Business

Republicans win faster IRS cuts in funding deal on January 10, 2024 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

January 10, 2024

A $1.66 trillion top-line spending agreement announced by congressional leaders this week will accelerate funding cuts to the Internal Revenue Service favored by Republicans.

The bipartisan deal would cut $10 billion from the IRS during fiscal 2024, one year earlier than Democrats and Republicans previously agreed on in a deal to raise the debt limit last summer. The debt limit deal included $20 billion in overall reductions to a controversial IRS funding boost.

The acceleration is the latest reduction in resources for the IRS, which was slated to receive $80 billion in funding through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

The additional funding was intended to redesign the agency and reinvigorate U.S. tax collections with a focus on the richest taxpayers. But Republicans took immediate aim at the IRS funding increase, voting to repeal the entire allotment last year upon retaking the House and whittling away at it through successive funding deals.

“The concessions we achieved will include an additional $10 billion in cuts to the IRS mandatory funding (for a total of $20 billion), which was a key part of the Democrats’ ‘Inflation Reduction Act,’” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote in a Sunday letter to fellow legislators.

“While these final spending levels will not satisfy everyone, and they do not cut as much spending as many of us would like, this deal does provide us a path to … move the process forward [and] reprioritize funding within the topline towards conservative objectives,” Johnson wrote, potentially indicating further pressure on the IRS in the future.

Republicans are now front-loading IRS cuts and paving the way for additional drawdowns in subsequent years, especially if they win big in the 2024 elections.

The new timetable means that one-quarter of the $80 billion funding bump for the IRS over the next decade has been nixed entirely within fiscal 2024.

While experts say the remaining $60 billion is still more than enough for the IRS to push ahead with the main features of its renovation, the rapid pace of rescission suggests that additional cuts could force the IRS to alter course more substantially.

“This is a commitment. It’s actually going to happen,” Janet Holtzblatt, former head of tax policy studies in the tax analysis division of the Congressional Budget Office, told The Hill on Monday. “It does quietly open the door for more cuts down the road.”

“The cuts in the past have already been established. There is that room now to cut forward. [In no way] is it a good thing for the IRS,” she added.

However, Democrats say the new timetable for IRS cuts won’t disturb the agency’s ongoing modernization and operational update.

“Thanks to this agreement preserving the same funding levels agreed to in the [Fiscal Responsibility Act], the IRS will still be able to maintain the critical investments we secured during the last congress,” a congressional Democratic aide said in a statement sent to reporters.

“By securing the $772.7 billion for non-defense discretionary funding, we can protect key domestic priorities,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a Sunday statement.

Democrats said the top-line deal paves the way for a more normal appropriations process for the rest of the year, as opposed to the chaotic negotiations that marked 2023 and took place at the risk of debt default and government shutdowns.

“Now the Appropriations Committees, led by Chair Patty Murray and Vice Chair Susan Collins in the Senate and Chairwoman Kay Granger and Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro in the House, can prepare full-year appropriations bills, free of poison pill policy changes,” Schumer and Jeffries said.

Tax experts told The Hill that the likely effect of the cuts would be hiring fewer auditors, which is the most difficult part of the IRS’s new enforcement push. Auditing big companies and wealthy individuals takes a high level of expertise, they said, and auditors can often make more money in the private sector.

“This money did give the agency certainty with respect to hiring, because you just can’t bring in people one year and then say, ‘OK, we can’t have them the next’,” Holtzblatt said.

Taking away funds for tax collections will add to the national deficit, which has risen to higher, historic levels following the pandemic and is a sore spot for Republicans.

Total public debt rose to 120 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the third quarter of 2023 after spiking above 130 percent in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic. In the eight years before the pandemic, national debt stayed at roughly the same level as GDP.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the initial $80 billion funding bump for the IRS over the subsequent decade would result in $200 billion in additional revenue, for a net deficit reduction of around $120 billion, or around $12 billion a year.

That’s just 1.7 percent of the annual tax gap, which is the amount of money owed to the government each year but isn’t collected. Projected estimates of the tax gap updated in October put that number at $688 billion in tax year 2021.

Most of that comes from people and companies underreporting what they owe. Underreported taxes totaled $542 billion in tax year 2021 from an average $445 billion in tax years 2017-2019.

Advocacy organizations that support federal economic programming as well as budget hawks with an eye on the national deficit are united in their disapproval of the shrinking IRS budget.

“Republicans profess concern about budget deficits. However, slashing IRS funding will only worsen the deficit by letting wealthy tax cheats off the hook. And there’s every reason for Democrats to expect that if they agree to Republicans’ blackmail over the IRS now that Republicans will demand further leniency for billionaires next year,” Adam Ruben, director of the Economic Security Project Action, said.

“Rather than passing legislation to expand the tax gap, Congress should be focused on efforts to further improve tax compliance,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington think tank, said in an October statement on IRS funding rescissions. “Such efforts have a long history of bipartisan support as they offer a way to raise revenue without increasing taxes.”

The IRS declined to answer questions from The Hill about the accelerated budget cuts and their effect on operations and planning at the agency.

Business, News, appropriations bills, budget, budget deficit, IRS, irs funding, IRS funding boost, Mike Johnson A $1.66 trillion top-line spending agreement announced by congressional leaders this week will accelerate funding cuts to the Internal Revenue Service favored by Republicans. The bipartisan deal would cut $10 billion from the IRS during fiscal 2024, one year earlier than Democrats and Republicans previously agreed on in a deal to raise the debt limit…

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.