Business

Five things to know about Speaker Johnson’s spending deal with Democrats on January 9, 2024 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

January 9, 2024

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is facing heat from the party’s right flank after striking a deal with Democrats on government funding that conservative hardliners are already dismissing as a “total failure.”

Lawmakers say the bipartisan deal breaks through a heated stalemate on how much to spend to keep the government running through September by providing a framework for negotiators to work from as they craft the dozen annual funding bills.

But with less than two weeks out from a key shutdown deadline key questions remain.

Here’s what you need to know about the spending agreement.

The topline

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said both sides had agreed to a spending limit of $1.59 trillion for fiscal year 2024, including $886 billion for defense and $704 billion for nondefense discretionary funds.

That’s largely in line with the budget caps included in a bipartisan deal that President Biden and former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) struck to raise the debt ceiling last year.

However, the number on the nondefense side is a notable contrast from what Democrats have been touting of the recent compromise, which they said would allow for additional funding for nondefense programs north of $60 billion.

Both sides had been pushing for leadership to set a topline spending level as Congress continues to fall behind in its annual appropriations process.

So far, Congress has sent zero of the 12 annual spending bills to Biden’s desk for signature, months after the initial deadline to hash out fiscal 2024 funding. Some negotiators have also signaled another stopgap measure, known as a continuing resolution (CR), might be necessary to prevent a funding lapse later this month as work lags.

Where a previous ‘side deal’ stands

Questions have been swirling around where a previous handshake agreement made between the White House and House GOP leadership as part of the larger debt limit deal stood in recent months amid opposition from hardline conservatives.

Democrats say that side agreement was key to ensuring what experts say would effectively amount to a freeze for nondefense funding, when compared to the previous year’s levels, despite the budget caps written into law.

As part of the handshake deal, both sides agreed to a series of budget changes, including rescinding funding for IRS and pandemic efforts, to offset further funding to the nondefense side. However, Johnson faced pressure from his right flank to abandon the agreement, struck under McCarthy, as conservatives have pursued steeper spending cuts beyond the debt limit deal.

Democrats said on Sunday that they secured $772.7 billion for non-defense discretionary funding as part of the new deal, while also protecting “key domestic priorities like veterans’ benefits, health care and nutrition assistance from the draconian cuts sought by right-wing extremists.”

House GOP leadership, meanwhile, touted “hard-fought concessions” from Democrats made as part of the agreement, including accelerated rescissions of IRS funding that Congress already agreed to, as well as the claw back of about $6 billion in COVID funding.

“Overall, this agreement represents an actual year-over-year cut in non-VA, nondefense spending,” Johnson said in a letter on Sunday.

But Democrats are singing another tune.

“Not a nickel was cut. Again, our goal was [$772 billion] and that’s precisely the number we reached in this bipartisan agreement,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Monday.

Conservatives mount opposition

The newly announced compromise has been met with growing criticism from hardline conservatives who panned the additional funding for nondefense as “reckless.”

“Don’t be fooled. The DC Uniparty’s spending ‘deal’ is a total sham. The REAL topline spending level is $1.658 trillion—not $1.59 trillion. Our nation simply cannot afford the Swamp’s reckless spending habits,” Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), who serves on the House Appropriations Committee and is a member of the Freedom Caucus, tweeted on Monday.

The pushback comes as the group has been pressing the conference to step up efforts to bring down spending, often citing the climbing national debt, which currently stands at roughly $34 trillion.

However, not all Republicans have panned the plan.

“While I continue to believe that additional defense funding is necessary, I hope this agreement will help us avoid a year-long Continuing Resolution, implementation of the FRA’S CR-penalty, or a government shutdown, which would be disastrous for our national defense, homeland security, biomedical research, and many other programs,” Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.

‘Poison pills’ could threaten progress

There are also questions about where so-called poison pill policy riders will fit in spending talks.

While Johnson acknowledged on Sunday that the agreed to spending limits “will not satisfy everyone,” he argued the deal provides lawmakers a path to move the appropriations process forward and “fight for the important policy riders included” in the party’s funding bills. Those riders have included policies regarding abortion and diversity efforts.

And some in his party are already keeping tabs on the issue.

“A $1659 topline in spending is terrible & gives away the leverage accomplished in the (already not great) caps deal. We’ll wait to see if we get meaningful policy riders… but 1) the NDAA was not a good preview, & 2) as usual, we keep spending more money we don’t have,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X on Sunday.

But those policy riders are nonstarters for Democrats, who reiterated their opposition this week.

Schumer and House Minority Leader (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that they have “made clear to Speaker Mike Johnson that Democrats will not support including poison pill policy changes in any of the twelve appropriations bills put before the Congress.”

Time crunch

There are less than two weeks before the first shutdown deadline of Jan. 19, when funding is set to lapse for agencies like the departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Energy and Agriculture.

The deadline for the remaining government agencies is Feb. 2.

And even with the topline figures set, plenty of work remains. Lawmakers need to determine the process for passing 12 spending bills, write those bills and get them through an often-intransigent Congress.

While some appropriators said ahead of the Christmas break that they had begun informal bicameral spending talks, they also acknowledged limitations they faced in conferencing their bills without knowing their subcommittee’s respective allocations.

There has also been concern around the length of a potential stopgap measure if another is needed next week to keep certain agencies open, particularly as some Republicans have floated a yearlong CR – which experts warn could mean further spending cuts for nondefense programs.

Budget, Business, House, News, Senate Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is facing heat from the party’s right flank after striking a deal with Democrats on government funding that conservative hardliners are already dismissing as a “total failure.” Lawmakers say the bipartisan deal breaks through a heated stalemate on how much to spend to keep the government running through September by providing a framework…

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.