On This Day, Feb. 25: BTS Killer arrested in Kansas
Feb. 25 (UPI) -- On this date in history:
In 1791, the First Bank of the U.S. at Philadelphia became the first national bank chartered by Congress.
In 1836, Samuel Colt patented a "revolving gun," the first of the six-shooters.
In 1870, Hiram Rhodes Revels, a Republican from Natchez, Miss., was sworn into the U.S. Senate, becoming the first Black American to sit in Congress.
In 1901, the United States Steel Corp. was founded by J.P. Morgan.
In 1922, Henri Landru, better known as Bluebeard, was executed in France for killing 10 of his girlfriends.
In 1928, the U.S. government upgraded Bryce Canyon National Monument to a national park. Bryce Canyon National Park comprises more than 35,000 acres in Utah.
In 1951, the inaugural Pan American Games began in Buenos Aires.
In 1964, brash underdog Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) stunned the boxing world with a TKO of Sonny "the Bear" Liston, winning the world heavyweight championship.
In 1984, a gasoline pipeline burst, spewing thousands of gallons of fuel that ignited and engulfed an illegal shanty town near Sao Paulo, Brazil, killing hundreds of people.
In 1986, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos left his Manila palace for Hawaii, ending 20 years in power.
In 1990, Violeta Chamorro, the U.S.-backed candidate for the presidency of Nicaragua, scored an upset victory over President Daniel Ortega, leader of the leftist Sandinista Liberation Front.
In 1991, the Warsaw Pact nations signed an agreement to dissolve the alliance after 36 years.
In 1994, 32 Muslim worshippers were killed by a Jewish settler who opened fire with an automatic weapon in the Cave of the Patriarchs in the West Bank town of Hebron. The settler, an American Israeli follower of the ultra-Zionist Each movement, was overpowered and beaten to death.
In 2005, authorities arrested Dennis Rader, a municipal employee and church leader, for the so-called BTK (blind, torture, kill) serial killings that terrorized Wichita, Kan. Rader was convicted and sentenced to 10 consecutive life terms.
In 2022, Russia vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the country's invasion of Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Has no tax on tips passed? Here's where things stand
As a presidential candidate last year, Donald Trump called for no taxes on tips — an exemption from the federal income tax for all tipped income. So where does that promise stand now? There is a provision in the 'big, beautiful bill' passed by the House in May, which the Senate is now considering. The tax break is included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, so it seems likely to make it into the final version sent to Trump's desk. Plus, the Senate already voted unanimously on a separate bill that would do the same thing. Here are answers to some common questions about the 'no tax on tips' proposal: Trump first proposed to end taxation on tipped income at a campaign rally on June 9, 2024, in Las Vegas, a direct appeal to the service workers in the swing state's tourism industry. 'So this is the first time I've said this, and for those hotel workers and people that get tips, you're going to be very happy, because when I get to office, we are going to not charge taxes on tips people [are] making,' Trump said. It was part of a broader set of proposals thrown out with little detail during the campaign, including a pledge to exempt overtime pay from income tax. It was one of Trump's more realistic promises, however, as the idea quickly gained bipartisan support, including from Kamala Harris' campaign and Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada plus Republicans such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. It was also one of a number of campaign pledges he promised would be fulfilled right away if he won a second term. The Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House, includes an income tax exemption for tips. As with the proposed $1,000 baby bonus and the exemption for income tax on overtime pay in the bill, the tips tax break would expire at the end of 2028, days before Trump's term ends. That helps Republicans in Congress keep the apparent cost of the bill down while setting up another fight on the issue just as the next president takes office. Under the House proposal, workers making less than $160,000 per year would qualify for the exemption. Tips would still have to be reported to the IRS, and they would be subject to withholding — meaning money would be taken out of each paycheck but workers would get it back if they were owed tax refunds the next April. Social Security and Medicare taxes would still apply to tipped income. The exemption would not apply to automatic gratuities for large parties at a restaurant and other service charges. The Senate passed a standalone bill called the No Tax on Tips Act in a surprise vote in late May. Rosen brought up the bill as a "unanimous consent" request, an accelerated process typically reserved for more routine issues, such as renaming post offices. But no senator objected, and the bill was quickly passed. The bill would create an income tax exemption of up to $25,000 for workers in jobs that have traditionally received tips who make less than $160,000. The exact jobs covered by the exemption would be decided by the Trump administration within 90 days of the bill's signing. As with the House bill, the Senate version would expire just as Trump leaves office. If it expires, the total cost of the measure would be about $40 billion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that if the measure is extended over 10 years, it would cost more than $100 billion. The White House Council of Economic Advisers — which works for Trump — estimated that the measure would increase the average take-home pay for tipped workers by $1,675 per year. The Tax Policy Center, however, noted that the amount would vary greatly depending on the job. Half of all wait staff make $32,000 or less a year, which means they already pay little or no federal income tax. But the measure would give a much bigger break to the highest-paid tipped workers who make $60,000 or more a year. "A 20 percent tip on a $200 meal is vastly different than one for the $9.95 special at Mom's Diner," the nonprofit said in an analysis. As with the exemption on overtime pay, there's a wide range of possible outcomes. It's possible that the measure would simply end up reducing the annual tax bill for the top tipped workers and have no other effects. Or it could lead customers to give more — or possibly even less — in tips to wait staff, hairdressers and others once they know the money isn't taxed. Some economists think the exemption would undercut ongoing political efforts to increase the minimum wage for tipped workers, which is currently $2.13 per hour at the federal level. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chabria: Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated "R" for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, "I have a [expletive deleted] dream." Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Read more: Barabak: Yelling, finger-pointing and cursing galore as California Democrats gather near Disneyland Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand "toxic." Walz told his fellow Dems: "We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing." It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: "A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study." Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Read more: Chabria: California isn't backing down on healthcare for immigrants, despite Trump threats Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers "win elections because their opponents were unpopular," Levin wrote, "and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular." It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy "maybe" period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate." Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Read more: Barabak: Gavin Newsom has lots to say. Is it worth listening? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
