big

Aston Villa complain to Premier League after ‘big mistake’ at Old Trafford

Aston Villa will complain to the Premier League after a “big mistake” by referee Thomas Bramall contributed to them losing 2-0 at Manchester United and missing out on the Champions League.

With the match goalless and Villa down to 10 men after goalkeeper Emiliano Martinez was correctly sent off, the visitors thought they had scored when Morgan Rogers nudged the ball away from United goalkeeper Altay Bayindir and slotted home.

However, Bramall blew for a foul, thinking Bayindir had two hands on the ball, though television footage showed otherwise.

Because Bramall stopped play before the ball entered the net, the video assistant referee (VAR) could not intervene.

Moments later, Amad Diallo headed United in front – and Christian Eriksen’s late penalty condemned Villa to a defeat that meant they finished sixth and missed out on Champions League football on goal difference.

In Villa’s post-match news conference, director of football operations Damian Vidagany said the club were unhappy 35-year-old Bramall had been given such an important game.

“We are going to send a complaint,” said Vidagany. “The complaint is not about the decision, it is about the selection of the referee – one of the most inexperienced referees in the Premier League.

“It’s not about the decision, clearly it was a mistake. The complaint is about the referee. The problem is why the international referees were not here today.”

Bramall first refereed in the Premier League in August 2022 and his games this season have largely been in either the top flight or the second tier, with 11 in the Premier League and 12 in the Championship.

Villa boss Unai Emery was visibly furious with the decision to disallow Rogers’ goal – and award United their late penalty.

Speaking after the game, he said: “The TV is clear but, of course, we have to accept it. It was a mistake. A big mistake.”

The Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) – the body responsible for refereeing games in English professional football – declined to comment.

Source link

Republican critics of ‘big, beautiful bill’ say ‘math doesn’t add up’

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-WI, questions Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young during a Senate Budget Committee hearing on President Biden’s fiscal year 2024 budget proposal at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC, in 2023. File photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

May 25 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is losing support for his ‘big, beautiful bill,’ a budget measure that would add $3.3 billion to the national deficit over the next decade.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, said there are enough GOP Senators to stymie the bill, which the House passed by a one vote margin on May 22nd.

“I think we have enough to stop the process until the president gets serious about the spending reduction and reducing the deficit,” Johnson said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Republicans have a 53-47 vote margin in the Senate, but several members of the GOP have said they are not ready to support the budget bill, and are poised to defeat it.

“This is our moment,” Johnson said Sunday. “We have witnessed an unprecedented level of increased spending. This is our only chance to reset that to a reasonable pre-pandemic level.”

Trump has urged conservatives to support the measure, but Johnson called on his fellow Republicans to adopt a different approach to addressing the deficit before he could get behind a budget bill.

In its current form, the budget bill would increase the debt ceiling by $4 billion which would prevent a default on the national debt, which would occur in August.

Johnson was joined in his opposition to the bill by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who also cited the hike in the national deficit.

“I still would support the bill, even with wimpy and anemic cuts,” Paul said on Fox News Sunday, “if they weren’t going to explode the debt. The problem is, the math doesn’t add up. It’s just, you know, not a serious proposal.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., a Trump confidant, agreed “wholeheartedly” with Paul’s criticism of the budget bill. Johnson followed Paul on the Fox News Sunday program.

“I love his convocation and I share it,” the speaker said. “The national debt is the greatest threat to your national security, and deficits are a serious problem.”

Critics of the bill have called on the Senate to take a different approach to reaching a compromise.

Source link

Monaco Grand Prix 2025: Norris pole position ‘a big thing’

Lando Norris said his pole position at the Monaco Grand Prix was a “step in the right direction” and “quite a big thing” after being unhappy with his form since the start of this season.

The McLaren driver trails team-mate Oscar Piastri by 13 points in the championship after the Australian’s four victories to Norris’ one.

The pole was Norris’ first since the Australian Grand Prix at the start of the season, while Piastri has taken three.

Norris said: “To classify it as a breakthrough, you also need consistency of results.

“I can look at it both ways. It’s a breakthrough that I had a good Saturday. For me it’s at least a step in the right direction, which I’m very, very happy about.

“But it’s one weekend. Consistency is a big part of it, too, and I will be happier if I know and can get to that point where I am confident into every session that I can perform like I did today, because I think my performance was at a very, very strong level.

“If I go into Barcelona and Canada and the next few races and I can perform at this level, that is my goal.

But certainly today is a step in the right direction, whether it’s a small step or big step, it’s a step and that’s all I need for now.”

Norris beat Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc by 0.109 seconds in an exciting session in Monaco, as pole swapped between Norris and the Monegasque over their runs.

Leclerc did one flying lap, while McLaren chose to do two, staying out on track but cooling their tyres in between. Norris took pole, Leclerc snatched it from him, before the Briton grabbed it back again.

Norris has been working hard on improving his qualifying performance this season, after explaining that he has been finding it difficult to trust the McLaren car enough to be able to take it consistently to the limit in qualifying.

Asked to explain his step forward, he said: “Things from the car, just it being Monaco and a very different layout, a very different kind of style of driving that’s needed here. It’s a lot more risk commitment rather than just absolute car balance, in a way.

“And also things that I’ve been working on to improve, to do a better job.

“Never because I’ve not had the pace – just more that I’ve never put it together come Q3. today was probably the first time since Australia that I’ve really put it all together.

“It’s not like I’m driving quicker, it’s I’m driving in a better way, in a smarter way.

“But there’s been a lot of work that’s gone on. For me, even if I was pole in any other track, I think it probably would have been the pole that’s meant the most to me.

“It probably means even more that’s in Monaco, but more because of what’s happened over the last couple of months. It may not seem like a lot, but for me, it’s quite a big thing. So, yeah, like I said, a very, very good moment.”

He said he always believed he would get on top of the problem.

“I don’t think I have ever doubted what I can do,” Norris said. “I have got frustrated. I have been unhappy, because that’s normal if you don’t win, don’t get pole, you’re not going to be happy, especially when it’s where you should be. It’s what the objective is.

“Of course I’ve had those moments but I have never certainly this year doubted what I am capable of doing and having a day like today backs all that up so I’m happy with that.”

Source link

Bargain supermarket beats out big name brands in blind sausages taste test just in time for BBQ season

A BARGAIN banger has beaten big-name brands in a blind taste test, just in time for BBQ season.

Consumer champion Which? put a variety of supermarket and branded sausages to the test, including premium labels Heck and The Jolly Hog.

Sausages grilling on a barbecue.

4

A group of taste testers put a selection of sausages to the testCredit: Getty – Contributor

The panel was made up of 65 people, and multiple factors were taken into consideration, including the texture, taste, and price.

Of the 12 tested, three superior sausages stood out and were made Which? Best Buys.

The testers crowned Lidl’s Deluxe Pork Sausages the winner with a score of 77 percent after they ticked all the boxes.

Package of six Lidl Deluxe pork sausages.

4

Lidl’s Deluxe Pork Sausages were the winnerCredit: Gary Stone

The juicy texture got people’s taste buds tingling, and the flavour of the sausages was marked as “perfect” by an impressive 80 per cent.

Lidl’s sausages were also the cheapest of the 12 tested – so it’s good news all round.

The herb and spice seasoning also hit the spot with two-thirds of our tasters.

Around three-quarters liked the salt levels and two thirds said the texture was good – neither too coarse nor too fine.

The Which? team did point out that Lidl’s sausages are pretty high in saturated fat.

Two sausages contain 11.5g, which is more than half the recommended daily maximum for women and more than a third for men.  

Lidl Deluxe Pork Sausages are £2.49 for 400g, which works out as 62p per 100g.

Coming in second place was M&S Collection British Outdoor Bred Pork Sausages with a strong score of 75 percent.

Almost double the price of Lidl’s at £4.50 for 400g, the sausages are £1.13 per 100g.

The flavour, juiciness and salt levels won three-quarters of the voters over.

Two-thirds enjoyed the all-important texture, but while 58 Pper cent said seasoning was well-balanced, the remainder were divided on whether it was too much or too little.

Package of six The Black Farmer premium pork sausages.

4

The Black Farmer Premium Pork Sausages were in the top fiveCredit: The Black Farmer
Package of six Sainsbury's Taste the Difference British pork sausages.

4

Sainsbury’s pork sausages are made from 93 per cent porkCredit: Sainsbury’s

These succulent sausages from M&S are a Best Buy, but note that they are also joint priciest on test.

They are available in store only and at Ocado.

In third place is Sainsbury’s Taste the Difference British Pork Sausages, scooping 75 percent.

These are £3 for 400g, which works out 75p per 100 – so they are an excellent all-rounder.

The pork flavour was highly rated, while more than 70% said the juiciness, saltiness, and herb and spice seasoning were perfect. The texture was also enjoyed by two thirds.

They lost a few marks on plate-appeal compared with the other Best Buys, and around a third said these sausages looked too pale.

They are available in store and online.

In fourth place is the first brand, The Black Farmer Premium Pork Sausages.

Costing £3.50 for 400g (88p per 100g) they were well liked across the board.

More than three-quarters liked their juiciness, while around two-thirds said the pork flavour and salt levels were good.

A few points were lost on seasoning, as a third of our tasters wanted this to be punchier.

These UK-based artisanal sausages are available on Amazon, Asda, Co-op, Morrisons, Ocado, Sainsbury’s and Tesco.

Last but not least, in fifth place was Asda with its Exceptional Classic Pork Sausages.

These are pretty good sausages at a pretty good price, third cheapest after Aldi and Lidl.

More than 70 per cent enjoyed the pork flavour and pleasing texture. A similar proportion thought they looked the part and that the salt levels were right.

Herb and spice seasoning didn’t always hit the spot, though: nearly half felt this was lacking. So if you prefer a spicy sausage you might find these ones a bit bland.

They cost £2.98 for 400g (75p per 100g) and are available in store and online at Asda.

Here is how the rest of the supermarkets did:

  • Morrisons The Best Thick Pork Sausages – 70 percent. Mostly well-liked sausages that scored well on flavour and aroma, though barely a half were fans of their somewhat coarse texture. £3.25 for 400g (81p per 100g). 
  • Aldi Specially Selected Pork Sausages – 69 percent. Worth considering with a satisfying texture, but somewhat bland compared with the higher-scoring sausages. £2.49 for 400g (62p per 100g).
  • Co-op Irresistible Pork Sausages – 69 percent. These juicy bangers were reasonable all-rounders, though a bit on the pale side. £3.60 for 400g (90p per 100g). 
  • The Jolly Hog Proper Porker Sausages – 69 percent. Pretty good all-rounders, though no particular highlights. Around a third of our tasters wanted a stronger meaty flavour. £4 for 400g (£1 per 100g). 
  • Iceland Luxury The Ultimate Pork Sausages – 65 percent. Fairly juicy, but rather pale and bland compared to the higher scoring sausages. They come in eight-packs, rather than the standard six. £4 for 400g (£1 per 100g). 
  • Waitrose No.1 Free Range Pork Sausages – 62 percent. Juicy sausages, but they lost marks for looks and aroma. Less than half of our tasters found the texture and the seasoning worked for them.  £4.50 for 400g (£1.13 per 100g). 
  • Heck 97 percent Pork Sausages – 54 percent. Low in saturated fat, but also low in enjoyment factor for our tasters. More than 60 percent said the pork flavour of these pale sausages was too weak while over half wanted more seasoning. Note that the casings of these sausages are made from beef collagen. £3.25 for 400g (81p per 100g). 

Natalie Hitchins, Which? Head of Home Products and Services, said: “Sausages are a summer barbecue staple for many, so it’s important to pick the right ones that will have your guests queuing up for more.

“Lidl came out on top for our taste tests, impressing with their juicy texture and meaty flavour. While pricier than Lidl’s, M&S and Sainsbury’s also dished up impressively succulent sausages.”

The sausages were tested in April 2025 at Which?’s specialist test lab.

The sausages were cooked according to pack instructions.

The taste test was blind, so the testers didn’t know which brand they were trying.

They tasted the sausages in a fully rotated order to avoid any bias.

Each tester had a private tasting booth so they couldn’t discuss what they were tasting or be influenced by others.

The tasters rated the flavour, aroma, appearance, and texture of each sausage, and told Which? what they liked and disliked. 

The overall score was based on: 50 percent flavour, 20 percent appearance, 15 percent aroma and 15 percent texture.

How to save money on your food shop

Consumer reporter Sam Walker reveals how you can save hundreds of pounds a year:

Odd boxes – plenty of retailers offer slightly misshapen fruit and veg or surplus food at a discounted price.

Lidl sells five kilos of fruit and veg for just £1.50 through its Waste Not scheme while Aldi shoppers can get Too Good to Go bags which contain £10 worth of all kinds of products for £3.30.

Sainsbury’s also sells £2 “Taste Me, Don’t Waste Me” fruit and veg boxes to help shoppers reduced food waste and save cash.

Food waste apps – food waste apps work by helping shops, cafes, restaurants and other businesses shift stock that is due to go out of date and passing it on to members of the public.

Some of the most notable ones include Too Good to Go and Olio.

Too Good to Go’s app is free to sign up to and is used by millions of people across the UK, letting users buy food at a discount.

Olio works similarly, except users can collect both food and other household items for free from neighbours and businesses.

Yellow sticker bargains – yellow sticker bargains, sometimes orange and red in certain supermarkets, are a great way of getting food on the cheap.

But what time to head out to get the best deals varies depending on the retailer. You can see the best times for each supermarket here.

Super cheap bargains – sign up to bargain hunter Facebook groups like Extreme Couponing and Bargains UK where shoppers regularly post hauls they’ve found on the cheap, including food finds.

“Downshift” – you will almost always save money going for a supermarket’s own-brand economy lines rather than premium brands.

The move to lower-tier ranges, also known as “downshifting” and hailed by consumer expert Martin Lewis, could save you hundreds of pounds a year on your food shop.

Source link

Column: The ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill’ is a big, ugly mess

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is one big, ugly mess.

We’ve seen false advertising in naming laws before — the Democrats’ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act jumps to mind. Yet no legislation has been as misbranded as the Republican tax and spending cuts that President Trump, the branding aficionado himself, is pushing along a tortuous path in Congress.

Trump’s appeal to many Americans has always been his purported penchant for “telling it like it is.” But he’s doing the opposite by labeling as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” a behemoth that encompasses just about everything he can’t even try to do by unilateral executive orders — deeper tax cuts, more spending on the military and on his immigration crackdown and, yes, Medicaid cuts. His so-called beauty is a beast so frightening that ratings firm Moody’s saw the details last week, calculated the resulting debt and on Friday downgraded the United States’ sterling credit rating for the first time in more than 100 years. That likely means higher interest costs for the nation’s increased borrowing ahead.

And yet, in another example of the gaslighting at which Trump and his party are so adept, the White House and House Republican leaders dismissed the rebuke of their bill. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it would spur economic growth — the old, discredited “tax cuts will pay for themselves” argument. Speaker Mike Johnson said the Moody’s downgrade just proved the urgent need to pass the big, beautiful bill with its “historic spending cuts.” Which only proved that Johnson didn’t read Moody’s rationale, explaining that spending cuts would be far exceeded by tax cuts, thereby reducing the government’s revenues and piling up more debt.

The Republican Party, which postures as the fiscally conservative of the two parties despite decades of evidence to the contrary, would add about $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years if its bill becomes law, according to Moody’s. Other nonpartisan analyses — including from the Congressional Budget Office, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Penn Wharton Budget Model of the University of Pennsylvania, similarly project additional debt in the $3-trillion-plus to $5-trillion range, more if the tax cuts are made permanent as Trump and Republicans want.

No surprise: Trump, after all, set a record for the most debt in a single presidential term: $8.4 trillion during Trump 1.0, nearly twice what accrued under his successor, President Biden. Most of Trump’s first-term red ink stemmed from his 2017 tax cuts and spending, which predated the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s costly response.

“This bill does not add to the deficit,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted to reporters on Monday, showing yet again why such a facile dissembler was chosen to speak for the habitually prevaricating president.

“That’s a joke,” Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky responded.

Worse, it’s a lie.

And no surprise here, either, but Trump’s tariffs — another economic monstrosity that he’s declared “beautiful” — aren’t paying for this bill despite his claims. Yet the president repeated that falsehood on Tuesday (along with others), when he visited the Capitol to strong-arm Republican dissidents, including Massie, into supporting the measure ahead of a House vote. (Inside a closed caucus with House Republicans, the president reportedly called for Massie to be unseated; the Kentuckian remains opposed.)

“The economy is doing great, the stock market is higher now than when I came to office. And we’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff money,” Trump told reporters at the Capitol. Every point a lie.

(This week provided yet more evidence that he’s utterly wrong to keep insisting that foreign countries pay his tariffs, not American consumers. After Walmart, the largest U.S. retailer, said late last week that it would have to raise prices, Trump posted that it should “ ‘EAT THE TARIFFS.’ ” He added: “I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!” This after a Walmart exec said that “the magnitude of these increases is more than any retailer can absorb.”)

While details of the budget bill shift as Republican leaders dicker with their dissidents, here’s the ugly general outline, according to Penn Wharton:

Extending and expanding Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which otherwise expire this year, would cost nearly $4.5 trillion over 10 years, $5.8 trillion if the cuts are permanent. (Mandating that tax cuts expire after a time, as Trump did in 2017, is an old budget gimmick to understate a bill’s cost. The politicians know they’ll just extend the tax breaks, as we’re seeing now.) The bill’s proposed spending increases for the military, immigration enforcement and deportations would cost about $600 billion more.

Spending cuts over 10 years, mostly to Medicaid as well as to Obamacare, food stamps and clean-energy programs, would save about $1.6 trillion. That offsets as little as one-quarter of the cost of Trump’s tax cuts and added spending.

Also, the bill is inequitable. The tax cuts would disproportionately favor corporations and wealthy Americans. Its spending cuts, however, would mostly cost lower- and some middle-income people who benefit from federal health and nutrition programs. Changes to Medicaid, including a work requirement (92% of recipients under 65 already work full or part-time, according to the health research organization KFF), and to Obamacare would leave up to 14 million people without health insurance.

Penn Wharton found that people with household income less than $51,000, for example, would see their after-tax income reduced if the bill becomes law, and the top 0.1% of income-earners would get hundreds of thousands of dollars more over the next 10 years. Beyond that time, Penn Wharton projected, “all future households are worse off” given the long-term impact of spiraling debt and a tattered safety net.

“Don’t f— around with Medicaid,” Trump told Republicans at the Capitol, according to numerous reports. How cynical, given that he was pressuring them to vote for a bill that would do just that.

All of which recalls an acronym that’s popular these days: FAFO.

@jackiekcalmes

Source link

Trump on Capitol Hill implores divided Republicans to unify behind his big tax-cut bill

President Trump implored House Republicans at the Capitol to drop their fights over his big tax-cut bill and get it done, using encouraging words but also the hardened language of politics over the multitrillion-dollar package that is at risk of collapsing before planned votes this week.

During the more than hourlong session Tuesday, Trump warned Republicans to not touch Medicaid with cuts, and he told New York lawmakers to end their fight for a bigger local tax deduction, reversing his own campaign promise. The president, heading into the meeting, called himself a “cheerleader” for the Republican Party and praised Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). But he also criticized at least one of the GOP holdouts as a “grandstander” and warned that anyone who doesn’t support the bill would be a “fool.”

“We have unbelievable unity,” Trump said as he exited. “I think we’re going to get everything we want.”

The president arrived at a pivotal moment. Negotiations are slogging along and it’s not at all clear the package, with its sweeping tax breaks and cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs, has the support needed from the House’s slim Republican majority. Lawmakers are also being asked to add some $350 billion to Trump’s border security, deportation and defense agenda.

Inside, he spoke privately in what one lawmaker called the president’s “weaving” style, and took questions.

The president also made it clear he’s losing patience with the various holdout factions of the House Republicans, according to a senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private meeting.

But Trump disputed that notion as well as reports that he used an expletive in warning against cutting Medicaid. Instead, he said afterward, “That was a meeting of love.” He received several standing ovations, Republicans said.

Yet it was not at all clear that Trump, who was brought in to seal the deal, changed minds.

“We’re still a long ways away,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the chair of the House Freedom Caucus.

Conservatives are insisting on quicker, steeper cuts to federal programs to offset the costs of the trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue. At the same time, a core group of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states wants bigger tax breaks for their voters back home. Worries about piling onto the nation’s $36-trillion debt are stark.

With House Democrats lined up against the package, calling it a giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of safety net programs, GOP leaders have almost no votes to spare. A key committee hearing is set for the middle of the night Tuesday in hopes of a House floor vote by Wednesday afternoon.

“They literally are trying to take healthcare away from millions of Americans at this very moment in the dead of night,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York.

Trump has been pushing hard for Republicans to unite behind the bill, the president’s signature domestic policy initiative in Congress.

Asked about one of the conservative Republicans, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Trump lashed out.

“I think he is a grandstander, frankly,” the president continued. “I think he should be voted out of office.”

But Massie, a renegade who wears a clock lapel pin that tallies the nation’s debt load, said afterward he’s still a no vote.

Also unmoved was Rep. Mike Lawler, one of the New York Republicans leading the fight for a bigger state and local tax deduction, known as SALT: “As it stands right now, I do not support the bill. Period.”

The sprawling 1,116-page package carries Trump’s title, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” as well as his campaign promises to extend the tax breaks approved during his first term while adding new ones, including no taxes on tips, automobile loan interest and Social Security.

Yet, the price tag is rising and lawmakers are wary of the votes ahead, particularly as the economy teeters with uncertainty.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the House bill is shaping up to add roughly $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Republicans criticizing the measure argued that the bill’s new spending and tax cuts are front-loaded, while the measures to offset the cost are back-loaded.

In particular, the conservative Republicans are looking to speed up the new work requirements that Republicans want to enact for able-bodied participants in Medicaid. They had been proposed to start Jan. 1, 2029, but Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said on CNBC that work requirements for some Medicaid beneficiaries would begin in early 2027.

At least 7.6 million fewer people are expected to have health insurance under the initial Medicaid changes, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last week.

Republican holdouts are also looking to more quickly halt green energy tax breaks, which had been approved as part of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, and are now being used for renewable energy projects across the nation.

But for every change Johnson considers to appease the hard-right conservatives, he risks losing support from more traditional and centrist Republicans. Many have signed letters protesting deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs and the rolling back of clean energy tax credits.

At its core, the sprawling legislative package permanently extends the existing income tax cuts and bolsters the standard deduction, increasing it to $32,000 for joint filers, and the child tax credit to $2,500.

The New Yorkers are fighting for a larger state and local tax deduction beyond the bill’s proposal. As it stands, the bill would triple what’s currently a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, increasing it to $30,000 for joint filers with incomes up to $400,000 a year. They have proposed a deduction of $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.

Trump, who had campaigned on fully reinstating the unlimited SALT deduction, now appears to be satisfied with the proposed compromise, arguing it only benefits “all the Democratic” states.

If the bill passes the House this week, it would move to the Senate, where Republicans are also eyeing changes.

Mascaro, Freking, Askarinam and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writers Darlene Superville and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

Source link

Trump’s big bill advances in rare weekend vote as conservative holdouts secure changes

Republicans advanced their massive tax cut and border security package out of a key House committee during a rare Sunday night vote as conservatives who blocked the measure two days earlier reversed course after gaining commitments on the package’s spending cuts.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) met with Republican lawmakers shortly before the meeting, telling reporters that the changes agreed to were “just some minor modifications. Not a huge thing.”

Democrats on the panel pressed for more details about the changes that Republicans had agreed to in the private negotiations. But Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said he could not do so.

“Deliberations continue at this very moment,” Arrington said. “They will continue on into the week, and I suspect right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill on the floor of the House.”

The first time Republicans tried advancing the bill out of the Budget Committee, hard-right Republicans joined with Democrats in voting against sending the measure to the full House. Five Republicans voted no, one on procedural grounds, the other four voicing concerns about the bill’s effect on federal budget deficits.

On Sunday evening, the four voicing concerns about the deficit voted present, and the measure passed by a vote of 17 to 16.

Johnson is looking to put the bill on the House floor before the end of the week.

“This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate that the American people gave us in the last election,” he said on “Fox News Sunday” in advance of the vote.

The Republicans who criticized the measure noted that the bill’s new spending and tax cuts are front-loaded in the bill, while the measures to offset the cost are back-loaded. For example, they are looking to speed up the new work requirements that Republicans want to enact for Medicaid recipients. Those requirements would not kick in until 2029 under the current bill.

“We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the committee. “Something needs to change, or you’re not going to get my support.”

Johnson said the start date for the work requirements was designed to give states time to “retool their systems” and to “make sure that all the new laws and all the new safeguards that we’re placing can actually be enforced.”

Roy was joined in voting no by Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Rep. Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania switched his vote to no in a procedural step so it could be reconsidered later.

The vote against advancing the bill had come after President Trump urged Republicans in a social media post to unite behind it.

At its core, the sprawling package permanently extends the existing income tax cuts that were approved during Trump’s first term, in 2017, and adds temporary new ones that the president campaigned on in 2024, including no taxes on tips, overtime pay and auto loan interest payments. The measure also proposes big spending increases for border security and defense.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the House bill is shaping up to add roughly $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the measure, which Republicans have labeled “The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called it “one big, beautiful betrayal” in Friday’s hearing.

“This spending bill is terrible, and I think the American people know that,” Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union’’ on Sunday. “There is nothing wrong with us bringing the government in balance. But there is a problem when that balance comes on the back of working men and women. And that’s what is happening here.”

Johnson is not just having to address the concerns of those in his conference who raised concerns about the deficit. He’s also facing pressure from centrists who will be warily eyeing the proposed changes to Medicaid, food assistance programs and the rolling back of clean energy tax credits. Republican lawmakers from New York and elsewhere are also demanding a much large state and local tax deduction.

As it stands, the bill proposes tripling what’s currently a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, increasing it to $30,000 for joint filers with incomes up to $400,000 a year.

Rep. Nick LaLota, one of the New York GOP lawmakers leading the effort to lift the cap, said they have proposed a deduction of $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.

If the bill passes the House this week, it would move to the Senate, where Republicans are seeking additional changes that could make final passage in the House more difficult.

Johnson said: “The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they don’t make many modifications to it because that will ensure its passage quickly.”

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

Source link

House Budget Committee advances ‘Big Beautiful Bill” in late Sunday session

May 18 (UPI) — The House Budget Committee advanced President Donald Trump‘s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” in a rare Sunday night vote.

They met at 10 p.m. to consider the bill that extends Trump’s tax cuts, increases border funding priorities and requires Medicaid recipients to work.

The measure passed 17-16 along party lines, with four Republicans who rejected the bill the first time on Friday voting present Sunday: Ralph Norman of Oklagoa, Chip Roy of Texas, Andrew Clyde of Georgia and Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma. They voted against the bill Friday, preventing it from advancing then.

Roy said he voted present “out of respect for the Republican Conference and the president,” but doesn’t support the bill as it stands.

He posted on X: “The bill does not yet meet the moment — leaving almost half of the green new scam subsidies continuing. More, it fails to end the Medicaid money laundering scam and perverse funding structure that provides seven times more federal dollars for each dollar of state spending for the able-bodied relative to the vulnerable. This all ultimately increases the likelihood of continuing deficits and non-Obamacare-expansion states like Texas expanding in the future. We can and must do better before we pass the final product.”

He is looking forward to getting the bill way he wants it. “It gives us the opportunity to work together this week to get the job done in light of the fact our bond rating was dropped yet again due to historic fiscal mismanagement by both parties,” he wrote. “This bill is a strong step forward.”

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Ky., said he was pleased the bill advances.

“There’s a lot more work to do, we’ve always acknowledged that towards the end there will be more details to iron out, we have several more to take care of,” Johnson said. “But I’m looking forward to very thoughtful discussions, very productive discussions over the next few days, and I am absolutely convinced we’re going to get this in final form and pass it in accordance with our original deadline, and that was to do it before Memorial Day.

“So this will be a victory out of committee tonight, everybody will make a vote that allows us to proceed and that was my big request tonight.”

The bill for fiscal year 2026, which begins Oct. 1, is 1,116 pages and is worth roughly $7 trillion. The last time Congress passed all 12 regular appropriations bills on time, before the start of a new fiscal year, was in 1996. Since then, Congress has relied heavily on continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriations bills to fund the government.

In fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent $6.8 trillion.

Before the meeting, Johnson said on Fox News Sunday he was optimistic the bill will past the House by the end of this week. Some Republican hardliners and moderates have opposed the bill along with all Democrats.

“We’re on track, working around the clock to deliver this nation-shaping legislation for the American people as soon as possible,” Johnson said. “All 11 of our committees have wrapped up their work, and they spent less and saved more than even we’ve projected initially. This really is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that we have here.”

The bill next gets put before the Rules Committee with a 9-4 Republican majority including Norman and Roy. In the full House, Republicans have just a 220-213 advantage with two vacancies after two Democrats died.

“It’s very important for people to understand why we’re being so aggressive on the timetable and why this really is so important,” Johnson said earlier Sunday. “This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate the American people gave us during the last election. You’re going to have historic savings for the American people, historic tax relief for American workers, historic investments in border security.

“At the same time, we’re restoring American energy dominance, and we’re rebuilding the defense industrial base, and we’re ensuring that programs like Medicaid and SNAP are strengthened for U.S. citizens who need and deserve them and not being squandered away by illegal aliens and persons who are ineligible to receive them and are cheating the system.”

On Friday, Budget Committee hard-liners blocked the package from moving forward — mainly over when Medicaid work requirements will commence. Under the current legislation, Medicaid requirements will kick in during 2029. Some conservatives want it to start as soon as 2027.

Norman, who voted against advancing the bill, earlier told CNN on Saturday that the earlier date was necessary for his vote.

The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities estimates 36 million Medicaid enrollees could be at risk of losing coverage because of potential work requirements and other factors.

In December, there were 78,532,341 on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, according to the agency. That includes 71,275,237 enrolled in Medicaid and 7,257,104 in CHIPS.

“Some of the states have — it takes them some time,” Johnson said. “We’ve learned in this process to change their systems and to make sure that these stringent requirements that we will put on that to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, can actually be implemented. So, we’re working with them [hardliners] to make sure what the earliest possible date is to put into law something that will actually be useful. I think we’ve got to compromise on that. I think we’ll work it out,” Johnson claimed.”

If the House passes a bill, it goes to the Senate. Johnson said he hopes the Senate won’t alter the bill, which means it goes back to the House.

“The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they [Senate] don’t make many modifications to it, because that will ensure its passage quickly,” he said.

Holdouts also want to accelerate the phasing out of tax credits for green energy projects under the Inflation Reduction Act.

The bill also includes a big increase for the Defense Department and to national security. There are cuts to federal health and nutrition programs and energy programs.

It’s a balancing act for Johnson because some changes may anger House moderates. They are phasing out the tax credits and cuts to Medicaid benefits. Trump has vowed not to cut Medicaid.

Some swing-district House Republicans want to raise the tax rate on top earners to offset the cost of lifting the cap on how much their constituents can deduct in their state and local taxes, known as SALT.

“Allowing the top tax rate to expire and returning from 37% to 39.6% for individuals earning $609,350 or more and married couples earning $731,200 or more breathes $300 billion of new life into the One Big, Beautiful Bill,” Rep. Nick LaLota of New York told CNN on Saturday.

Source link

House Budget Committee plans late Sunday vote on ‘Big Beautiful Bill”

May 18 (UPI) — The House Budget Committee has scheduled a rare Sunday night session in an attempt to advance President Donald Trump‘s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

The panel of 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats plans to convene at 10 p.m. Committee passage of the bill is necessary to put it on the floor for a vote later this week and before Memorial Day. Congress needs to pass the budget bill by July, mainly because of a deadline in mid-July to address the debt limit and avoid a default.

The bill for fiscal year 2026, which begins Oct. 1, is 1,116 pages and roughly $7 trillion. The last time Congress passed all 12 regular appropriations bills on time, before the start of a new fiscal year, was in 1996. Since then, Congress has relied heavily on continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriations bills to fund the government.

In fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent $6.8 trillion.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Fox News Sunday that Republicans still are “on track” to pass the bill by the end of this week. Some Republican hardliners and moderates have opposed to the bill along with all Democrats.

“We’re on track, working around the clock to deliver this nation-shaping legislation for the American people as soon as possible,” Johnson said. “All 11 of our committees have wrapped up their work, and they spent less and saved more than even we’ve projected initially. This really is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that we have here.”

If the Budget Committee passes the bill, it goes before the Rules Committee. In the House, Republicans have a 220-213 majority with two vacancies after two Democrats died.

“It’s very important for people to understand why we’re being so aggressive on the timetable and why this really is so important,” Johnson said. “This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate the American people gave us during the last election. You’re going to have historic savings for the American people, historic tax relief for American workers, historic investments in border security.

“At the same time, we’re restoring American energy dominance, and we’re rebuilding the defense industrial base, and we’re ensuring that programs like Medicaid and SNAP are strengthened for U.S. citizens who need and deserve them and not being squandered away by illegal aliens and persons who are ineligible to receive them and are cheating the system.”

On Friday, Budget Committee hard-liners blocked the package from moving forward — mainly over when Medicaid work requirements will commence. Under the current legislation, Medicaid requirements will kick in during 2029. Some conservatives want it to start as soon as 2027.

South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman, who voted against advancing the bill, told CNN on Saturday that the earlier date was necessary for his vote. Another key budget holdouts are Chip Roy of Texas, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Andrew Clyde of Georgia.

The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities estimates 36 million Medicaid enrollees could be at risk of losing coverage because of potential work requirements and other factors.

In December, there were 78,532,341 on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, according to the agency. That includes 71,275,237 enrolled in Medicaid and 7,257,104 in CHIPS.

“Some of the states have — it takes them some time,” Johnson said. “We’ve learned in this process to change their systems and to make sure that these stringent requirements that we will put on that to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, can actually be implemented. So, we’re working with them [hardliners] to make sure what the earliest possible date is to put into law something that will actually be useful. I think we’ve got to compromise on that. I think we’ll work it out,” Johnson claimed.”

If the House passes a bill, it goes to the Senate. Johnson said he hopes the Senate won’t alter the bill, which means it goes back to the House.

“The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they [Senate] don’t make many modifications to it, because that will ensure its passage quickly,” he said.

Holdouts also want to accelerate the phasing out of tax credits for green energy projects under the Inflation Reduction Act.

The bill also includes a big increase for the Defense Department and to national security. There are cuts to federal health and nutrition programs and energy programs.

It’s a balancing act for Johnson because some changes may anger House moderates. They are phasing out the tax credits and cuts to Medicaid benefits. Trump has vowed not to cut Medicaid.

Someswing-district House Republicans want to raise the tax rate on top earners to offset the cost of lifting the cap on how much their constituents can deduct in their state and local taxes, known as SALT.

“Allowing the top tax rate to expire and returning from 37% to 39.6% for individuals earning $609,350 or more and married couples earning $731,200 or more breathes $300 billion of new life into the One Big, Beautiful Bill,” Rep. Nick LaLota of New York told CNN on Saturday.

Source link

Column: The Lakers should draft a big man who’s also a grown-up

The NBA draft combine concludes this weekend, and the draft is next month. However, before I dive into what kind of player the Los Angeles Lakers should pursue, I need to remind you of three significant economic shifts.

The first began in 1994 when Glenn “Big Dog” Robinson asked the Milwaukee Bucks for a $100-million contract after the team made him the No. 1 pick. Robinson eventually signed a 10-year, $68-million contract (the richest ever for a rookie), but the following year the league said goodbye to open-ended contracts for rookies. Today rookie deals are four years max.

Next, in 2006, the NBA changed eligibility rules requiring players to be at least 19 or one year removed from high school before entering the draft. This was because of the glut of high school phenoms who turned into pro duds.

And finally, in July 2021, the NCAA’s “name, image, likeness” policy went into effect. That means any senior in this year’s draft is part of the first full class of ball players who could monetize their entire college playing career.

All of which affects the answer to the pressing question: What kind of player should the Lakers pursue in next month’s draft?

The kind who had access to excess on a college campus for four years and proved they can handle the temptations that money and fame can bring. The kind that already had opportunities to make emotional or childish mistakes on the court or perhaps in a social media post and learned from them. The kind of player who didn’t get a real senior year in high school but made the best out of the cards they were dealt. Resiliency isn’t something that can be measured at the combine, which is ironic because without it, all the measurable qualities add up to nothing.

The league’s economic shifts made a “high ceiling” — meaning a lot of potential, but not a proven track record — the most sought-after quality in the NBA draft. As a result, players who can legally drink fell out of favor with scouts.

Consider, Michael Jordan was drafted in 1984 at the age of 21. At the time he was a relative youngster: The average age in the draft was 22.3. Before the eligibility rule change, Kobe Bryant was drafted at 17, and the average age had dipped to 22. When Lebron James was 18 in 2003, the average was 21.5. Last year the average was down to 20.

How has this affected the college game? In 2012, Kentucky won the NCAA title with a roster that was about 19.7 years old. In 2021, Baylor University won with players who averaged 22.3 in age.

While the Lakers roster is in desperate need of a big man — something that was made painfully clear in this year’s first-round playoffs loss — they likely won’t find the next Shaq with their No. 55 pick. But they could find the next Austin Reaves, who went undrafted as a 23-year-old senior in 2021.

That’s not to say youth isn’t a good thing. Only that with the advancement of technology and nutrition, “youth” has been greatly extended for professional athletes. Players in their late 20s are likely to still be in their prime performance years, not aging out. And LeBron James and the NHL’s Alex Ovechkin aren’t the only 40-year-old world-class examples to point to. Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn came out of retirement last fall and at 40 placed second in an event in March. What was considered old for an athlete when Jordan was drafted is not applicable today.

My hope is the Lakers comb through the entire NCAA spectrum and draft a 24-year-old college graduate who has NIL money in the bank and a good head on his shoulders. Critics of NIL complain that the new system makes it hard to build a good college program because players are constantly chasing money and have no team loyalty. I say it’s better to learn the lessons that can come from that while on a college campus than in the higher-stakes world of pro sports.

Back in the day, talented but raw college players felt pressured to earn money and would enter the league too early. Sometimes it was to protect their prospects of being drafted based on potential, before they had enough of a record that they would be judged on their accomplishments instead. Now, in the era of NIL cash and transferring among colleges, a promising 18-year-old can make a case to finish his degree before trying to go pro — maturing as a player, a student and a businessman without giving up his dream of being in the NBA.

No doubt the Lakers need a big man.

If they hold on to the pick, they should be sure to draft a grown-up as well.

@LZGranderson

Source link

Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ at a crucial juncture | Donald Trump News

United States House Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill”, a wide-ranging tax and spending legislation, is at a crucial moment.

The nearly 400-page legislation proposes sweeping changes which include extending the 2017 tax cuts, slashing taxes for businesses and individuals, and enacting deep cuts to social programmes like Medicaid and SNAP.

While Republicans tout the bill as a boon for economic growth and middle-class relief, nonpartisan analysts warn it could add trillions to the national debt and strip millions of Americans of medical and food assistance.

The bill will be voted on by the House Budget Committee today and, if passed, will be voted on the floor next week.

The most substantive part of the bill is an extension of the 2017 tax cuts. The tax bill would add at least an additional $2.5 trillion to the national deficit over the next 10 years and decrease federal tax revenue by roughly $4 trillion by 2034.

Passing the legislation will also raise the debt ceiling, which sets the amount of money the government can borrow to pay for existing expenditures, by $4 trillion, a sticking point for hardline Republicans who want deeper cuts.

Here are some of the key measures in the proposed bill in its current form.

Changes for households

The bill increases standard deductions for all Americans. Individual deductions will increase by $1,000, $1,500 for heads of households, and $2,000 for married couples.

The bill extends the child tax credit of $2,000, which would otherwise have ended with the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts at year’s end.

It bumps up the child tax credit by $500 per child for this tax year and runs through the end of 2028. It also includes a $1,000 savings account for children born between December 31, 2024 and January 1, 2029. The legislation would also allow families to annually contribute $5,000 tax-free.

There is a new tax deduction for Americans 65 and older. The new bill would give a $4,000 annual deduction starting this year for people making a gross income of $75,000 for a single person and $150,000 for a married couple. If passed, the rule would take effect for the current tax year and run until the end of 2028.

“It will just make tax paying more complicated and more uncertain when a lot of these things ultimately expire,” Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the right-leaning Cato Institute, told Al Jazeera.

Another provision in the bill modifies state and local tax (SALT) deductions. It allows filers to be able to write off some of what they paid in local and state taxes from their federal filings.

Under the 2017 tax act, that was capped at $10,000, but the new legislation would raise that to $30,000. Some Republicans, particularly those in states with higher taxes like New York and California, have been pushing to raise the cap or abolish it altogether. However, they have faced fiscal hawks and those who see the increases as relief for those already wealthy.

The bill includes an increased benefit for small businesses that allows them to deduct 23 percent of their qualified business income from their taxes, up from the current 20 percent.

There is also a call for no taxes on overtime pay for select individuals. It would not apply to people who are non-citizens, those who are considered “highly compensated employees,” and those who earn a tipped wage.

The bill, however, also eliminates taxes on tips, a critical campaign promise by both Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Kamala Harris. The bill would allow people who work in sectors like food service, as well as hair care, nail care, aesthetics, and body and spa treatments, to specifically deduct the amount of tipped income they receive.

At the federal level, employers will still not be required to pay tipped workers more than the subminimum wage of $2.13 hourly. The intention is that workers will be able to make up the difference in tipping the receipt from customers.

Cuts to the social safety net

The legislation calls to make $880bn in cuts to key government programmes with a focus mostly on Medicaid and food stamps.

The CBO found that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid access and 7.6 million could lose access to health insurance completely by 2034 under the current plan.

Even far-right Republicans have called out the Medicaid cuts. In an op-ed in The New York Times this week, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said the cuts are “morally wrong and politically suicidal”.

According to a new report from One Fair Wage shared with Al Jazeera, tipped workers could be hit especially hard, as 1.2 million restaurant and tipped workers could lose access to Medicaid.

“A no tax on tips proposal, which is like a minuscule percentage of their income and doesn’t affect two-thirds of tips workers because they don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax, is just nowhere near enough to compensate for the fact that we’re going to have millions of these workers lose the ability to take care of themselves, in some cases go into medical debt, in many cases just not take care of themselves,” Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, an advocacy group for restaurant workers, told Al Jazeera.

The bill also introduces work requirements to receive benefits, saying that recipients must prove they work, volunteer or are enrolled in school for at least 80 hours each month.

At the same time, the bill also shortens the open enrolment period by a month for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare. This means people who have employer-funded healthcare and lose their job might lose eligibility to buy a private plan on the healthcare exchange.

“It’s taking folks like 11 to 12 weeks to find a new job. The worse the labour market gets, that number will tick up. If you’re unemployed for three months, you get kicked off Medicaid,” Liz Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collective, told Al Jazeera.

“Then, if you try to go buy a plan on the ACA marketplace, you are no longer eligible for subsidies … which I think is really cruel.”

Other major proposed cuts will hit programmes like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme or SNAP, which helps 42 million low-income individuals afford groceries and comes at a time when food costs are still 2 percent higher than a year ago. The CBO found that 3 million people could lose SNAP access under the new plan.

The bill would also force states to take up more responsibility in funding the programmes. States would be required to cover 75 percent of the administrative costs, and all states would have to pay at least 5 percent of the benefits — 28 states would need to pay 25 percent.

“States are now going to be on the hook for billions of dollars in funding for these two vital programmes. They have a tough choice. One is, do they cut funding from others like K-12 education, roads, veteran services, etc, to cover this gap, or do they raise taxes so that they can raise more revenue to cover this gap,” Pancotti added.

Under the current law, the federal government is solely responsible for shouldering the cost of benefits. The proposed cuts would save $300bn for the federal government but hit state budgets hard.

Bill fuels Trump administration priorities

The bill would also cut the $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicle purchases and $4,000 for a used EV, a move which could hurt several major US automakers that are already reeling from the administration’s tariffs on automobiles.

General Motors pumped billions into domestic EV production in the last year, which has included a $900m investment to retrofit an existing plant to build electric vehicles in Michigan and alongside Samsung, the carmaker invested $3.5bn in EV battery manufacturing in the US.

In February, Ford CEO Jim Farley said that revoking the EV tax credit could put factory jobs on the chopping block. The carmaker invested in three EV battery plants in Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The federal government under the administration of former President Joe Biden paid out more than $2bn in EV tax credits in 2024.

The proposed legislation would also give the Trump administration authority to revoke the tax exempt status of nonprofit organisations that it deems as a “terrorist supporting organisation”. It would give the secretary of the treasury the ability to accuse any nonprofit of supporting “terrorism”, revoke their tax exempt status without allowing them due process to prove otherwise, which has raised serious concerns amongst critics.

“This measure’s real intent lurks behind its hyperbolic and unsubstantiated anti-terrorist rhetoric: It would allow the Treasury Department to explicitly target, harass and investigate thousands of U.S. organizations that make up civil society, including nonprofit newsrooms,” Jenna Ruddock, advocacy director of Free Press Action, said in a statement.

“The bill’s language lacks any meaningful safeguards against abuse. Instead it puts the burden of proof on organizations rather than on the government. It’s not hard to imagine how the Trump administration would use it to exact revenge on groups that have raised questions about or simply angered the president and other officials in his orbit.”

The bill would introduce new taxes on colleges, including a varying tax rate based on the size of a university’s endowment per student with the highest at 14 percent for universities with a per student endowment of more than $1.25m but less than $2m and 21 percent for those of $2m or more.

This comes amid the Trump administration’s increased tensions with higher education. In the last week, the Trump administration pulled $450m in grants to Harvard on top of the $2.2bn it pulled in April — a move which will hinder research into cancer and heart disease, among other areas. Harvard has an endowment of $53.2bn, making it one of the richest schools in the country.

The legislation would also increase funding for a border wall between the US and Mexico, which the administration has argued will help curb undocumented immigration. However, there is no evidence that such a wall has deterred border crossings.

A 2018 analysis from Stanford University found that a border wall would only curb migration by 0.6 percent, yet the bill would give more than $50bn to finish the border wall and maritime crossings. The bill would also provide $45bn for building and maintaining detention facilities and another $14bn for transport.

Source link

Conservatives block Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ in stunning setback

In a massive setback, House Republicans failed Friday to push their big package of tax breaks and spending cuts through the Budget Committee, as a handful of conservatives joined all Democrats in a stunning vote against it.

The hard-right lawmakers are insisting on steeper spending cuts to Medicaid and the Biden-era green energy tax breaks, among other changes, before they will give their support to President Trump’s “big beautiful bill.” They warn the tax cuts alone would pile onto the nation’s $36-trillion debt.

The failed vote, 16-21, stalls, for now, House Speaker Mike Johnson’s push to have the package approved next week. But the holdout lawmakers vowed to stay all weekend to negotiate changes as the president is returning to Washington from the Middle East.

“Something needs to change or you’re not going to get my support,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).

Tallying a whopping 1,116 pages, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, named with a nod to Trump, is teetering at a critical moment. Conservatives are holding out for steeper cuts to Medicaid and other programs to help offset the costs of the tax breaks. But at the same time, lawmakers from high-tax states including New York and California are demanding a deeper tax deduction, known as SALT, for their constituents.

Johnson has insisted Republicans are on track to pass the bill, which he believes will inject a dose of stability into a wavering economy.

Democrats slammed the package, but they will be powerless to stop it if Republicans are united. They emphasized that millions of people would lose their health coverage if the bill passes while the wealthiest Americans would reap enormous tax cuts. They also said it would increase future deficits.

“That is bad economics. It is unconscionable,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democratic lawmaker on the panel.

The Budget panel is one of the final stops before the package is sent to the full House floor for a vote, which is expected as soon as next week. Typically, the job of the Budget Committee is more administrative as it compiles the work of 11 committees that drew up various parts of the big bill.

But Friday’s meeting proved momentous. Republicans hold a slim majority in the House and have just a few votes to spare to advance the measure, including on the Budget Committee.

Four Republican conservatives initially voted against the package — Roy and Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Then one, Rep. Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania, switched his vote to no.

The conservative holdouts from the Freedom Caucus are insisting on deeper cuts — particularly to Medicaid. They want new work requirements for aid recipients to start immediately, rather than on Jan. 1, 2029, as the package proposes.

Roy complained that the legislation front-loads new tax cuts and spending while back-loading the savings.

“We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price,” Roy said.

“Sadly,” added Norman, “I’m a hard no until we get this ironed out.”

At the same time, the New Yorkers have been unrelenting in their demand for a much larger SALT deduction than what is proposed in the bill, which could send the overall cost of the package skyrocketing.

As it stands, the bill proposes tripling what’s currently a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, increasing it to $30,000 for joint filers with incomes up to $400,000 a year.

Rep. Nick LaLota, one of the New York lawmakers leading the SALT effort, said they have proposed a deduction of $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.

The conservatives and the New Yorkers are at odds, each jockeying for their priorities as Johnson labors to keep the package on track to pass the House by Memorial Day and then onto the Senate.

“This is always what happens when you have a big bill like this,” said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). “There’s always final details to work out all the way up until the last minute. So we’re going to keep working. There’s a lot of work to be done.”

At its core, the sprawling package extends the existing income tax cuts that were approved during Trump’s first term, in 2017, and adds new ones that the president campaigned on in 2024, including no taxes on tips, overtime pay and some auto loans.

It increases some tax breaks for middle-income earners, including a bolstered standard deduction of $32,000 for joint filers and a temporary $500 boost to the child tax credit, bringing it to $2,500.

It also provides an infusion of $350 billion for Trump’s deportation agenda and to bolster the Pentagon.

To offset more than $5 million in lost revenue, the package proposes rolling back other tax breaks, namely the green energy tax credits approved as part of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Some conservatives want those to end immediately.

The package also seeks to cover the costs by slashing more than $1 trillion from healthcare and food assistance programs over the course of a decade, in part by imposing work requirements on able-bodied adults.

Certain Medicaid recipients would need to engage in 80 hours a month of work or other community options to receive healthcare. Older Americans receiving food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, would also see the program’s current work requirement for able-bodied participants without dependents extended to include those ages 55-64. States would also be required to shoulder a greater share of the program’s cost.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates at least 7.6 million fewer people with health insurance and about 3 million a month fewer SNAP recipients with the changes.

Mocking the name of the bill, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called it “one big, beautiful betrayal.”

“To pay for it,” Democratic Rep. Morgan McGarvey said, “kids in Kentucky will go hungry, nursing homes and hospitals will close, and millions of Americans will be kicked off their health insurance. It’s wrong.”

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Leah Askarinam contributed to this report.

Source link

Anthony Joshua to undergo surgery THIS WEEK as Eddie Hearn reveals ‘encouraging’ update with ‘big tease’ Tyson Fury

ANTHONY JOSHUA is to have surgery on his elbow THIS WEEK – as talks to finally fight “big tease” Tyson Fury move a step closer.

Joshua, 35, is yet to return since his September knockout defeat to Daniel Dubois, 27, with a secret injury delaying his comeback.

Anthony Joshua and Eddie Hearn ringside at a boxing match.

4

Anthony Joshua with promoter Eddie HearnCredit: Getty
Three boxers in a boxing ring.

4

Tyson Fury back in training with his dad John and cousin Ricky GormanCredit: @tysonfury

AJ has since revealed the setback was caused by a problem with his elbow – which promoter Eddie Hearn reveals is due to be fixed this week.

Hearn told SunSport: “He just goes back into camp and just can’t fire on all cylinders consistently.

“So he can go back, have a couple of sessions, bit of soreness in the elbow.

“They tried to let it rest and recover and they’ve told him that I think it’s this week, he has a small keyhole surgery in the arm.

“Clear out, and it’s four-six weeks, he’s good to go. So I think we’re looking post-September.”

Following Joshua’s loss and Fury’s double defeats to Oleksandr Usyk, 38, last year, it set up the beaten Brits to finally settle their overdue score.

That was until Fury announced a shock retirement – the fourth of his career – in January only one month after Usyk won their rematch.

But the unpredictable Gypsy King has since ended his social media silence to begin hinting at a comeback – leaving Hearn hopeful.

Tyson Fury vs. Anthony Joshua boxing stats comparison.

4

CASINO SPECIAL – BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS

The promoter said: “Tyson Fury is a big tease, every day I open up Instagram like today and he’s got his wraps on saying he’s done 12 rounds.

“He looks super fit, Tyson Fury, he looks like he’s ready to go now! Which is encouraging, but obviously probably the delay that AJ’s got is a blessing, to be honest with you.

“One, you’ve got Usyk against Dubois coming up so that gives you a little bit of time.

“And number two, you’ve got Tyson Fury who could potentially come back to the ring so it’s gonna be interesting to see what plays out.”

Turki Alalshikh’s introduction to boxing and his deep Saudi pockets have helped bridge the gap between Hearn and long-time rival Frank Warren.

The previously warring promoters even share the sports streaming platform DAZN now – paving the way for talks between AJ and Fury.

Hearn admitted: “I’d be lying if I said we haven’t discussed it socially, because obviously everyone’s desperate to make it happen.

“But, no one said, ‘Oh, I think it’s coming, I think he’s coming back.’ But at the same time, he’s training.

Tyson Fury is a big tease, every day I open up Instagram like today and he’s got his wraps on saying he’s done 12 rounds. He looks super fit, Tyson Fury, he looks like he’s ready to go now! Which is encouraging

Eddie Hearn

“And I feel like with Tyson Fury over the years, you’ve seen him not training and balloon out of shape and then it takes him a long time to come back.

“Now it looks like he’s either ready to fight or he’s ready to begin camp, which is hugely encouraging. But I just don’t think he’ll be able to leave it alone, if I’m honest with you.

“Because, the money’s one thing, but just the occasion and the challenge, and he’s a competitor, he’s a winner. And I just can’t believe he’s gonna let it slide.”

While Fury is Joshua & Co’s main target, Hearn warned they will await the result of Dubois’ July 19 rematch with Usyk at Wembley.

Hearn is adamant AJ will fight before the year ends – with or without Fury.

He warned: “Next couple of months, if there’s no movement, we fight.

“I mean there’s no way AJ’s not fighting this year. So who that will be? I can’t tell you.

“I mean, that’s the million dollar question at all times, but I think more importantly is, do we get any news from Fury in the next four, six, eight weeks?

“If we do, we’ll fight him this year. If not, we’ll fight and then maybe he comes back next year, who knows?

“But I’d be lying if I said we weren’t desperate to see him return. But, at the same time we can’t just wait around and see what happens.”

Eddie Hearn and Frank Warren at a press conference.

4

Hearn teased talks with Frank Warren for AJ to fight FuryCredit: Reuters

Source link