Latest news with #Trump-favored
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Belated Republican Objections to the One Big Beautiful Bill Glide Over Its Blatant Fiscal Irresponsibility
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which the House of Representatives narrowly approved early in the morning on Thursday, May 22, lives up to its name in at least one respect: It is big, weighing in at 1,037 pages and nearly 200,000 words. Since the bill's final text was not available until 10:40 p.m. on Wednesday, about eight hours before it passed by a single-vote margin shortly before 7 a.m. the next day, it would not be surprising if bleary-eyed legislators overlooked some of its nuances in their hurry to deliver the package that President Donald Trump demanded. As Reason's Liz Wolfe notes, at least two Republicans—Reps. Mike Flood (R–Neb.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.)—have publicly admitted as much, saying they missed objectionable parts of the bill when they voted for it. If Flood and Greene had voted no, it would have been enough to change the outcome. Furthermore, it seems safe to assume that at least some of their colleagues had similar regrets but are too embarrassed to admit that they failed to exercise the minimum diligence that should be expected from members of Congress. But the complaints from Flood and Greene are notable for another reason: They have nothing to do with the bill's blatant fiscal irresponsibility, the main flaw highlighted by critics such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), and Elon Musk, who on Tuesday condemned "this massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill" as "a disgusting abomination." That much was clear prior to the House vote. As Reason's Eric Boehm noted the day before Flood and Greene gave their crucial assent to the bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that it would add $2.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years—an estimate that the CBO upped to $2.4 trillion this week. Boehm added that "other assessments of the bill" by the Yale Budget Lab (originally published on May 16) and the Penn Wharton Budget Project (published three days later) estimated that it would add "more than $3 trillion" to the debt. Those are low-ball estimates, based on the unrealistic assumption that Congress will allow Trump-favored tax cuts to lapse toward the end of that period. If "temporary provisions in the bill are made permanent," Boehm reported, the Yale Budget Lab estimated that it would trigger $5 trillion in new borrowing. The national debt currently exceeds $35 trillion, including about $29 trillion in debt held by the public, which is about the size of the entire U.S. economy. Last March, Trump promised to do something about that. "In the near future," he told Congress, "I want to do what has not been done in 24 years—balance the federal budget. We're gonna balance it." But the glaring gap between that promise and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not faze Flood or Greene, whose concerns are much narrower. Flood belatedly objected to a provision on page 541 of the bill that would limit the authority of federal judges to "enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order." While that would be convenient for an administration that seems bent on defying court orders, it raises clear rule-of-law concerns, and it is not obviously related to taxes or spending, the bill's ostensible subjects. But as The New York Times notes, this provision "was advanced out of committee three weeks before" the House approved the bill. At a town hall in Nebraska last week, Flood nevertheless admitted that the provision was "unknown to me when I voted for the bill." Although that confession provoked "boos from the crowd," Flood thought he should get points for candor, saying, "I am not going to hide the truth." Greene, for her part, was upset about a provision on page 278 of the bill that would impose a 10-year moratorium on local and state regulation of artificial intelligence. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section," Greene admitted in an X post on Tuesday. "I am adamantly OPPOSED to this [because] it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there." Why did Greene miss that vote-changing detail? "You know," she told the Times, "it's hard to read over 1,000 pages when things keep changing up to the last minute before we voted on it." But the deal-breaking provision that Greene overlooked was not one of the things that changed at the last minute: There it is on page 491 of a report that the House Budget Committee distributed on May 20, two days before the vote on the bill. "PRO TIP," Rep. Ted Lieu (D–Calif.) wrote in response to Greene's confession. "It's helpful to read stuff before voting on it." Many other commenters joined Lieu in mocking Greene's dereliction of duty. To be fair, however, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a lot to digest even with two days' notice. It combines the extension of income tax cuts enacted in 2017 with sundry new tax provisions, increases in spending on the military and border control, cuts to welfare programs such as Medicare, and various changes that have little or nothing to do with fiscal policy, including the provisions that bother Flood and Greene. The White House counts "50 Wins in the One Big Beautiful Bill," and its list is not exhaustive. The challenge of understanding what the bill would do was magnified by Trump's unremitting pressure and House Speaker Mike Johnson's insistence on a vote prior to Memorial Day, which left legislators and their staffs scrambling to read and comprehend the final version in the middle of the night. Although "major provisions of the big beautiful bill are still being negotiated and written," Massie noted on May 21, "we are being told we will vote on it today. Shouldn't we take more than a few hours to read a bill this big and this consequential?" That wait-and-hurry-up approach has long been par for the course with Congress, where must-pass legislation succeeds by sheer volume and artificial haste, cramming together unrelated provisions that would not have passed on their own. Even if you have trouble mustering sympathy for legislators like Flood and Greene, who by their own account fell down on their jobs, this is no way to make law. Still, it is telling that the post-passage dissents do not even touch upon the looming fiscal crisis that Trump and Congress seem determined to ignore. The post Belated Republican Objections to the One Big Beautiful Bill Glide Over Its Blatant Fiscal Irresponsibility appeared first on
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's idea to make Americans have babies again gets mixed reviews from experts
President Donald Trump called himself the "fertilization president" during Women's History Month, but some experts cited claims that "baby bonuses," such as the $5,000 plan Trump floated, have been tried in the past and had mixed results. Singapore, Hungary and Australia are three examples of countries where such programs have been instituted. Singapore has been subsidizing parenthood for decades, with the latest endowment per child reaching S$ 11,000 (US $8,000) as of 2023, but the tiny Asian nation still has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. Gabriella Hoffman, an official at the Independent Women's Forum, wrote on social media that baby bonuses did not work in Hungary. Dnc Vice Chair Slams Trump As 'Punk', Would-be Dictator At Fiery Pa Town Hall "Why would we replicate this here?" she asked. Read On The Fox News App That country, led by Trump-favored President Viktor Orban, also incentivizes its residents to have more kids, including through tax breaks for families with three or more offspring. Hungary's birth rate rose slightly about a decade ago but returned to and remains close to one. Australia's program began in 2004 and indexed to inflation in 2008 what was then an A$ 5,000 (US $3,180) for parents per birth. The government's self-reported birthrate statistic was about 1.5 as of 2023. Paula Lantz, a social demographer from the University of Michigan, told the Guardian that in the U.S., the percentage of families having more than one child has dropped and that "there is something else going on" – including non-financial considerations like quality of life effects. An official at the liberal Center for American Progress told the outlet she had a child a few months ago and that the promised $5,000 credit "wouldn't do much" even with good insurance and paid occupational family leave. Obama Slams Pro-trump Men At Philadelphia Rally While Springsteen Warns Gop Nominee Is 'An American Tyrant' Andrea Ippolito, founder of maternal health tech platform SimpliFed, told Fox News Digital that while the $5,000 is a "nice boost," the initiative "just lightly scratches the surface of the support that is needed for families, especially in the early years with childcare and healthcare support that is largely missing from the postpartum care experience." "In order to increase the birth rate, much more is needed to support and ensure that both mom and baby's health is prioritized," Ippolito said. "That means both physical health needs (which are not right now as demonstrated with doubling the preeclampsia rate doubling) and mental health needs." On the other hand, Emily and Nathan Berning – co-founders of crisis-pregnancy support site said that the baby bonus touted by Trump "is a positive step, but it doesn't go far enough." "Financial aid after delivery is helpful, but the real need is stability throughout pregnancy—rent, food, counseling, and emotional support," the Bernings said. "If we want to raise birthrates and protect children, we must act earlier and ensure no woman feels forced into a decision out of fear or isolation." They touted the benefits of pregnancy clinics that are founded by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, saying that is how to prioritize "compassion over politics." Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced a proposal for the feds to provide $1,000 in an account for each American child. The "Invest America Act" would create "a private tax-advantaged account," and Cruz said in a statement last week the investments can be placed in a broad, low-cost fund that tracks the S&P 500, growing tax-deferred until the individual reaches age 18. Distributions after age 18 would be taxed at the capital gains rate. Fox News Digital reached out to Cruz for any comment on claims from critics that past iterations of the accounts have not been successful. Fox News Digital also reached out to the White House for comment on article source: Trump's idea to make Americans have babies again gets mixed reviews from experts
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Paul, Weiss and Skadden: Capitulating Cowards of the Legal Profession
Donald Trump's unconstitutional assault on the biggest law firms has roiled the entire legal industry. The news from just Wednesday has one more big firm, Milbank, caving to Trump's nasty leverage campaign, and ferocious criticism from law school deans, bar associations, and lawyers from the capitulating law firms, some of whom have quit in protest. The turmoil is completely predictable, and it will continue. Trump's attacks have forced firms to make the most pitched decisions between raw profit and the broader ideals of the legal profession that all lawyers have been exhorted to honor since their first year in law school. And the high-profile surrenders of now four of the country's most profitable firms lay bare their true priorities. Conversely, the decisions to fight back by three prominent firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—along with the public call to arms by Keker, Van Nest & Peters, led by legendary trial lawyer John Keker, stand as testaments to courage and principle under pressure. The terms of surrender for the various capitulating firms varied somewhat, but in general they agreed to pony up from $40 to $100 million in pro bono legal services supporting Trump-favored causes, and to alter or discontinue their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. And the price has been rising. All of which delights our tyrant-in-chief, who gloated that the firms—which have been chosen for reasons having to do with Trump's endless campaign of reprisal against perceived opponents—'are all bending and saying, 'Sir, thank you very much. Where do I sign?'' Notably, the firms that waved the white flag are among the most profitable in the country, better-heeled than all of the ones that dug in. They take in from about $4 million to $7.5 million per partner per year, with individual big rainmaker partners reportedly making up to $100 million. It's another bitter lesson in the greater vulnerability to Trump's pressure on the part of the institutions that have ample financial wherewithal to resist. That's the same dynamic that led to the knee-buckling of the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and CBS and now has begun to be in play in the richest and most prestigious private universities, beginning with Columbia, which recently acceded to Trump's demands. It was Paul, Weiss's surrender, personally negotiated at the Oval Office by firm chair Brad Karp, that set the crisis, and obloquy within the profession, in motion. It was in some ways the most craven because had the firm held the line, it would have made it that much harder for Trump to bring the others to their knees. And once they caved, that made it far easier for others to follow suit: It enabled Trump to divide and conquer. The next big firm to yield was Skadden, Arps. Jeremy London, Skadden's executive partner, wrote a convoluted email to the lawyers in the firm attempting to justify the decision. He explained that when the firm got wind of Trump's intent to issue an executive order targeting Skadden over its pro bono work and DEI initiatives, 'we were thoughtful and deliberate in determining the steps we might take.… As we considered our options, we were guided by our determination to uphold the significant commitments and responsibilities we have to our clients, our people, and to the broader communities and society we serve.' Defending the decision to play ball, London then wrote, 'We entered into the agreement the president announced today because, when faced with the alternatives, it became clear that it was the best path to protect our clients, our people, and our firm.' Notice a missing element? London's justification omitted any mention of 'the broader communities and society we serve.' That's no surprise, because it was precisely those broader interests that Skadden sold out. None of this has been lost on Skadden's attorneys, several of whom have left the firm in protest. Announcing her departure on LinkedIn, Brenna Trout Frey laid into London's email, which she disparaged as an 'attempt to convince some of the best minds in the legal profession that he did us a solid by capitulating to the Trump administration's demands for fealty and protection money.' Most recently, Thomas Sipp, 27, quit the firm. His goodbye email to his colleagues said, 'Skadden is on the wrong side of history. I could no longer stay knowing that someday I would have to explain why I stayed.' That perspective—the day that we have to hope will come, and work for, when Trump's authoritarian project has been defeated—is what's completely lost on the capitulating firms. Indeed, they are basically betting on Trump's success in smothering the legal system as we know it. That's the operating condition that will make their spineless wager pay off. That's not to say that the firms that are standing up for the rule of law will necessarily come out ahead. One of the most vicious aspects of Trump's assault on civil society (as well as sectors of the federal workforce) is that it will impose great costs on the objects of his petty vengeance, however things turn out. Thus, Perkins Coie, the first firm to fight back in court, is almost certain to prevail. The judge hearing the case already opined that Trump's protection-money demand 'sends little chills down my spine.' She added, 'I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through.' But while the firm is likely to win in court, that won't remove the scarlet letter Trump has planted on its forehead. Large clients are still likely to pause before retaining them for any matter involving the government, knowing of Trump's animus. Trump's enmity—100 percent undeserved and unrelated to any vaguely legitimate governmental purpose—imposes an existential crisis on the firm, notwithstanding its patent illegality. But that just underscores Perkins's—and Jenner's and Wilmer's—guts and dedication to principle. They are making the financial sacrifice that richer firms are petrified to make, and giving meaning to the chestnuts about the rule of law and dedication to the Constitution that the Paul, Weisses of the world recite but abandon when the pressure is on. The legal industry is imperiled by a collective action problem. As John Keker, imploring law firms nationwide to stand with the firms and lawyers who resist Trump's lawless assaults, wrote, 'If we stand together and fight, we will win.' But each fat-cat firm that caves in response to Trump's demands makes the next capitulation that much easier, and puts the whole industry more firmly under Trump's thumb. And to the extent our democracy depends on a functional legal industry, that afflicts us all.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump is directly attacking liberal cities' institutions
President Donald Trump's hometown of New York City is ground zero for his assault on blue cities and states and their institutions. The rule of law is being replaced with the whims of the president, and so far there's no sign that any of the Democrats running to be mayor, including damaged incumbent Eric Adams, are up to the moment of protecting the city from Trump when needed. Adams is openly compromised. The other candidates have been more interested in talking about that or taking whacks at the front-runner, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, than in articulating how they'd stand up to this presidential pressure campaign hitting the city from all sides. There's the $400 million in federal funding being withheld from Columbia University in a legally dubious move, at least until it complies with a sweeping and nebulous series of demands. These include a crackdown on anti-Israel protests and a masking ban at the same time that masked federal agents are picking up campus members and shipping them to Louisiana for deportation proceedings. Then there's the executive order, a true bill of attainder, that threatened to destroy Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, one of the city's most prominent law firms, for employing and working on behalf of the president's real and perceived enemies. Trump said Thursday he'll drop the order after the firm's head went to the White House, which said he apologized for 'wrongdoing' and agreed to provide $40 million in legal services to Trump-favored causes over his term. (Trump should update the title of his best-known book to 'The Art of the Shakedown.') Trump also imposed the legally dubious demand to shut down New York's already federally approved and implemented congestion pricing plan, along with blackmail about cutting other federal funding unless Gov. Kathy Hochul complies and cuts out what Trump's transportation secretary whined Thursday is 'open disrespect of the federal government' in refusing to accept its made-up ultimatum. Trump's Justice Department is also suing the state for refusing to let the feds use its DMV database, including undocumented immigrants with state driver's licenses, as a de facto deportation list. And then there are the threats from Trump's 'border czar,' Tom Homan, about how 'I don't care what the judges think, I don't care what the left thinks, we're coming' and Homan's open extortion of Mayor Adams — who is desperate to get a dispensation in the criminal corruption case against him — about how 'I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying where the hell is the agreement we came to' if the mayor doesn't deliver much more cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, never mind New York's sanctuary city laws. As the hits keep coming with more on the way, Adams has said he won't publicly criticize Trump or his administration, openly humiliating himself and the city he's supposed to lead in the process. New York City didn't go red in 2024 by any measure, but it got notably less blue as Trump basically matched his 2020 numbers while Kamala Harris fell short of Joe Biden's 2020 results in every single electoral district. A message to those Democrat skeptics: You can dislike any or all campus protesters, menacing street theater, white-collar law firms, congestion pricing, blue state governors, the far left or crooked mayors and still recognize that using the power of the federal government to target real or supposed 'enemies' this way is deeply disturbing. And that's before getting to the wild terror claims being thrown around by the feds without even nominal attribution and the supposed gang members being shipped, without any evidence or hearing in a frontal assault on the judiciary and the rule of law itself, to a hellhole El Salvadoran prison. If you thought the Biden administration was committing 'lawfare' and are applauding Trump's retribution tour, your complaint was not about having an 'enemies list' — just with who was on it. Trump's extortion scheme, demanding tribute from cities and elite institutions as if they were conquered territories, is about exacting punishment, of course, but it's largely about compliance. Lop off a few heads and other people get nervous about lifting theirs up. That goes for protesters and administrators and mayors and just about everyone else. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Trump's big idea, if 'idea' isn't too generous a word, is to take hard, wild swings and expect everyone who doesn't get hit to race to comply before the hammer comes down again — and to get in an as many swings as he can before courts or lawmakers or anyone else can even react. That's why Manhattan medical giant NYU Langone is scrubbing references to its 'diverse students' and the word 'marginalized' from its website and policy documents and reconsidering words as harmless as 'vulnerable' for fear of incurring Trump's ire. You don't need to love all things DEI to recognize that executive orders criminalizing an 'ideology' without even defining it are meant to coerce silence and violate what had been the bedrock American principle that the government doesn't get to pick speech winners and losers. That crude approach appears to be working. It's not just NYU Langone, which was unlucky enough to have its memo leak first. Nearly every lawyer is advising the institutions they work for to tone down their language, trim their sails and hope the lightning strikes someone else. Columbia's board is reportedly trying to figure out how to meet Trump's terms, including placing its Middle Eastern studies department in 'academic receivership' despite the damage that would do to the institution's independence — and despite the fact that Trump hasn't even said he'll restore the money if it complies, only that he won't negotiate at all until it does. Only a handful of other schools have called out the shakedown, reversing the famous Benjamin Franklin quip at the signing of the Declaration of Independence about how 'We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.' Most everyone is keeping quiet, hoping someone else gets hung first. New York has talked a big game about progressive values, but those are being tested as never before. The rest of the country is watching to see how America's biggest city, and Trump's hometown, will handle the tough years ahead as voters decide whether to put up or shut up. If there's a mayoral candidate willing to actually lead before voters give them the job by talking about the tough times and hard choices that are coming as the federal government cuts funding to New York City and pressures whoever's mayor to comply with his diktats, this is the time to find out if New Yorkers are serious or not about wanting a profile in courage. This article was originally published on
