Business

Frustration emerges among GOP spending ‘cardinals’ as conservatives push for cuts on July 30, 2023 at 10:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

July 30, 2023

The House Republicans who craft the conference’s government funding bills are showing signs of frustration as hard-line conservatives pressure leadership for further cuts to spending that some worry could be too aggressive.

Some of the 12 Appropriations subcommittee chairs — the so-called cardinals — told reporters that they are struggling to see where those additional cuts could come from, as September’s shutdown deadline looms.

“I just don’t see the wisdom in trying to further cut to strengthen our hand. I don’t know how that strengthens our hand,” Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), a House Appropriations subcommittee chairman, said of conservatives’ push to further cut the already-scaled-back spending bills.

“I do think it puts some of our members in a very difficult spot, particularly those in tough districts, because they’re going to be taking some votes that become problematic,” he added.

The House left Washington for a long summer recess Thursday after being forced to punt a bill to fund agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

Conservatives are dug in on their demand for steeper spending cuts, to the chagrin of moderates who are wary of slashing funding even more. The chamber has passed just one appropriations bill, funding military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The internal divisions are gripping the party as time is running out: The House has just 12 days in September to move the remaining 11 appropriations measures and hash out their disagreements with the Senate, which is marking up its spending bills at higher levels, setting the scene for a hectic fall that could bring the U.S. to the brink of a shutdown.

Those dynamics are putting GOP appropriators in a bind, leaving them searching for ways to appease conservative requests without gutting their spending bills.

“We’ve done a lot of cuts, a lot of cuts,” House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger (R-Texas) told The Hill this week. “And so if it’s cuts just for cut’s sake, I don’t agree with it. But if it’s something that we can do without, that’s fine.”

‘Not a lot of wiggle room left’

Republican appropriators in the House announced earlier this year that they would mark up their bills for fiscal 2024 at fiscal 2022 levels, as leaders sought to placate conservatives who thought the debt ceiling deal struck by President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) earlier this year didn’t do enough to curb spending.

The Senate is crafting its bills more in line with the budget caps agreed to in the deal, but House Republicans are already fuming about a bipartisan deal in the upper chamber that would allow for more than $13 billion in additional emergency spending on top of those levels.

House GOP negotiators also said they would pursue clawing back more than $100 billion in old funding that was allocated for Democratic priorities without GOP support in the previous Congress.

While that move drew support from hard-line conservatives, the right flank was far from pleased when it heard appropriators planned to repurpose that old funding — known as rescissions — to plus-up the spending bills.

In a letter to McCarthy earlier this month, a group of hard-line conservatives called for all 12 appropriations bills to be in line with fiscal 2022 spending levels “without the use of reallocated rescissions to increase discretionary spending above that top-line.”

Otherwise, the 21 lawmakers threatened, they would vote against the measures. But that request could prove difficult for GOP appropriators to fulfill.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), chairman of the panel that proposes funding for the Department of State and foreign operations, said that appropriators are already “dramatically reducing spending,” suggesting that there are not too many remaining areas to trim from.

“My bill is below the 2016 levels,” he said, later adding, “When you’re below the 2016 level — and we’re still confronting China — I think there’s not a lot of wiggle room left.”

“It’s a challenge, but I think we’ll get through it. I really do,” he added.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who heads the subcommittee that oversees funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior, scoffed at the idea of even steeper cuts to his bill.

“Then you just drop it on the floor and stomp on it. What else do you do with it?” he told reporters. “You can’t make logical cuts in there.”

Republicans appropriators are voicing optimism that the conference will be able to sort out its differences on spending, but some also hope their levels will stick — even though they include rescissions.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.) — whose panel handles funding for the Department of Energy, which is proposing offsetting billions of dollars in spending with clawbacks — said it would be “extremely difficult” to craft his bill without the rescinded funds.

“And given our priorities in my bill, national defense with the nuclear weapons portfolio, nuclear cleanup, Army Corps including, all the community-directed fundings, I feel good about my bill, and I hope my numbers hold,” he said.

“Because it’s gonna have to be in negotiations with the Senate and the White House as well,” he added.

Womack — whose subcommittee crafts funding for the IRS and the Treasury Department — said he doesn’t think “moving the goalposts on these numbers is helpful in strengthening our ability to negotiate with the Senate.”

August preparations for a busy September

Frustrations among appropriators are bubbling up as Congress inches closer to the fall, when lawmakers are facing a Sept. 30 deadline to approve funding or risk a government shutdown.

With time running out, some House lawmakers say conversations may continue over the long August recess to try to hash out remaining differences.

“We’ll have to see,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said when asked about potential plans for talks between leaders and House Freedom Caucus members over the break. “I mean, we got a lot of work to do.”

“I think a lot of work [has] got to be done behind the scenes,” he said. “If not, you know, here — You gotta beg the question about whether we should be gone for six weeks. We should be getting our job done.”

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) echoed that sentiment, saying “I would think so” when asked if lawmakers will have conversations over the break.

Adding to the August workload, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) suggested earlier this week that bicameral negotiations could take place over the weeks-long recess as lawmakers stare down the shutdown deadline.

Not all Republicans, however, are viewing a shutdown as a risk.

During a House Freedom Caucus press conference this week, Good said “we should not fear a government shutdown,” claiming that “most of what we do up here is bad anyway; most of what we do up here hurts the American people.”

But that perspective does not jive with the view of McCarthy, who declared Thursday: “I don’t want the government to shut down.”

Multiple Republicans are ultimately expecting Congress to eventually pass what’s known as a continuing resolution (CR), or a measure that temporarily allows the government to be funded at the previous fiscal year’s levels, to prevent a lapse at the end of September.

But they also understand the task could be difficult in the GOP-led chamber, where Republicans aren’t happy about the idea of continuing funding at the current levels — which were last set when Democrats held control of Congress.

“I think there’s a very good chance that we’ll see a CR, but I know there’s a lot of work to get a CR done,” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), another appropriator, said Thursday, noting there are “a lot of members that don’t want CRs that are tired of them.”

But Aderholt suggested a CR could notch sufficient GOP backing if there’s a larger plan in sight that the party can support.

“The Speaker’s been very good about having a plan,” he said, adding, “I think that’s what he’s good at, and I’m optimistic that he can come up with something.”

Emily Brooks contributed.

House, Appropriations, Business, News The House Republicans who craft the conference’s government funding bills are showing signs of frustration as hard-line conservatives pressure leadership for further cuts to spending that some worry could be too aggressive. Some of the 12 Appropriations subcommittee chairs — the so-called cardinals — told reporters that they are struggling to see where those additional cuts…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

23 hours ago

July 11, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
Metals: Up 43%.
Leather products: Up 39%.
Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

3 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
- Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
- Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
- Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

3 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
The decline of Instagram and Twitter
Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.