Tag: cnn
Why House Republicans May Still Tank Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'

Why House Republicans May Still Tank Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'

As the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate mulls changes to President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," one House Republican is warning his Senate counterparts against tweaking one particular section.

During a Sunday interview with CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) cautioned Senate Republicans against making any changes to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction he and others negotiated with House Republican leadership. The SALT deduction cap is currently at $10,000, but House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA.) agreed to raise the cap to $40,000 in order to convince House's SALT caucus to support the legislation.

"This is an issue that not just impacts blue states, it impacts nearly every state in the country," Lawler said. "29 states blew through the $10,000 cap over the last seven years. And so lifting the cap on SALT is critically important. It provides middle-class tax relief. And that's exactly what we did here."

"I've been very clear with leadership all this past week that if the Senate changes the SALT deduction in any way, I will be a no," he continued. "And I'm not going to buckle on that. And I've spoken to my other colleagues, they will be a no as well."

Lawler's remarks come as Senate Republicans have spoken openly about slashing the SALT deduction, which they say is overwhelmingly beneficial to Americans in blue states (which typically have higher state and local tax rates). Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said last week that senators are likely to nix the SALT deal in the package they intend to send back to the House of Representatives.

"There’s not a single [Republican] senator from New York or New Jersey or California, and so there’s not a strong mood in the Senate Republican caucus right now to do $353 billion for states that basically the other states subsidize," Crapo said on Wednesday.

The House only narrowly passed the massive 1,037-page budget bill by a 215-214 margin in May, and only did so with the help of the SALT caucus, which includes representatives like Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Young Kim (R-CA) and Nick LaLota (R-NY, as well as Lawler. Should they withhold their support from a final bill that cuts the SALT deduction, the legislation would likely fail to pass.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

President Donald Trump

Just What Power Does Donald Trump Still Have?

Way back in March of 2023, Donald Trump went on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News and said he would “solve” the war in Ukraine in “24 hours” if he was elected president in 2024. “There’s a very easy negotiation to take place. But I don’t want to tell you what it is because then I can’t use that negotiation; it’ll never work. But it’s a very easy negotiation to take place. I will have it solved within one day, a peace between them,” Trump confided to the ever-eager, ever-gullible Hannity.

In May of 2023, Trump told a CNN town hall, “I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done — I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”

In August of 2024, Trump told a National Guard conference, “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. I’ll get it settled very fast.”

On February 28 of this year, just after the three-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Trump and Vance infamously sandbagged Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. Accusing Zelenskyy of starting the war, Trump declared that he had not taken sides in the conflict and was “in the middle.” He berated the shocked Ukrainian leader before having him escorted out of the White House, “You see the hatred he’s got for Putin. That’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate.”

A few days later, Trump paused military and intelligence aid to Ukraine.

In April, after Putin fired yet another barrage of drones and missiles at civilian targets in Ukraine, Trump posted on Truth Social, “Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP!”

On Sunday, Trump fired off this blast at the Russian president: “I’ve always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY! I’ve always said that he wants ALL of Ukraine, not just a piece of it, and maybe that’s proving to be right, but if he does, it will lead to the downfall of Russia!”

Yesterday, Trump whined again on Truth Social that “if it weren’t for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He’s playing with fire!”

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chief of Russia’s security council and Russia’s puppet-president when Putin took a time-out as Prime Minister between 2008 and 2012, fired back: “Regarding Trump’s words about Putin ‘playing with fire’ and ‘really bad things’ happening to Russia. I only know of one REALLY BAD thing — WWIII. I hope Trump understands this.”

Russian President Putin did not attend the abortive “peace talks” in Turkey earlier this month, although Zelenskyy did show up. Now the two sides are trading “proposals” that amount to demands if there is to be a ceasefire and eventual peace.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) reports that Putin’s army is pressing to take more Ukrainian land across a wide swath of territory that includes the area around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plantand has been running what it calls “illegal” new power lines near the Sea of Azov in Russian occupied territory, “suggesting that Russia intends to bring the ZNPP's reactors out of their current cold shutdown state…acting upon its long-held plans to connect the ZNPP to the Russian power grid.”

Meanwhile, over the last three days, Russia has bombarded Ukraine with more than 900 Shahed and decoy drones against civilian targets in Ukraine, along with dozens of ballistic missiles and Kh-101 cruise missiles.

ISW reports that Putin is in it for the long haul, importing hundreds of mobile missiles and 155 mm artillery pieces and ammunition from North Korea and thousands of computer chips from China to ramp up its drone production.

Trump’s frustration at not being able to end the war in Ukraine is boiling over. He has changed his timeline for ending the war multiple times, and now he is changing his rhetoric about his “friend” Putin.

The words “World War III” are now being flung back and forth between the superpowers. European nations are sufficiently alarmed that they have just completed a security conference and pledged to increase their defense budgets in many cases to 5 percent of their GDP. The upcoming NATO summit in The Hague is being met with headlines about the “dark cloud” cast by the “war of words” between Trump and Putin.

The biggest question at the summit should be, where is Trump’s power?

Here at home, Trump’s power is taking hit after hit. Tonight, the U.S. Court of International Trade handed down a ruling that Trump exceeded his power to impose tariffs under federal law. “The challenged Tariff Orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined,” the panel ruled. The three judges on the Court of Trade were appointed by Obama, Reagan, and…you guessed right…Donald Trump.

Trump had invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEEPA in setting the taxes on imported goods. The court found that Trump exceeded his authority under the IEEPA and ended tariffs he had imposed on Canada, Mexico, China, and all the other 10 percent tariffs Trump had imposed on every other country on earth, as well as several uninhabited islands.

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to impose tariffs, although the legislature has enacted several laws, including the IEEPA, ceding certain powers over the economy to the president. No president before has invoked the IEEPA to impose “emergency” tariffs. The trade court found that Trump had not adequately supported the reasons for his emergency declaration, ruling that the law did not allow “the President to impose whatever tariff rates he deems desirable.”

Trump has been losing in other courts, which have ruled that his attempt to shut down the Department of Education was illegal, that his takeover of the United States Institute of Peace was illegal, and that many of the federal workers fired by Elon Musk’s DOGE assault on the government must be rehired.

With Musk resigning his “special government employee” status in the face of the reversals of so many of his and Trump’s efforts to remake the government in either Musk’s or Trump’s image – it was never clear which – and Musk’s announcement that he opposes Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” where is Trump’s power now?

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA).

Senators Roast Trump's FDA Chief Over Fired Scientists

The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Marty Makary, came under strong criticism for his inconsistent remarks before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee after the accuracy of his claims related to terminated scientists and others was called into question by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA).

"You were asked on April 17th whether any of the personnel reductions had included personnel responsible for food safety or infant formula safety," Ossoff told Makary. "You said, quote, 'There were no cuts to scientists or reviewers or inspectors—absolutely none'. You were asked on April 23rd on CNN, and said, quote, 'Again, there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors'."

"But then just two days later, an HHS spokesperson confirmed that in fact, scientists had been fired, and that you were scrambling to rehire them," Ossoff continued. "Did you, in fact, say on April 23d, there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors? Just before we get into the details, is that an accurate quote?"

"No scientific reviewer was cut as part of the reduction in force," replied Makary.

"You said there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors. Didn't you say that?" Ossoff pressed.

"My understanding," Makary replied, "was that there were no cuts to the scientific staff, but specifically the scientific reviewers is what I was referring to."

"But you said there were," Ossoff responded.

A similar back and forth continued for several minutes, then Ossoff asked, "Had, in fact, scientists who study outbreaks of food related illnesses and the safety of infant formula been fired?"

"The reason it's not accurate, Senator, is that people were not fired, they were scheduled for the reduction in force, and when that was before I got there. When I got there, we did an assessment, and so some of those individuals out of the 19,000 were restored," Makary replied.

"Have all scientists responsible for food safety and infant formula safety, been rehired or reinstated?" Ossoff asked.

"Look, we have not reduced in force the scientific review staff. I know where you're going with this," Makary replied.

"You said there were no cuts to scientists, and then the HHS spokesperson said, actually, there were cuts to scientists, and now we're trying to rehire them. I mean, so it gives the impression you're not sure about the personnel actions ongoing in your own agency," said Ossoff.

After more back-and-forth, Ossoff wrapped it up: "You were very specific. You said there were no cuts to scientists. And then five days later, there were cuts to scientists. Those are your direct quotes. There were no cuts to scientists, but there were cuts to scientists."

Again, more back-and-forth and then Makary appeared to grow frustrated.

"I mean, this is the problem in government. Somebody has a fancy sounding name like, 'Infant Formula Safety,' and no one can ever touch them, even if they're not doing their job."

During his testimony, Makary also declared to another Senator, "By the way, America doesn't want COVID boosters."

And a third chastised him, saying: "You're prepared for a question that I didn't ask ... I'm asking you what are you doing about bird flu! Just answer that. Please. Don't give me a runaround about other stuff."

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Donald Trump

Why Trump Is Suddenly Backtracking On His 'Third Term'

President Donald Trump has stopped floating the idea that he would run for a third term — and CNN data analyst Harry Enten believes he knows why.

During an appearance on CNN Monday, Enten said the real reason Trump has stopped talking about a third term is because the idea is extremely unpopular among Americans, including Republicans.

“There’s a reason why Donald Trump is backtracking or saying, ‘No, I won’t actually do this,'" Enten said. "Because this idea is about as popular as New Coke was back in the mid-1980s.”

According to recent polling, there is strong opposition to Trump seeking a third term, with 76 percent of Americans against it. This includes a majority of Republicans, with only 21 percent expressing support overall — and even less support among Independents (16 percent).

During an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC on Sunday, Trump said he was not looking to run for a third time.

“It’s not something I’m looking to do,” the president said. “I’m looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward," he added.

Earlier, in March, Trump said he was serious about running for a third term, adding that his team was looking into “methods” that would enable him to do so.

“A lot of people want me to do it,“ he added. “But we have—my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I’m focused on the current," the president said at the time.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World