Business

Fallout rises from McCarthy handshake deal with White House on December 11, 2023 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

December 11, 2023

Lawmakers in both parties are growing increasingly concerned about where a handshake deal between the White House and former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on spending stands as they negotiate how the government should be funded next year.

The Biden administration and House GOP leadership worked to pass legislation known as the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) in late spring as part of a larger deal to suspend the debt ceiling and set budget caps for Congress to work from when it hashes out its full-year funding bills months later.

But now that Congress is trying to ramp up its annual appropriations work, critical components of that months-old deal that were not reflected in the law are in question as ultraconservatives, in pursuit of steeper cuts amid climbing debt, say Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is not beholden to what Democrats say is the full commitment made by McCarthy.

“A deal is a deal is a deal,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said this week. “I think there’s no way we’re going to get to an appropriations deal if people can’t hold to their commitments.”

In a letter to Republicans this week, Johnson said the FRA remains “the law of the land” that “provides the framework” for spending talks as both chambers work to reach a top-line agreement for fiscal 2024 funding.

On paper, lawmakers agreed to a base discretionary spending cap of $1.59 trillion, or about $886 billion for defense spending and almost $704 billion for nondefense spending, for fiscal 2024. However, the White House at the time detailed other changes to pad funding on the nondefense side, including rescinding billions of dollars in IRS funding with the purpose of reinvesting it in nondefense programs.

The IRS got $80 billion in additional funding last year, to be spent over the subsequent decade, in the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), much to the consternation of Republicans. As part of debt ceiling negotiations, the sides agreed that a quarter of the money could be repurposed in annual appropriations.

Ten billion dollars would be taken away from the IRS for fiscal 2024 and another $10 billion for fiscal 2025, to be added to nondefense discretionary funds, White House officials said earlier this year.

“We didn’t get into the individual line items in this bill,” Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Shalanda Young said in May. But she said lawmakers would “use IRS rescissions from the IRA on the mandatory side.”

“Again, we don’t dictate how,” she said, “but they will rescind $10 billion both years, and they will then use that to be reinvested into non-defense discretionary.”

The total $80 billion would have generated $200 billion in revenue over the 10-year budget window for a net deficit reduction of $120 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Back-of-the-envelope math suggests the repurposed $20 billion will add $30 billion to the deficit, provided it’s not spent in revenue-generating programs.

White House officials also noted plans to repurpose other rescissions from clawed-back coronavirus relief dollars, which they acknowledged are pulled back in the law.

But as funding talks pick up between leadership in both chambers, the House Freedom Caucus is dialing up the heat on Johnson to hold the line, demanding in a Friday letter that any deal on a top-line level for government funding for fiscal 2024 “significantly reduce total programmatic spending year-over-year.”

The group also called on lawmakers to reject “side deals, gimmicks, or any other mechanism designed to hide the true number.”

“I think it’s very important that we hold to [$1.59 trillion], which was what the FRA agreed to,” Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus who is also an appropriator, said this week. “I mean, everybody voted for it. If we don’t do that, then I think that’s a problem.”

But Democrats and advocates are sounding alarm over the push.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), head of the Progressive Caucus, told The Hill this week that she’s “very” concerned about the potential cuts. “It has to be the whole deal.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — whose subcommittee crafts the annual funding bill for the departments of Commerce, Justice and other agencies — also accused Republicans of “reneging,” adding the potential funding changes on the nondefense side make a difference for her subcommittee.

With the side deal included, Michael Linden, a former OMB official who was part of Biden’s negotiating team that hashed out the debt ceiling deal, argued the overall agreement would provide a “small increase” on the defense side and “flat-fund non-defense spending — which is a real cut, because costs go up every year.”

“That itself was a concession — a big concession — made in the service of avoiding exactly this kind of ridiculous back-and-forth, this procedural rigamarole, and just having Congress pass normal appropriations bills, which is what Republicans said they wanted,” he said in a Thursday interview.

Joel Friedman, senior vice president of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the handshake agreement could fetch negotiators north of $60 billion in extra funding that could be redirected to the nondefense side.

“The only way you can get a freeze for nondefense is with the $69 billion in side deals,” he argued. “If you didn’t have that, it would have been a 9 percent in nondefense programs.”

“If it were a 9 percent cut, the White House wouldn’t have signed on. Senate Democrats and House Democrats wouldn’t have signed onto the deal. They wouldn’t have been able to reach agreement,” he said.

House, Appropriations, Business, News, Senate, Fiscal Responsibility Act, House Democrats, House GOP Lawmakers in both parties are growing increasingly concerned about where a handshake deal between the White House and former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on spending stands as they negotiate how the government should be funded next year. The Biden administration and House GOP leadership worked to pass legislation known as the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA)…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

3 days 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

5 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

5 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.