Business

Spending deal that helped sink McCarthy sees new hope as conservatives ease up on December 5, 2023 at 11:05 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

December 5, 2023

After months of infighting, bruising failed floor votes and the historic ouster of their leader, House Republicans could end up falling back on a bipartisan debt ceiling deal struck by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) earlier this year that helped lead to his undoing.

The agreement, brokered by the White House and GOP leadership, appears to be seeing the greatest glimmers of hope since its passage in the spring, as hard-line conservatives soften demands for cuts steeper than those laid out in the compromise.

“Basically, they agreed to what we had said all along, that the numbers that the Speaker agreed to with the president were the numbers that are set and the numbers we should live by,” Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), a spending cardinal on the House Appropriations Committee, told The Hill.

House Republicans have repeatedly clashed this year over spending, as the right flank pressured GOP leadership to take a more aggressive stance on spending levels in the conference’s 12 annual government funding bills.

The strategy was to achieve the most conservative starting position possible ahead of eventual negotiations with Senate Democrats. But as the House GOP struggles to unify behind its five remaining funding bills, some in the right flank are letting up on their push for significantly lower funding levels, which they acknowledge is no longer achievable.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), head of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, said last week that the $1.59 trillion discretionary spending level set as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) for fiscal 2024 needed to be accepted as “the limit” in bicameral spending negotiations.

While he said the number is still “too high” for the caucus, his comments come as the group is pressing for both chambers to begin to conference their drastically different batch of funding bills as soon as possible, particularly as Congress stares down another government shutdown deadline in January.

“We never agreed to this number, but we understand that, right now, we’re in peril of actually being at like $1.8 [trillion] as opposed to $1.59 [trillion],” he argued Friday, while taking aim at the Senate over “additional packages” the upper chamber could pass in the weeks ahead as it considers aid for Israel and Ukraine.

“So, we’re just saying, look, you already voted for $1.59 [trillion] in FRA. That’s the limit,” Perry said.

While the caucus’s shift on the issue has drawn attention in the past week, some in the conference view the change in tone as a long time coming.

“This is where I always thought we would end up,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), another spending cardinal, said. “So, I’m not surprised that they understood that something that both houses had passed and the president signed was probably going to be the deal.”

The House Freedom Caucus had pushed for a top line of $1.47 trillion for the conference’s starting position ahead of bipartisan talks with the Senate, while sharply criticizing the budget deal struck by McCarthy as part of a larger agreement to raise the debt ceiling.

Members of the caucus repeatedly used hard-line tactics on the floor to pressure leadership for steeper cuts to the party’s funding bills, before some in the right flank touted an internal agreement from leadership in September to craft the party’s spending bills to a top-line level of about $1.526 trillion.

But tensions hit a fever pitch later that month, just as government funding was also set to run out, as McCarthy struggled to pass legislation to keep the lights on amid internal disagreements on spending.

Despite the add-ons to the GOP-proposed stopgap bill that called for immediate cuts and border policy changes intended to sweeten the pot for conservatives, the measure failed to gain adequate support from the conference.

That led McCarthy to bring up a bipartisan stopgap in the eleventh hour that averted a shutdown — but also helped cost him his job.

The conference eventually passed several more of its annual spending bills under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

But Republicans face serious hurdles to passing their remaining spending bills, which include some of the party’s biggest proposed cuts to nondefense programs, amid divisions over spending and thorny policy riders on issues such as abortion.

At the same time, senators have also been held up passing their government funding bills as lawmakers have been working to strike an ambitious deal on a supplemental funding package that could include aid for Israel and Ukraine, as well as what Republicans hope are changes to border policy.

As the annual appropriations work stalls in both chambers, lawmakers are hoping for a bicameral top-line agreement soon to kickstart bipartisan spending talks.

Cole, who heads the subcommittee that oversees funding for the Department of Transportation, said Friday that he’s expecting to hear from GOP leadership this week on what top lines could look like in talks, as well as other issues such as rescissions.

Earlier this year, Biden administration officials said the bipartisan debt limit agreement reached in May also included a handshake deal to pull back $20 billion in IRS funding that Democrats approved in the last Congress, with the purpose of reinvesting those funds into discretionary funding for nondefense programs.

While hard-line conservatives have let up in their demands for spending below the budget caps agreed to by McCarthy and President Biden, Perry and others have already spoken out against rescissions to yank back old funding to offset spending elsewhere.

“It’s still spending. When you add it up, the dollars that go out, have got to equal some number,” Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said. “You can’t plus it back up. That includes the supplementals and the rescissions.”

While Cole called rescissions a “normal tool” in Congress, he also said “whatever agreement was had was the agreement with Speaker McCarthy” and that he doesn’t see the current Speaker as “bound by it.”

“It’s up to him, but we’ll work with whatever number and with whatever tools the current Speaker thinks is more appropriate,” Cole said.

House, Business, News After months of infighting, bruising failed floor votes and the historic ouster of their leader, House Republicans could end up falling back on a bipartisan debt ceiling deal struck by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) earlier this year that helped lead to his undoing. The agreement, brokered by the White House and GOP leadership, appears…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

1 day 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.