Business

Congress votes to avert shutdown, sending short-term funding bill to Biden’s desk on January 18, 2024 at 9:54 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

1 year ago

January 18, 2024

The House approved a short-term spending bill Thursday to keep the government funded through March, sending the stopgap to President Biden’s desk for his signature one day before a partial shutdown deadline.

The chamber cleared the two-step continuing resolution (CR) in a 314-108 vote hours after the Senate approved the measure, punting government funding deadlines to March 1 and March 8 and buying lawmakers more time to finish the formal appropriations process. The legislation is the third short-term spending bill Congress has approved in fiscal 2024.

Passage of the stopgap marks a cleared hurdle for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who cut a deal with other congressional leaders to avert a shutdown and, subsequently, was able to sell the proposal to enough members in his conference to get it over the finish line.

But the Speaker had to rely heavily on Democratic support after conservatives staked their opposition to the proposal, criticizing it for a lack of spending cuts and border security policy. Only two Democrats voted against the measure.

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was ousted in October in part for making a similar decision.

Challenges loom for Johnson. The Speaker has vowed to fight to secure conservative policy riders in the 12 annual appropriations bills, a goal that will be difficult to achieve against Democrats in the Senate and White House.

“I think we’ll be able to get our policy riders and our policy changes,” he told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins in an interview Wednesday night.

The Speaker — who has held the gavel for just 85 days — is also walking on thin ice with conservative Republicans who are frustrated with his handling of government funding matters and the question of sending additional aid to Ukraine. Hard-liners came out against the top-line spending deal Johnson struck with Democratic leaders earlier this month, spelling more trouble for his still-nascent Speakership.

Johnson last week rejected calls from conservatives to renege on the bipartisan top-line spending deal he had backed days before, and he brushed aside a suggestion from the right flank to put a long-term continuing resolution on the floor, which would have triggered a 1 percent across-the-board cut mechanism that was included in the debt limit deal McCarthy struck with Biden last year.

Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have both floated forcing a motion to vacate, the mechanism that was used to oust McCarthy, though there does not appear to be a strong threat to his Speakership.

Thursday’s passage did not come without some last-minute drama.

First, House Republican leadership announced that the chamber would vote on the two-step stopgap bill Thursday afternoon, rather than Friday morning, rushing to the floor as Washington prepares for a Friday snowfall. The Senate approved the legislation early Thursday afternoon, after leaders locked in a time agreement Wednesday night.

Then, Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), the chair of the House Freedom Caucus, and Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), a member of the conservative group, huddled with Johnson and pitched him on adding an amendment vote on border and migration policy as part of the government funding process. Good said Johnson was “considering it.”

The Speaker, however, rejected the plea — which would have thrown a wrench in the planned process to avert a shutdown — dealing another blow to conservatives who have urged Johnson to embrace their hard-line tactics during the government funding process, to no avail.

“What we’re trying to do is do what’s best for the country, which is to reduce our spending, secure our borders,” Good told The Hill after Johnson’s spokesperson said the plan for funding the government had not changed. “We’re trying to help him and be a partner with him in doing that.”

“Unfortunately, to this point, decisions have been made to form a coalition with Democrats on the material legislation that matters to the country,” he added.

Asked if there would be any consequences for Johnson, Good responded: “We’ll see.”

While a chunk of conservatives opposed the CR on Thursday, the two-step framework is one they championed in the previous CR.

Members of the right-flank viewed the unconventional configuration as a way to avoid a massive end-of-year, whole-of-government omnibus bill.

Under the new measure, lawmakers agreed to extend funding for four of the 12 annual spending bills through March 1, staving off a funding lapse for the departments of Agriculture, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Energy, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies.

The bill also kicks a Feb. 2 deadline for the remaining government agencies — like the departments of Defense (DOD), Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services — to March 8.

Spending cardinals in both chambers say the extra time is necessary to craft all 12 funding bills, but some are already worried about the pace of negotiations as they wait for a decision from top negotiators on the allocations for each of the dozen spending measures.

“I don’t think it’s a good sign,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who heads the subcommittee that oversees DOD funding, told The Hill on Thursday. However, he added that Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas) are working on a deal “to get the numbers.”

If Congress has to pass another stopgap bill in March, it would mark the fourth lawmakers have had to pass in the current session as deep partisan divides remain over spending. There is also concern in Capitol Hill about an impending April deadline for automatic spending cuts if Congress doesn’t finish its work on time.

“I’m worried about that,” Tester said. “I mean, the truth is, there needs to be some urgency.”

House, Business, News The House approved a short-term spending bill Thursday to keep the government funded through March, sending the stopgap to President Biden’s desk for his signature one day before a partial shutdown deadline. The chamber cleared the two-step continuing resolution (CR) in a 314-108 vote hours after the Senate approved the measure, punting government funding deadlines…

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.