The 1600: America Doesn't Have a Conservative Party
The Insider's Track
Good morning,
I paid $8 for a black iced coffee yesterday in my neighborhood. Eight. Dollars. Sometimes I think most of the underlying rage you see bubbling up around the country can be attributed to this feeling of just being constantly ripped off wherever you go.
Speaking of getting ripped off, Congress is in the process of stitching up the votes on President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" flagship legislation in hopes of getting it to his desk by the Fourth. Following a narrow 51–49 procedural vote over the weekend, the Senate advanced the bill to the debate stage, with Senators Rand Paul and Thom Tillis joining all Democrats in opposition. Targeted by MAGA for his disloyalty, Tillis immediately announced he's not running for re-election, thus putting NC potentially in play for Senate Dems next year (the modern GOP has no room for actual conservatives). So once the Senate passes the bill, it gets kicked back to the House as part of the reconciliation process before going to Trump. I'd put it at extremely likely that this giant turd of a bill becomes law in time for the fireworks on Friday.
So what's in this thing? It's mostly an extension of the 2017 tax cuts, with some deep cuts to the welfare state for good measure. The current Senate version raises the debt ceiling $5 trillion. It'll increase the deficit by some $3 trillion over the next decade, per the Congressional Budget Office. (I've seen lots of Trump supporters attack the CBO for its scoring of this bill as some kind of "lefty" organization. Please. The CBO is run by a Bush appointee).
The bill uses this well-worn accounting trick to make it look like Republicans are actually reducing the deficit by $508 billion, as Lindsey Graham falsely claimed over the weekend. But that's based on this little gimmick that lets them basically write off the $4 trillion cost of extending the tax cuts. So when you see Republicans tossing around that $508B number this week, it should immediately set off your B.S. detector.
Here's some other random little tidbits that caught my eye in the current manifestation of the bill:
A huge cut in SNAP benefits and food assistance for the poor, plus another $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare (but mostly Medicaid). Millions will probably lose their coverage. This is the provision that Dems could run with as a winning message for the midterms, if they aren't too busy fighting for trans girls in sports or whatever.
A tax on remittances, which is the money that immigrants send home, has been watered down to effectively be meaningless. House Rs passed a 5% tax on remittance, which was cut to 3.5% by the Senate, and then further to 1%. It also doesn't apply to bank transfers. This is one of those things I don't understand. It's a tax on US dollars flowing out of the country. Who is the lobby pushing Senate Rs against this? Western Union?
On the energy front, the bill phases out Biden's tax credits for solar and wind—not surprising—while adding an excise tax on new renewable projects that utilize components made in China. At the same time, there's provisions tucked in there to incentivize domestic coal production. Making Coal Great Again, baby. Our children will be ashamed of us.
Thankfully, the bill no longer includes Sen. Mike Lee's provision to sell off millions of acres of pristine federal land in the West to developers after an outcry from (actual) conservative voters. Teddy Roosevelt would've been spinning in his grave.
The bottom line is that this legislation acts as a giant wealth transfer from the poor to the rich and the young to the old. Younger earners get nothing from the tax cuts, which are all structured to benefit higher-earners. It adds trillions to the national debt, which means higher taxes and mortgage payments for young Americans trying to start or build their families. One nonpartisan analysis suggests a 40-year-old making the median income will lose $7,500 over their lifetime, while a 70-year-old with the same income nets $17,500. The Boomers win, as always. And then we wonder why young voters turn out in record numbers in our most expensive city to elect a socialist. If this is the alternative, why wouldn't they?
If this whole charade does anything, it should finally disabuse Americans of this notion that modern-day Republicans are the conservative party. You simply cannot be an actual conservative while voting to increase the debt, adding to the deficit, all while doing precisely nothing to deal with our spending problem.
The Rundown
A fierce war of words has erupted between Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Donald Trump following recent U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Khamenei accused Trump of "exaggerating in order to cover up and conceal the truth," directly responding to Trump's claim that the U.S. had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites. Separately, Trump said that he is offering Iran "nothing" and is refusing to engage with Iranian officials, signaling a hardening U.S. stance. Read more.
Also happening:
US-Canada trade talks: Canada and the United States have resumed trade negotiations after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed to rescind the country's digital services tax on U.S. technology companies. The development follows President Donald Trump's announcement on Friday that he was suspending all trade talks with Canada "effective immediately" over the tax policy. Here's the latest.
Week in review: President Donald Trump is coming off what may be his most successful week in office—a landmark Supreme Court ruling, a successful NATO summit, a ceasefire that appears to be holding in the Middle East, another peace deal in Africa, a stock market back to setting records and a key trade breakthrough with China. Read more.
This is a preview of The 1600—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
6 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal appeals court judges appear skeptical of arguments against Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act
A pair of judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical of arguments against President Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport suspected Venezuelan gang members. The conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Monday for just under an hour from both Trump administration lawyers defending the president's invocation of the 18th-century act and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys representing some of the alleged members of Tren de Aragua the administration is seeking to remove under the wartime law. The legal battle before the New Orleans-based court — which appears destined to eventually be decided by the Supreme Court — aims to determine whether Trump lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March to target the Venezuelan prison gang, and, if so, how much notice a migrant targeted for deportation must be given before removal from the US. Advertisement The Alien Enemies Act case appears destined to land at the Supreme Court, regardless of how the 5th Circuit rules. via REUTERS At one point in the hearing, Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, asked ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt if he was aware of any case law that shows you can 'second-guess the president of the United States' when the commander in chief finds there is a military conflict. Oldham specifically asked the lawyer arguing against Trump's use of the 1798 law to point to a Supreme Court case where the justices determined 'you can countermand the president of the United States when he says we are in an armed conflict.' Advertisement Gelernt said there wasn't a case, acknowledging that the 5th circuit's ruling on the Alien Enemies Act would be precedent setting. On March 14, Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, declaring that Tren de Aragua 'is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.' Trump, 79, said the gang 'is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare' against the US on behalf of the regime of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, 'clandestine or otherwise.' The gang, whose members have allegedly taken over apartment complexes and been involved in the kidnapping and torture of victims in the US, was designated a foreign terrorist organization by the Trump administration in February. Advertisement Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, asked Gelernt during the hearing why Tren de Aragua's actions in the US couldn't be considered an armed conflict. 'It has to be an armed, organized force,' Gelernt responded. 'The founders were not looking at this as some subtle clandestine thing.' Southwick noted: 'Here the president is proclaiming that you have – directed by or interwoven with the Venezuelan government – unrecognized, US terrorists.' 'I'm having a hard time drawing the line,' the judge added. Advertisement Gelernt insisted that 'the founders were concerned with large-scale activity,' dismissing Tren de Aragua's activities in the US as 'isolated crimes' that don't warrant use of the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU lawyer's argument centered on Trump's proclamation not specifically indicating that Venezuela is at war with the US, but that the gang is – which Gelernt asserted is not sufficient to use the Alien Enemies Act. He argued the provision can only be invoked as a 'precursor to all-out war.' 'The face of the proclamation does not say we are in a military conflict,' Gelernt told the panel of judges. Trump invoked the wartime law in March to swiftly deport alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. REUTERS Meanwhile, Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argued Trump used the Alien Enemies Act correctly and that the president's decision should be given 'the utmost deference.' Southwick asked Ensign to explain 'what the role of the president is in the declaration of war and when is it reviewable.' 'As to invasion or predatory incursion… the president is given extraordinary deference and is not reviewable at all,' Ensign argued. Advertisement When Southwick asked what part of the use of the AEA is reviewable, Ensign admitted that all the terms are reviewable but maintained 'the presidential determination is not subject to review … but if it is, it's subject to extremely deferential review.' 'TdA is present in over 40 states in this country,' Ensign maintained. 'They have taken over entire apartment buildings.' 'The FBI has assessed that it is likely that the TdA will try to carry out targeted assassinations of the Maduro regime… political assassinations of Maduro regime critics in the US,' he continued, making the case that all of this 'clearly supports the determination that an invasion and predatory incursion has occurred.' 'This is not an ordinary criminal gang, hopelessly enmeshed with the Maduro regime, carrying out assassinations of critics of the Maduro regime … they are a foreign terrorist organization. It is a big deal, and presents substantial dangers to the US and our public safety.' Advertisement On the amount of notice that alleged Tren de Aragua members should be given before they're deported, the Trump administration said the standard should give migrants seven days to appeal their removal, while the ACLU countered that 30 days notice – the amount of time given to suspected Nazis during World War II (when the Alien Enemies Act was last invoked) – should be allowed. The panel of appellate judges, which also includes Biden-appointed Judge Irma Ramirez, did not provide a timeline for when they would rule on the case. The outcome will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court by whichever side the court rules against.
USA Today
14 minutes ago
- USA Today
Feds pursuing death penalty in fatal Vermont Border Patrol shooting, attorneys claim
Federal prosecutors appear to be preparing to seek the death penalty against a woman accused in the January shooting of a U.S. Border Patrol agent near the Canadian border, and her attorneys are asking a judge to slow down the process. Attorneys for Teresa Youngblut complained in a June 30 court filing in Vermont that prosecutors are pushing an unusually aggressive timeline for bringing a death penalty case. They say the rush to judgment violates her right to investigate mitigating circumstances. "This court should step in to ensure Miss Youngblut receives a meaningful opportunity to persuade the government not to pursue the death penalty," her attorneys said in a court filing. Attorney General Pam Bondi in February singled out Youngblut's case as a prime example of how the Trump administration will aggressively seek capital punishment. Bondi said the Trump administration is committed to seeking swift justice when it comes to capital murder cases, and ordered her staff to reconsider past "no seek" decisions where federal prosecutors could have sought the death penalty but didn't. "Going forward, the Department of Justice will once again act as the law demands, including by seeking death sentences in appropriate cases and swiftly implementing those sentences in accordance with the law," Bondi said. What happened on Jan. 20? Authorities say Youngblut and a companion pulled guns on Border Patrol agents during a Jan. 20 traffic stop in which agent David Maland was shot and killed. Youngblut has not yet been specifically charged with firing the fatal shot, nor been formally notified that she faces the death penalty. The confrontation between Youngblut and Maland appears connected to a series of deaths nationwide related to the cultlike "Zizan" group, which is also being investigated in California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. The internal Justice Department process to decide whether to seek the death penalty typically takes more than a year, Youngblut's attorneys said, with even more time needed to hold the actual trial. Youngblut's attorneys also argue that with her life on the line, she is legally entitled to more time to investigate any mitigating circumstances. Court records note that Youngblut's diary contains several references to taking LSD. A German national traveling with Youngblut, Ophelia Bauckholt, was also killed in the shootout with federal agents. The two initially attracted law enforcement attention because Youngblut and Bauckholt were reported wearing tactical-style gear and openly carrying firearms, which is legal in Vermont but unusual. The two declined to speak with officers, and agents began following them, according to an affidavit. Investigators also wrongly thought Bauckholt's visa to remain in the United States had expired. According to court records and FBI affidavits, sometime in the minutes after Border Patrol agents stopped the Toyota Prius that Youngblut was driving, Youngblut opened fire with a handgun, firing at least two shots. Bauckholt, who also drew a handgun, was shot before firing. Bauckholt died at the scene, and Maland, the Border Patrol agent, died at a nearby hospital. Investigators said they found five cellphones, a night-vision device, and laptops in the Prius. Earlier this month, a grand jury indicted the Zizian group's namesake, Jack "Ziz" LaSota, on weapons charges. And a man that Youngblut was planning to marry was arrested Jan. 24 in connection with the Jan. 17 slaying of a California landlord, according to court records. A longtime Vermont defense attorney familiar with the case previously told USA TODAY he believes Youngblut opened fire on the Border Patrol agents because she thought they knew about the California murder that happened three days earlier.
CBS News
19 minutes ago
- CBS News
Michigan woman worries how possible Medicaid cuts could impact her mother
Over 2.5 million people in Michigan are enrolled in traditional Medicaid, according to the Michigan Health and Hospital Association. Experts say with President Trump's "big beautiful bill," upwards of 700,000 people in the state could stand to lose their Medicaid. "This would be a gutting of infrastructure like we've never seen before, all to accomplish what to pass a tax cut for the richest people in our state and the country," said Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, former director of the Department of Health, Human, and Veterans Services for Wayne County. El-Sayed says the bill, which the U.S. Senate is now voting on, would be historically detrimental to families across the state because of its proposed cuts to Medicaid. "Eighty percent of our mental health infrastructure in this state relies on Medicaid, and a whole bunch of the services that children get through schools for special needs also rely on Medicaid. Why would you take away healthcare from people who fundamentally need it, and it's already too hard to see a doctor in this country?" said El-Sayed. While Michiganders follow what the Senate will decide to do with this bill ahead of the self-imposed July 4 deadline, many like Shelby Township's Megan Callahan say it is an anxious time for her and her family. "With more professional organizations like the American Hospital Association keeps releasing how concerned they are, I am just getting more and more concerned," said Callahan. Callahan's mother was recently diagnosed with dementia, and while her parents are still waiting to officially become eligible for Medicaid benefits, she says her family will need to rely on specific Medicaid programs that she worries may be cut. "So let's say the Spousal Impoverishment Protection Program doesn't get affected, but my mother's care could. My mother's community is also in a rural area, so rural areas with this provider tax, like it just keeps snowballing instead of me feeling any assurance that me and my family would feel better." Callahan says once she started to worry about Medicaid cuts for her mom, she joined multiple groups online where countless others locally have similar concerns.
