Latest news with #CQ-RollCall
New York Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Progressive Sen. Ruben Gallego admits ‘legitimate' concerns about trans athletes in girl's sports
Freshman Sen. Ruben Gallego, seen by some observers as a possible 2028 Democratic dark horse, has admitted that there are 'legitimate' issues with male-to-female transgender athletes competing in women's and girl's sports, splitting from many of his fellow progressives. 'As a parent of a daughter, I think it's legitimate that parents are worried about the safety of their daughters, and I think it's legitimate for us to be worried also about fair competition,' Gallego (D-Ariz.) told The Dispatch in an interview published Thursday. 'And I think the parents of these trans children also are worried, legitimately, about the health and wellness of their kids.' Advertisement Gallego, 45, went on to argue that the issue of transgender competition in 'some' school sports should be left to 'local institutions,' without elaborating. 3 Sen. Ruben Gallego tried to stake out middle ground on the thorny issue. CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images 3 Democrats have been under pressure from progressives to allow transgenders to compete in women's sports. Getty Images Advertisement In other cases, the senator added, the message to trans would-be competitors should be: 'Hey, listen, we love you. We want you to be part of our community, but this is just the one place you can't play, and let's find other activities for you to be involved.' Gallego and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan were the only two Democrats to win Senate seats in states that President Trump won in the 2024 election. The Arizonan is not the only Democrat to distance themselves from most progressives on the issue of protecting women's sports. 'I have two girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I'm supposed to be afraid to say that,' Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said days after the election, drawing backlash from left-wingers. Advertisement 3 California Gov. Gavin Newsom admitted that allow transgenders to compete in women's sports seems 'deeply unfair.' AP Earlier this year, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, another rumored 2028 aspirant, admitted that allowing transgender competitors in women's sports is 'deeply unfair.' 'I think it's an issue of fairness; I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it's deeply unfair,' the governor said on his podcast during a March interview with conservative pundit Charlie Kirk. Advertisement Earlier this week, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which governs high school athletics in the Golden State, tweaked eligibility rules for a track and field championship to allow 'any biological female student-athlete' into the event who failed to qualify because they were defeated by transgender athletes. Trump had threatened to cut federal funding for California over the issue and the Justice Department opened a Title IX investigation into the matter Wednesday.
Ya Libnan
3 days ago
- Politics
- Ya Libnan
Senate Republicans demands new sanctions against Russia
File : Sen. Lindsey Graham (left) makes his opening statement as Sen. Chuck Grassley listens during a 2022 Senate Judiciary Committee markup. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images Senate Republicans are seizing on President Trump's growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin to argue the time to impose fresh sanctions on Russia is now. Trump 's tone on Putin has shifted in recent days, calling the Russian president 'crazy' and warning he is 'playing with fire' in Ukraine while Trump heads off 'really bad things.' The Kremlin dismissed Trump's criticisms — after Russia escalated its missile and drone attacks against Kyiv this weekend — with its former president Dmitry Medvedev posting on X : 'I only know of one REALLY BAD thing — WWIII. I hope Trump understands this!' The Senate wants to translate Trump's words into action. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said last week he is ready to move on a popular, bipartisan sanctions bill if Russia won't come to the table in good faith. AXIOS
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Dozens of GOP Rebels Start Civil War Over Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
A group of Republicans have banded together to make demands of the Trump administration surrounding the president's much-hyped megabill. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise were warned by 32 House Republicans that Trump's 'big, beautiful' reconciliation bill must adhere to strict spending cuts to make it across the finish line in a letter issued Wednesday. The dozens of Republicans who signed the letter demanded that 'under the House's framework, the reconciliation bill must not add to the deficit,' Politico reported. Rep. Lloyd Smucker. / Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag The letter—led by House Budget Committee Vice Chair Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania—served as a warning shot amid simmering intraparty dissent over how to cut an estimated $2 trillion in federal spending needed to finance Trump's budget plan, which aims to expand tax cuts under the GOP's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, eliminate taxes on tips, and beef up funding for the administration's immigration crackdown, CNN reported. The letter called for the reduction of planned tax credits if lawmakers cannot reduce spending enough to hit deficit reduction targets. Smucker set clear parameters around the conditions in which the Ways and Means Committee would cut taxes with an amendment dictating that taxes can be cut by $4.5 trillion only if GOP lawmakers cut spending by $2 trillion. 'The House budget resolution assumes that enacting President Trump's agenda, including extending the 2017 tax cuts, will generate $2.5 trillion in additional revenue through economic growth,' the letter noted. 'This means that all additional tax cuts or increases in spending above this level must be offset.' U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks alongside President Donald Trump during a National Day of Prayer event in the Rose Garden at the White House on May 1. / Andrew Harnik / Getty Images On Tuesday, Speaker Johnson assured that the budget package is on a 'very ambitious time table' to make it through the lower chamber by Memorial Day, CBS reported. Committees face a May 9 deadline to complete their components, with lawmakers hoping for markups next week. 'We can pass that by Memorial Day. That was our original timeframe,' said Johnson. On the heels of an intensifying GOP civil war, Trump appeared to double down on his budget promises in a Truth Social post on Wednesday. 'We are making great progress on 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill.' Our Economy is doing well, but it's going to BOOM in a way never seen before. We are going to do NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON SENIORS' SOCIAL SECURITY, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, and much more,' he wrote, adding, 'It will be the biggest Tax Cut for Middle and Working Class Americans by far, and it is time for Main Street to WIN. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!'
Forbes
02-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Student Loan Shock — Payments May Increase By $5,000 Per Year Under New Law, Warns Group
UNITED STATES - APRIL 29: Chairman Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich. chairs the House Educaiton Committee ... More markup for the markup of the Fiscal 2025 Budget Resolution on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. Walberg spoke out in favor of massive student loan reform, which was approved by committee Republicans this week. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) A student loan borrower advocacy organization is raising alarm bells over Republican plans to remake the federal student loan repayment system, warning that if it's enacted, the reforms could dramatically raise costs for working families who carry student loan debt. Earlier this week, a key House committee passed a sweeping bill intended to slash government spending associated with federal student aid programs. The legislation is one piece of a much broader effort by Republican lawmakers to extend and expand tax cuts through a process called budget reconciliation. The costs of those tax cuts, which could be several trillion dollars, would be offset in part by $330 billion in cuts to federal student loan repayment and forgiveness programs. GOP leaders argue that the cuts will streamline the federal student loan repayment system and make college more affordable. But borrower advocates have warned that the changes, if enacted, could be catastrophic, causing sharp payment increases for many Americans. 'Today, House Republicans showed their hand—tens of millions of students and working families across the country will see an affordable higher education pushed further out of reach and be forced to pay President Trump's government thousands of dollars more per year so that right-wing lawmakers can deliver trillions in tax cuts to Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies," said Student Borrower Protection Center policy director Aissa Canchola Bañez in a statement on Monday. 'Instead of bringing down the cost of college, House Republicans want to punish millions of borrowers desperately trying to repay their debts, pushing them further into the red while allowing some of the most predatory actors in higher ed to profiteer at their expense." Here's what student loan borrowers should know. One of the central features of the House GOP bill is the repeal of the SAVE plan, as well as all other current IDR plans (including Income-Based Repayment, Income-Contingent Repayment, and Pay As You Earn) for student loan borrowers who take out loans after July 1, 2026. Meanwhile, current borrowers who have been enrolled in more affordable IDR programs like SAVE, PAYE, and a newer version of IBR would be forced into a more expensive version of IBR under the terms of the bill, increasing their payments. The student loan payment shock would be particularly acute for borrowers who had enrolled in the SAVE plan. SAVE was created by the Biden administration in 2023 to provide borrowers with much more affordable payments and a pathway to faster student loan forgiveness. But critics of the plan said it was too generous, and essentially operated as a costly backdoor student loan forgiveness plan. 'The Biden-Harris administration's foolish actions in the federal student loan program exacerbated this budgetary catastrophe,' said Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) in a statement on the House floor earlier this week. 'From their radical 'SAVE' loan repayment plan to the never-ending repayment pause, Democrats are intent on forcing taxpayers to pay for free college. Dumping more federal money into a broken system doesn't mean that system will work. In fact, government spending on higher education has reached record highs yet millions of students benefiting from those funds will ultimately end up with a degree that doesn't pay off or fail to finish school altogether.' Under the proposed legislation, the SAVE plan and the other IDR programs would be replaced by a new income-driven plan called the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP. While RAP would operate in a similar way as the other programs, with monthly payments calculated based on a borrower's income and family size, the terms are not nearly as generous as the other plans, and especially when compared to SAVE. Borrowers would also not qualify for student loan forgiveness under the new plan until after 30 years in repayment – far longer than the 2o or 25 year repayment terms under SAVE, ICR, IBR, and PAYE. In a letter submitted to Chairman Walberg on Monday, the Student Borrower Protection Center warned that if the GOP proposal becomes law, many Americans will experience sharp increases in their monthly student loan payments, potentially costing them thousands of dollars more per year. 'Eight million borrowers last made payments under the SAVE plan in July 2024 and have had their ability to pay suspended for approximately nine months as a result of partisan lawsuits challenging the program,' said the SBPC in its letter. Under the terms of the new bill, "These borrowers will experience an immediate and unprecedented payment shock as their monthly payments jump from $0 per month to $431 for a typical single student loan borrower with a college degree—an annual increase of more than $5,000.' The SBPC wrote that a typical federal student loan borrower in a family of four, with an income of $80,263 and an undergraduate federal student debt balance of $38,374, would have had payments of $33 per month under the SAVE plan. But because of the eligibility parameters for the new GOP income-driven plan, they would not be eligible to repay their loans based on their income if the new bill becomes law. Instead, they would be placed in a Standard plan with payments of around $431 per month. The SBPC estimated that the family in this example would pay upwards of $4,700 more per year on their student loans than they would have under the SAVE plan if the GOP bill becomes law. 'Families across income levels will pay more money each month under the current proposal than under the SAVE plan,' wrote the SBPC. 'Additionally, the current proposal would impose higher monthly payments for borrowers and their families than almost every other payment plan.' Jason Delisle, a higher education and student loan expert at the Urban Institute, posted an analysis of the RAP plan on X that disputed this. Delisle indicated that monthly payments for middle-income borrowers would be comparable to the PAYE and new IBR plans, and payment under RAP could possibly be even slightly lower. But when compared to the SAVE plan, payments under RAP would almost universally be higher across the board. Furthermore, payments under the RAP plan would be higher for low-income borrowers than under any existing IDR option. That is because RAP has a minimum monthly payment requirement – a unique feature that is not part of ICR, IBR, PAYE, or SAVE. Under each of those plans, families living below the poverty line would have no monthly payment obligation. But that's not the case for the RAP plan. 'The bill reflects how out of step the drafters are with low-income Americans," said Abby Shafroth, co-director of advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center, in a statement on Tuesday. "House Republicans propose charging low-income students more interest by ending the subsidized loan program for students with financial need; more than tripling monthly bills for borrowers currently enrolled in SAVE; and requiring that even families living below the poverty line reallocate $120 each year from funds that would otherwise go towards food, rent, or medication or face default.' The full House has not yet passed the GOP proposal. The unveiling of the legislative text and passage by the Education and Workforce Committee is just the next step in what will be a lengthy process over the next several months to enact this, and many other separate proposals, through the budget reconciliation process. And whatever the House ultimately passes would need to be squared with whatever version of the bill the Senate passes (it's unclear at this stage whether GOP leaders in the House and Senate are aligned on these specific student loan reform plans). But Republican leaders in Congress hope to pass the reconciliation bill by this summer. The SBPC warned that passing the bill in its current form could be disastrous for borrowers, as the economy increasingly is flashing warning signs. 'As the committee considers this legislation, it is clear that a vote for this bill is a vote to saddle millions of borrowers across the country with more student loan debt, at the same moment that a slowing economy, a reckless trade war, and spiraling costs of living squeeze working families from every direction,' the group warned in its letter.
Forbes
30-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
What's In House Republicans' Student Loan Overhaul
UNITED STATES - APRIL 29: Chairman Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich. gavels the House Educaiton Committee to ... More order for the markup of the Fiscal 2025 Budget Resolution on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) House Republicans have introduced a comprehensive student loan overhaul as part of the broader budget reconciliation process. Known as the 'Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan,' the package of reforms aims to save hundreds of billions of dollars through new student loan limits, changes to the repayment system, and policies to hold colleges accountable for their outcomes. If enacted, the proposals would also prevent negative amortization and discourage colleges from loading students up with excessive debt. Because Republicans will attach these reforms to a budget reconciliation bill that also advances other Republican priorities like extending the 2017 tax cuts, the package has a good chance of passing the House of Representatives. But the House still needs to work out a compromise with the Senate, where lawmakers have proposed their own set of student loan reforms that differ on some points. However, the policies in the House package stand a better chance of becoming law than any major higher education reform proposal we've seen in a long time. The student loan changes fall into three categories: loan limits, repayment plan changes, and accountability for colleges. Let's look at each in turn. Loan limits The caps on graduate and parent borrowing are long overdue. Study after study has shown that colleges exploit these unlimited loans to hike tuition. Universities have used graduate loans as a cash cow to finance expensive master's degree programs of dubious value, while many schools have foisted tens of thousands of dollars in parent loans on low-income families. The new aggregate loan limits will help rein in these predatory practices, though they remain rather high. The proposal also gives dependent undergraduate students more room to borrow. Higher undergraduate loan limits may increase aggregate borrowing, and could affect tuition prices, though the proposed accountability policies should mitigate this (more on that below). While lower loan limits might have been preferable, the proposed maximums are a good start. Changes to repayment plans The new repayment plan is earthshaking. For borrowers who make on-time payments, RAP ends the phenomenon of rising balances because payments are insufficient to cover interest. Such negative amortization has been the Achilles heel of current income-driven repayment plans, wherein three-quarters of borrowers see their balances rise over time, according to the Congressional Budget Office. RAP guarantees that borrowers will pay down principal—by at least $50 per month if they keep up with payments—and most borrowers will retire their loans faster than they would under current plans. We shouldn't underrate the psychological benefits of a fast payoff. Borrowers who see their balances consistently drop, month after month, will be more willing to remain engaged with their loans. The simplification of repayment options is also welcome, as is the move to block the Education Department from creating new plans. Borrowers ought to have certainty going forward. The government should lay out repayment options and stick with them. Moreover, taxpayers will save money in the long run if the executive branch can't create generous new repayment plans to win favor with borrowers. Accountability for colleges While RAP protects students whose earnings aren't sufficient to pay down their debts, the House proposal also rightly asks colleges to share some of the financial burden. Such 'risk-sharing' will help offset some of the costs of RAP. More consequentially, it will discourage schools from loading students up with debt they can't afford. The higher the debt, the higher the interest, and the likelier it is that the student will require an interest waiver that the college must help pay for. This is the keystone of the proposal in my view. Changes to loan origination and repayment will have limited impact if colleges themselves don't have incentives to hold debt to reasonable levels. Risk-sharing payments are unlikely to be ruinous for most colleges—the amounts we're talking about are relatively low—but they're nonetheless direct financial encouragement for colleges to make necessary changes. There's no excuse not to reduce debt: the bill gives colleges the power to set lower loan limits if they so choose. The PROMISE Grant is also welcome as a carrot to accompany the risk-sharing stick. My analysis of a similar proposal from last year shows that community colleges with a technical or vocational focus are most likely to benefit. The new grants could be an extra inducement for these schools to offer new programs in high-demand fields, as well as give schools the financial capacity to expand. A new way forward for student loans The House proposal is a three-front attack on the student loan monster. Loan limits aim to ensure debt levels are reasonable. The new repayment plan will prevent rising balances. Accountability for colleges will ensure the debts they compel students to take on are justified based on outcomes. If passed, the result of this policy mix will be a saner and more sustainable student loan system.
