Business

Speaker Johnson faces conservative unrest over funding deal on January 9, 2024 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

January 9, 2024

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) faces a daunting task in getting a deal to fund the government over the finish line amid strenuous opposition from conservatives in his conference.

The Speaker, elected just a few months ago after his predecessor was tossed for working with Democrats to fund the government, is now himself likely to rely on the minority party in the House to get his deal approved over outrage from his right flank.

Johnson has a razor-thin House GOP majority and a tight deadline; the government will partially shut down if funding legislation isn’t signed into law by Jan. 19, while the Pentagon and other agencies would shut down after Feb. 2 without a deal.

The path to a Johnson win is expected to be a political minefield, even if plenty of Republicans want to avoid the chaos that engulfed the House in the October mutiny against former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

The top-line spending deal congressional leaders announced over the weekend includes a $1.59 trillion base top line, plus around $69 billion in budget tweaks to plus-up nondefense dollars for most of the 2024 fiscal year.

The House Freedom Caucus, which includes around three dozen members, wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the deal was a “total failure.”

Johnson recognized in a “Dear Colleague” letter Sunday that the spending levels “will not satisfy everyone, and they do not cut as much spending as many of us would like.” But he touted some wins on accelerating clawbacks of IRS funding, as well as a $6.1 billion cut to “COVID-era slush funds,” calling it “the most favorable budget agreement Republicans have achieved in over a decade.”

In an added wrinkle, several hard-line GOP members are calling for a government shutdown if the Biden administration does not agree to border policy changes — a debate that has largely been centered around separate supplemental spending package that pairs it with Ukraine aid.

Hurdle on procedural votes

One major question is whether Johnson will utilize a process that denies conservatives the opportunity to sink appropriations bills through a procedural vote.

Because House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and President Biden gave their stamps of approval to the deal, Johnson is likely to get more than enough Democratic support to make up for House GOP defections on final passage of the appropriations legislation.

But in the House, the normal process is to first pass a rule dictating terms of debate for the bill — which the minority party almost always uniformly opposes, as a test of party strength.

While it used to be unheard of for a majority party to sink rule votes, hard-line conservatives have repeatedly done so to protest other spending bills over the past year.

It was unclear as of Monday whether any Republicans would move to sink the procedural votes. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who is unhappy with Johnson’s deal, told The Hill in a text message that he will wait to see the specifics of each bill before deciding whether to oppose the rule.

Party leaders can use a process known as suspension of the rules — normally used for noncontroversial legislation — to bypass the procedural vote and clear the bill with two-thirds support of the chamber.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), one of the eight Republicans who voted to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in October, told The Hill that in a text message that some conservatives will “possibly” tank the rule if the appropriations bills are considered through regular order, noting Johnson will “possibly” have to bring up the bills under suspension.

Johnson previously utilized the suspension process to pass the two-step stopgap continuing resolution that set the Jan. 19 and Feb. 2 deadlines, as well as to pass the final version of this year’s National Defense Authorization Act.

But those moves were sharply criticized by the hard-line conservatives, who would surely be unhappy with massive spending legislation moving though the suspension process.

Shutdown deadline pressure

With a top line now set, the race is on to write the bills that meet those levels and pass them before the funding deadlines.

Johnson has previously said he will not pass another short-term continuing resolution, leaving open the possibility of a government shutdown if Congress cannot meet those deadlines.

Jan. 19 is the funding deadline for government programs and agencies covered under four regular appropriations bills: Agriculture, rural development, and Food and Drug Administration; Energy and water development; military construction and Veterans Affairs; and Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development. All other funding, corresponding to eight bills, expires Feb. 2.

The House is currently scheduled to be out the week of Jan. 22, further fueling the deadline pressure — though Johnson could call members to stay in session.

The Speaker has touted the two-tiered stopgap bill as a way to break Washington’s tendency to pass massive omnibus spending bills, but his letter to colleagues did not specifically say there would be 12 separate pieces of legislation and votes.

Conservative policy priorities

Johnson wrote in his letter to colleagues that the bills would “reprioritize funding within the topline towards conservative objectives, instead of last year’s Schumer-Pelosi omnibus” and give the conference an opportunity to “fight for the important policy riders included in our House [fiscal 2024] bills.”

But it is unclear which policies House Republicans will be able to pass.

Policy priorities in Republican appropriations bills have included targeting abortion access, cutting diversity efforts, and slashing salaries for Cabinet members — but many didn’t have unanimous GOP support.

New Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), policy chair of the group, suggested in posts on X that Republicans lost some leverage on ensuring their preferred policies by agreeing to a top-line spending level.

Good lamented that the deal has “no significant policy wins.” Roy said he will “wait to see if we get meaningful policy riders,” but warned that the annual defense bill — which included a short-term extension of foreign surveillance programs that conservatives opposed — “was not a good preview.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) also said on X she would oppose the budget deal because it “does nothing to secure the border, stop the invasion, or stop the weaponized government targeting Biden’s political enemies and innocent Americans.”

Schumer warned against conservatives insisting on some of those policy riders.

“If the hard right chooses to spoil this agreement with poison pills, they’ll be to blame if we start careening towards a shutdown,” he said on the Senate floor Monday.

Border policy demands

An additional curveball is the demand from some conservatives to make keeping the lights on in Washington contingent on getting a deal on the border.

A handful of hard-liners have said they will not fund the government unless Congress passes substantive border reform, a vow that grew louder after Johnson led a group of roughly 60 Republicans to the border.

“The prerequisite for any budget agreement HAS TO ADDRESS the main threat to our national security which is SHUTTING DOWN OUR BORDER!! Without this, NO DEAL!” Norman, a Freedom Caucus member, told The Hill by text message Monday.

That ultimatum comes as a bipartisan Senate group nears a long-awaited deal on border security, after months of talks. The conversations began after Republicans said they would not approve new Ukraine aid until Congress addressed migration policies at the southern border.

Lawmakers had hoped to see a deal this week, but Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), the top GOP negotiator, said Monday it’s unlikely text would be released this week.

Regardless, a bipartisan framework from the upper chamber would be unlikely to assuage the hard-line House Republicans, who have been insistent on enacting H.R. 2, a sprawling border bill that cleared their with only GOP support in May.

And Johnson in a recent interview was noncommittal on bringing a Senate deal to the House floor for a vote.

“It’s a hypothetical question. Again, they’ve not sent me any of these provisions,” he told CBS’s “Face the Nation” in an interview that aired Sunday.

House, Business, News Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) faces a daunting task in getting a deal to fund the government over the finish line amid strenuous opposition from conservatives in his conference. The Speaker, elected just a few months ago after his predecessor was tossed for working with Democrats to fund the government, is now himself likely to rely…

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.