medicaid and other popular social programs, demanding some $880 billion in cuts.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store