Milei Tries Erasing Argentina's History to Lure Foreign Investment
Images of Eva Peron were torn off the walls of government offices; statues of the late Nestor Kirchner were carted out of the Senate and the social security agency; and just a couple weeks ago, a yellow crane ripped Kirchner's name off the facade of a giant Beaux Arts palace in downtown Buenos Aires like a dirty old band-aid.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
8 minutes ago
- New York Times
Republicans on Senate Panel Vote to Advance Bove's Nomination After Democrats Storm Out
A Senate committee voted on Thursday to advance the nomination of Emil Bove III, the Justice Department enforcer who oversaw dozens of firings and the dismissal of bribery charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York, to a lifetime post as a federal judge. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the nomination after Democrats stormed out in protest when the panel's chairman, Senator Charles E. Grassley, called the roll before every Democrat on the committee had a chance to air their objections. 'Sir, this lacks decency,' said Senator Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, his voice raised and visibly agitated. 'It lacks decorum. It shows that you do not want to simply hear from your colleagues. This is absolutely wrong!' Mr. Grassley ignored him and plowed on. In a voice vote, committee Republicans voted to confirm Mr. Bove, 44, to a lifetime appointment on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which encompasses Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. The vote was a prelude for what is expected to be an even more intense battle on the Senate floor over a nominee seen by his many critics of the embodiment of the administration's obliteration of institutional safeguards intended to shield the department from White House interference. Mr. Bove is more likely than not to be confirmed, barring any new developments that will sway several Republican senators to reject a lifetime judicial appointment for a taciturn and unyielding former Manhattan federal prosecutor who swiftly rose to prominence after serving on Mr. Trump's criminal defense team.
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Senate passes $9 billion in spending cuts to public broadcasting, foreign aid requested by Trump
WASHINGTON — The Senate has passed about $9 billion in federal spending cuts requested by President Trump, including deep reductions to public broadcasting and foreign aid, moving forward on one of the president's top priorities despite concerns from several Republican senators. The legislation, which now moves to the House, would have a tiny impact on the nation's rising debt but could have major ramifications for the targeted spending, from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to U.S. food aid programs abroad. It also could complicate efforts to pass additional spending bills this year, as Democrats and even some Republicans have argued they are ceding congressional spending powers to Trump with little idea of how the White House Office of Management and Budget would apply the cuts. The 51-48 vote came after 2 a.m. Thursday after Democrats sought to remove many of the proposed rescissions during 12 hours of amendment votes. None of the Democratic amendments were adopted. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Republicans were using the president's rescissions request to target wasteful spending. He said it is a 'small but important step for fiscal sanity that we all should be able to agree is long overdue.' But Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the bill 'has a big problem — nobody really knows what program reductions are in it.' Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, joined Democrats in voting against the legislation. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former Republican leader, had voted against moving forward with the bill in a Tuesday procedural vote, saying he was concerned the Trump White House wanted a 'blank check,' but he ultimately voted for final passage. The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending comes after Republicans also muscled Trump's big tax and spending cut bill to approval without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that measure will increase future federal deficits by about $3.3 trillion over the coming decade. Lawmakers clash over cuts to public radio and TV stations Along with Democrats, Collins and Murkowski both expressed concerns about the cuts to public broadcasting, saying they could affect important rural stations in their states. Murkowski said in a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday that the stations are 'not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert.' Less than a day later, as the Senate debated the bill, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the remote Alaska Peninsula, triggering tsunami warnings on local public broadcasting stations that advised people to get to higher ground. The situation is 'a reminder that when we hear people rant about how public broadcasting is nothing more than this radical, liberal effort to pollute people's minds, I think they need to look at what some of the basic services are to communities,' Murkowski said. The legislation would claw back nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's due to receive during the next two budget years. The corporation distributes more than 70% of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to support national programming. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he secured a deal from the White House that some funding administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidize Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states. But Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, a network of locally owned and operated stations, said that deal was 'at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save, while leaving behind all other stations, including many that serve Native populations.' Slashing billions of dollars from foreign aid The legislation would also claw back about $8 billion in foreign aid spending. Among the cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation and family reunification for those who flee their own countries and $496 million to provide food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There also is a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations. Democrats argued the Trump administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said the amount of money it takes to save a starving child or prevent the transmission of disease is miniscule, even as the investments secure cooperation with the U.S. on other issues. The cuts being made to foreign aid programs through Trump's Department of Government Efficiency were having life-and-death consequences around the world, he said. 'People are dying right now, not in spite of us but because of us,' Schatz said. 'We are causing death.' After objections from several Republicans, GOP leaders took out a $400 million cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under then-President George W. Bush. Looking ahead to future spending fights Democrats say the bill upends a legislative process that typically requires lawmakers from both parties to work together to fund the nation's priorities. Triggered by the official recissions request from the White House, the legislation only needs a simple majority vote instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster, meaning Republicans can use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines. The Trump administration is promising more rescission packages to come if the first effort is successful. But some Republicans who supported the bill indicated they might be wary of doing so again. 'Let's not make a habit of this,' said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, who voted for the bill but said he was wary that the White House wasn't providing enough information on what exactly will be cut. Wicker said there are members 'who are very concerned, as I am, about this process.' North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis echoed similar concerns and said Republicans will need to work with Democrats to keep the government running later in the year. 'The only way to fund the government is to get at least seven Democrats to vote with us at the end of September or we could go into a shutdown,' Tillis said. Republicans face a Friday deadline Collins attempted to negotiate a last minute change to the package that would have reduced the cuts by about $2.5 billion and restored some of the public broadcasting and global health dollars, but she abandoned the effort after she didn't have enough backing from her Republican colleagues in the Senate and the House. The House has already shown its support for the president's request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but since the Senate amended the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote. The bill must be signed into law by midnight Friday for the proposed rescissions to kick in. If Congress doesn't act by then, the spending stands. Freking and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. Becky Bohrer in Juneau, Alaska, contributed to this report.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
The rescission package is a chance to get serious about cutting spending
Senate passage of the $9 billion rescissions package compiled by the Trump administration marks the first reduction in federal spending since the Tea Party era. Over a decade ago, fiscal conservatives led by my former boss, the late Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), forced the first year-to-year reduction ($150 billion) in federal spending since the end of the Korean War. Between fiscal years 2012 and 2013, Coburn and his colleagues added on an earmark moratorium that saved $140 billion over 10 years and an additional $725 billion in savings from consolidating duplicative programs through Government Accountability Office recommendations. That brought the tally to over $1 trillion. The Trump administration was right to aspire to eclipse that total and cut spending by more than $2 trillion, but it still has a long way to go. In fact, if the clock were to stop today, the Trump administration and Republican Party would have to defend expanding the administrative state by $75 billion. The recently passed budget reconciliation bill directs $45 billion to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's detention budget and nearly $30 billion to ICE's enforcement and deportation operations over the next four years. The bill directs an additional $46.5 billion to border security infrastructure, which is more of a fixed cost than an agency expansion. Congress and the administration do deserve credit and praise for slowing the growth rate of Medicaid by $1 trillion over 10 years. But that win does not reverse the progressive left's quest to expand the administrative state. Supporters of spending more on immigration enforcement have a strong case that spending $75 billion to grow a federal agency will more than pay for itself over time. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration and 'open borders' costs American taxpayers $150.7 billion annually. Most of these costs (about $70 billion) are imposed on state and local communities through K-12 education expenses, while $22 billion goes to medical expenses. The Manhattan Institute estimated that the surge of 8.7 million illegal immigrants would cost $1.15 trillion over the lifetime of the new illegal immigrants. They conclude, 'Mass deportations would significantly reduce the national debt over the long run, but a policy of selective legalization, coupled with mass deportations, would be even more fiscally beneficial, reducing the debt by about $1.9 trillion.' The plan in the 'big, beautiful' bill is both well-intentioned and well-conceived, but no Congress can guarantee a future Congress or administration will ensure the plan is well executed. If history is any guide, these funds could become a permanent expansion of a bureaucracy rather than a prudent surge designed to address an emergency. The uncertainty about whether a plan could be spectacularly successful or wasteful underscores the urgent need for Congress to take serious steps to reduce our unsustainable debt and deficits. The Senate rescissions package only saves $9 billion, leaving Trump's second-term administrative state expansion at around $65 billion. Even that modest package faced serious headwinds in the Senate. Some Republican senators balked at proposed cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Others are expressed concerns about cuts to life-saving humanitarian assistance. In moments like this, I am often asked, 'What would Coburn do?' I suspect his colleagues who served with him, who will determine the fate of this package in the House, were asking the same question. Coburn was an unapologetic supporter of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or PEPFAR. He said the program is 'not an earmark; it is a policy that's proven, that's worked.' But Coburn was also not afraid of insisting that funds go to those who had contracted HIV instead of those wanting to help people with HIV. In 2008, he was vilified for placing a hold on PEPFAR reauthorization until he could be assured that 55 percent of PEPFAR funds be spent on treatment rather than overhead. But that distinction was critical. I suspect Coburn would remind his colleagues that the 'E' in PEPFAR stands for 'emergency.' The program was never meant to be an open-ended entitlement to be funded in perpetuity. Today, he would be working with his colleagues to continue life-saving humanitarian assistance that advances American national interests, while eliminating spending that advances faddish ideological agendas and bloated bureaucracy. All sides should agree that our foreign aid process, which has funded fraud and terrorism, needs a dramatical overhaul. The administration has said that if Congress passes this rescissions package it will send more. This a chance for Congress to assure taxpayers that instead of expanding federal agencies, they want to expand Americans' personal agency and their ability to pursue happiness on their terms, with their own resources and talents. Some progress toward that goal would be better than no progress.
