Latest news with #TedCruz
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
New Law Aims To Protect Texas Oil And Gas Industry From Lawsuits
(The Center Square) – Both of Texas' U.S. senators and one congressman, all from Houston, have filed a bill to protect the oil and natural gas industry. Texas Republicans U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn filed the Protect LNG Act in the Senate; U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, filed companion legislation in the House. 'American energy has the ability to metaphorically and literally power the world, and Texas is the lead exporter of U.S. LNG,' Cruz said. 'Those achievements have been under attack by fringe environmental groups, who use and are enabled by politicized courts. This legislation counters such attacks, and I'm proud to lead the fight to protect energy producers, the jobs they create in Texas, and America's energy leadership. The Senate should expeditiously take it up and pass it.' The bill would prevent courts from halting liquified natural gas (LNG) permits when a lawsuit is filed and require that the cases only be filed in the circuit court jurisdiction where the LNG facility is located, not the location of a federal agency that issues the requested permits. It specifically stipulates that 'a civil action relating to an environmental review under the Natural Gas Act or National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to a covered facility shall not affect the validity of a permit, license, or approval issued to the covered facility that is the subject of the civil action,' according to the bill language. It states that if a civil action is brought, the applicable court 'shall not set aside or vacate the permit, license, or approval issued to the covered facility but instead remand the matter to the relevant Federal agency to resolve the violation.' It also would establish a 90-day period for lawsuits to be filed after an LNG permitting notice is published in the Federal Register and require expedited review of lawsuits against LNG facilities. 'Oil and natural gas production employs hundreds of thousands of hardworking Texans and is a critical part of the Texas economy, as well as our nation's energy sector as a whole,' Cornyn said, adding that the bill will 'help protect energy projects across our country from lawsuits that far-left climate activists file in an attempt to hamstring American energy.' 'Natural gas is the most impactful green initiative on the planet – it has the power to lift entire nations and communities out of poverty,' Hunt said. 'Yet sadly, natural gas and LNG have been weaponized by the radical left and the climate cartel, driving up energy costs for hardworking Americans – just as we're still reeling from the disastrous effects of Biden-flation.' The bill was filed after both Republicans and Democrats called on the Biden administration to rescind its ban on new LNG permits, The Center Square reported. It also comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in March reinstated approvals for LNG projects for Rio Grande LNG and Texas LNG Brownsville. The court previously vacated permits for both projects last August. It's decision last year jeopardized 7,000 high-paying jobs and $24 billion in investment in the Rio Grande Valley and delayed a project by nearly 10 months. If enacted, the bill would prevent a ruling like that from happening again. Cruz and Cornyn previously introduced the Protect LNG Act last year, which went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The U.S. leads the world in LNG exports, led by the Gulf states of Texas and Louisiana. In 2017, the U.S. became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since 1957, 'primarily because of increased LNG exports,' according to the EIA. The U.S. became a net exporter after Cheniere Energy was the first to export domestically sourced LNG from the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, and from the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas, The Center Square . Nearly 25% of U.S. natural gas reserves are located in Texas and 30% of the largest hundred natural gas fields in the U.S. are in Texas, which leads the U.S. in oil and natural gas production and emissions reductions, The Center Square . The U.S. LNG industry 'contributes a whopping $43.8 billion toward the U.S. GDP, and generates $11 billion in tax and royalty revenues for local, state and federal governments,' The Center Square .
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Texas bill for permanent daylight saving time is already doomed
House Bill 1393 attempts to adopt permanent daylight saving time for Texas. If the governor signs it, this bill will, at best, accomplish nothing — not even eliminating the semiannual clock switches — because federal law prohibits year-round daylight saving time. At worst, Congress will pass the Sunshine Protection Act, championed by Sen. Ted Cruz, to remove this prohibition and allow implementation of permanent daylight saving time here. The result would be year-round alignment of Texas' clocks with New Jersey's sunrises and sunsets. Permanent daylight saving time was tried twice before, during World War II and the oil embargo of the 1970s. Rejected by Texans, it failed both times. Permanent standard time is most Texans' preferred solution. Let's stop waking our young children in the dark and putting them to bed in the light, the result of daylight saving in the spring and fall. - Josh Findley, Dallas As a Tarrant County resident and attorney, I am deeply concerned about the proposed Commissioners Court precinct maps and the racial gerrymandering they represent. These maps intentionally pack high-minority populations into Precinct 1, concentrating our voting power while minimizing our influence in surrounding precincts. This is not only unjust — it's undemocratic. The redistricting process should reflect the diversity of our county, not suppress it. Communities of color deserve fair representation across all precincts, not to be strategically confined to one. The proposed maps send a clear message: Our voices are being sidelined. I urge commissioners to reject any plan that undermines equitable representation and to commit to drawing maps that serve all residents of Tarrant County. - MarQuetta Clayton, Fort Worth I don't know why the Fort Worth City Council is in such an uproar over the so-called gerrymandering of the proposed Tarrant County Commissioners Court maps. Take a look at what council members did to east Fort Worth when they did their redistricting. District 11 is a joke. In my advanced years, it's the worst map I've ever seen. - Wanda Conlin, Fort Worth Jonathan Butcher and Lindsey M. Burke of The Heritage Foundation wrote that teaching the 'classic texts' of Western literature will produce better military graduates, skilled in 'critical thinking and logic.' (May 18, 8C, 'A Test Fit for U.S. Service Academies') That is typical conservative claptrap that longs for a return to the 'good old days.' They have obviously never taught critical thinking or even had a course in it. We pay lip service to critical thinking, but it is not taught in American public schools or even in colleges. I have taught it in Europe, and simply reading texts — whether the Declaration of Independence (suggested by the authors) or Maya Angelou — does not instill critical thinking skills. Book learning in the classics, even military classics such as Carl von Clausewitz and Antoine-Henri Jomini, does not make better soldiers. - Dr. Richard Selcer, Fort Worth Days before the anniversary of George Floyd's murder, the Trump administration declared it would stop overseeing many local police agencies accused of violence and abuses, particularly against Black people. I hope the Justice Department continues to oversee local police agencies accused of abuses against all communities, including white, Hispanic and Asian populations. Let's not forget that Donald Trump granted pardons to many of the Jan. 6 rioters who were involved in violent actions and abuses targeting police officers. The officers represented a diverse range of backgrounds. Which side is Trump on? - Leslie J. Smith, Grapevine
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Is Trump's ‘baby bond' really pro-child? No – children need a fair society to thrive
Turning children into capitalists – that's the purpose behind the new 'Trump account', which will give every new baby born in the US during the president's second term $1,000 to be invested in the stock market. Now, little shareholders can identify with the US companies they invest in. 'Hey … I own 50 bucks of McDonald's' was an example given by senator Ted Cruz. This is a surprise element in Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill', which gives $1.1tn in tax cuts to the very rich funded by cutting Medicaid, food assistance and the education department. This joins a range of policies from rightwing parties around the world which look, on the face of it, to be pro-child or pro-family. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán announced an income tax exemption for mothers of two or three children – previously, only mothers of four or more children were exempt. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage in the UK has proclaimed that Reform would end the two-child benefit cap. Yet in reality, the policies are anything but. Trump's baby bond is not a pro-family poverty alleviation scheme, but his way of creating the 'shareholding democracy' Margaret Thatcher dreamed of when she promised in her 1985 conference speech to make 'owning shares as common as having a car'. Her government sold off nationalised companies cheap to encourage the capitalist impulse in British citizens: that's when we lost gas ('If you see Sid, tell him'), water and electricity alongside British Airways and others. It didn't work, as most sold these underpriced shares for a quick profit: by 2022, only 14% of British people directly held any shares. Britain had a child trust fund (CTF) for every baby until it was brutally axed by the coalition government. (Abolition was in the Liberal Democrats' 2010 manifesto: they weren't always nice.) Labour had introduced it in 2005: £250 for all, or £500 in low-income families, with a top-up of £250 at seven, and double that for poorer seven-year-olds. Parents who were able to could contribute extra. But Labour's intention was radically different from Trump's. The idea was to make a small dent in the colossal injustice of the inheritocracy so that every child at 18 would have something to see them on their way. The average £2,000 pot is only a wren-sized nest egg, but for those with no bank of mum and dad at least it can contribute towards driving lessons, renting a flat or education costs. When 8.4 million people have no savings at all, those from families with nothing risk being forced into bad jobs with no escape, for lack of the choices a little money can buy. Right now, restoring it is nowhere on the agenda; in these far harder times, the government must strive first towards its manifesto promise to cut child poverty. Gavin Kelly, the begetter of the CTF inside Gordon Brown's Treasury, laments that there is no research on its effects: this real-life experiment should be comparing those receiving the CTF with previous or later generations without it. The impulse for research dried up once the policy itself was killed off, but in one study done before the CTF came in, Abigail McKnight of the London School of Economics's Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion found that 'early asset holding does have positive effects on later wages, employment prospects, excellent general health and in reducing malaise'. She says it allows young people to take risks, 'and risk-taking is very important for higher returns in later life'. Kelly has plentiful anecdotes. He just met a family in rural Suffolk with no savings whose son used his CTF to buy an old car he could never have afforded without it so he can travel to an apprenticeship 45 minutes away. Roughly 55,000 18-year-olds every month come into their fund, but it ends in 2029, when today's 14-year-olds will be the last recipients (18- to 22-year-olds, there are lost child trust funds waiting to be claimed). Back in 2005, Labour already had child poverty falling steeply, and this was a small attempt to ease the gap between the richest and the poorest. But it was far more than that. Here was another symbol of Labour's pro-child spirit – welcoming every baby and enhancing their lives with Sure Start centres. Labour was never consciously pronatalist, but its 'every child matters' policy strove to set children on their feet, with child tax credits among its pro-child impulses. Labour inherited a falling birthrate in 1997, but it rose until 2010, and then fell from two births a woman to 1.5 in the Tory years. Correlation is not causation, but unwelcoming years of cutting child and youth services can't have helped, with rising housing and childcare costs acting as barriers to child-bearing, and young people worse off than their parents were at baby-producing age. Children's pleasures were stripped bare, as school arts and sports were lost, and further education colleges, leisure centres, parks and every support to childhood were depleted, alongside savage benefit cuts. Even the infant mortality rate rose for first time in generations. So did the child death rate, up 8% in England in 2023, a third of it avoidable, according to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. This was all under the rightwing governments that savoured the two-child benefit cap, a (failed) eugenic attempt to prevent the wrong kind of children increasing the population. The sadness is that most women in the UK and other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries wish they had more children than they do. In 2016, they wished on average for 2.3 – well above the population replacement rate of 2.1, let alone the current rate of 1.57. Rightwing leaders such as Trump and Viktor Orbán wish to own the pronatalist argument – don't let them. As the Social Market Foundation (SMF) reports in Baby bust and baby boom: Examining the liberal case for pronatalism, a country that celebrates childhood is often a better place for everyone. Just as abortion is a right, so is the right to bear children. That's why abolishing the two-child benefit limit – as ministers have hinted they are considering – is about even more than alleviating child poverty. Scrapping it would signify the renewal of a hopeful attitude to children that was always in Labour's DNA. Any vision of the future has to embrace a younger population: old people are not a nation's dynamism or innovation. Falling fertility means long-term stagnation. Punishing the children we have only leads to long-term social and economic damage. For the children who receive one, the 'Trump account' may do some good. But whatever his motive, the president's version of pronatalism is doomed. Experience from around the world suggests bribery has a minimal effect: France and Sweden both have higher birthrates than Hungary, regardless of the tax breaks. So Trump's offer of $5,000 to mothers for every birth may be doomed without a social environment that nurtures all children. Nor is his bill really likely to turn babies into mini-capitalists. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
The Hill
5 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
What to know about the $1,000-per-child ‘Trump accounts'
(NEXSTAR) – Among the 1,000-plus pages of President Trump's tax bill is a proposal that would put federal money into accounts for babies born during his second term. Initially dubbed 'Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement' (MAGA), the savings proposal was recently renamed 'Trump account.' Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is credited with coming up with the idea, calls the $1,000 investments 'transformative' for future generations. 'There are many Americans who don't own stocks or bonds, are not invested in the market, and may not feel particularly invested in the American free enterprise system. This will give everyone a stake,' Cruz told Semafor. The idea itself, to give babies a financial head start when it comes to education, homeownership and financial success, is not new, however. A similar plan has been implemented in Connecticut and another proposed by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Under Trump's 'big beautiful' bill, qualifying babies born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Jan. 1, 2029 would receive $1,000 in a Trump account opened by their parents or the Treasury. To be eligible, the newborns would have to be U.S. citizens and have a Social Security number. A parent must also provide a Social Security number to show they are eligible to work, according to the bill. 'If the Secretary of Treasury determines that an eligible individual does not have an accountopened for them by the first tax return where the child is claimed as a qualifying child, theSecretary shall establish an account on the child's behalf, taking into account, to the extentpossible, the parents preferred custodian and investment fund,' the bill reads. 'Parents will be provided the option to opt out of the account.' Families would have the option to add up to $5,000 a year, with the account holder unable to take distributions before age 18. Contributions from tax-exempt entities, such as private-foundations, aren't subject to the $5,000 cap. At the age of 18, additional investments would be capped, but the named account holder would be able to access up to 50% of the money to pay for higher education, training and first-time home purchases. At age 30, account holders would have access to the full balance for any purpose. The money would be invested in a U.S. equity index fund and taxed as capital gains if spent on qualified expenses, according to retirement publication Plan Adviser. Withdrawal of the money for non-qualified purchases would be penalized and taxed as ordinary income. Michael Piwowar and Robert Shapiro, of the Milken Institute, published a paper analyzing the growth prospects of such an account and found that, on average, the $1,000 investment would grow to $8,000 after 20 years, $69,000 after 40 years and $574,000 after 60 years. A number of experts reacted favorably to the creation of the accounts, but questioned the structure. 'The MAGA accounts proposal is an encouraging step—but it misses a critical piece,' Zach Buchwald, CEO of Russell Investments, told Plan Adviser in a statement earlier this month. 'If we want true financial security, we need long-term solutions that include retirement. Let's give every young American a chance to build real wealth—not just a starter fund.' Others asked why families would put money that has already been taxed into an account that doesn't allow you to take it out tax-free, when there are options such as the 529 college savings plan, or Roth IRA that would allow them to do just that. 'The giving kids money aspect is generally good,' Zach Teutsch, a managing partner at Values Added Financial, told Yahoo Finance, but called the account structure 'ill-considered' since families who choose to fund a Trump account over a tax-advantaged 529 plan would seemingly be 'shockingly sure' their child wouldn't be going to college. Meantime, Trump accounts will only become a reality if the administration's 'big, beautiful bill' makes it through the Senate, which could involve a rewriting process in order for the package to garner 51 votes. Should the bill pass without changes to Trump accounts, financial writer Jim Wang has this advice: 'You might as well take the free $1,000 that comes with automatic enrollment of a Trump Account but there's little reason to contribute more toward the account as the child ages. For education expenses, you're better off contributing into a 529 plan.' The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Washington Post
6 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
The tax bill is Republicans' chance to shape the next generation
Ted Cruz, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Texas. Last month, Republican senators gathered in the Library of Congress to have an extended discussion and strategy session about the budget reconciliation process that is dominating conversations in Washington. I asked my colleagues two specific questions: In all of this massive bill, what will be its biggest legacy? What bold, transformational policies can we champion that will impact the next generation of Americans — policies we'll still be talking about 10, 20, even 30 years from now?
