Business

House GOP rolls out 10-year budget plan amid spending fight on September 19, 2023 at 11:39 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

September 20, 2023

Republicans on the House Budget Committee on Tuesday rolled out the party’s 10-year budget plan as the conference races to strike a deal on spending little under two weeks out from a looming government shutdown deadline.

Republicans say the ambitious measure would balance the federal budget over the next decade, with proposals aimed at cutting the nation’s deficits by more than $16 trillion during the period.

Among the proposals the GOP-led committee has highlighted as part of the plan are changes to work requirements for able-bodied recipients of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, limits on discretionary spending and rollbacks of parts of Democrats’ signature Inflation Reduction Act.

The proposed budget is a 10-year blueprint and wishlist of sorts. It is distinct from the spending bills being debated as the clock ticks toward a shutdown at the end of the month and will not become law.

But the measure can provide a look into where the party thinks the nation’s fiscal trajectory should be headed over the next decade.

“I hope that this will help grease the skids for us to get a unified Republican funding package on the discretionary spending,” House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told reporters this week.

The committee’s planned markup on Wednesday coincides with growing debate in the GOP conference over spending, as leadership works to get the party’s various factions on the same page ahead of expected negotiations with the Democratic-led Senate on how to avoid a government shutdown.

In remarks to reporters on Tuesday, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) called the proposed budget plan a “step forward” and provides a measure that the party “convalesce around” and “maybe get to some consensus before it gets to Sept. 30.”

Burchett is among a list of Republicans who have come out against a legislative deal worked out between the House Freedom Caucus and the Main Street Caucus over the weekend that would stave off the threat of a shutdown later this month.

That bill, also known as a continuing resolution (CR), would punt the shutdown deadline from the end of the month through Oct. 31, along with provisions that would cut spending and enact changes to border policy as leadership works to lock down support from hardline conservatives.

GOP leaders previously set sights on a floor vote on the CR this week, but plans for a procedural vote on the bill were scrapped on Tuesday as internal divisions in the conference over how far to cut government spending for the coming fiscal year have garnered attention in recent weeks.

Democrats have already come out against the budget plan, with Rep. Brendan Boyle (Penn.), top Democrat on the Budget Committee, accusing his colleagues across the aisle of pushing for “cruel cuts to everything from health care to education.”

“Make no mistake: America is barreling towards a government shutdown because Republicans reneged on the bipartisan budget agreement in their thirst for cruel budget cuts – cuts which will raise the cost of living when it’s already too high,” he said in a statement.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) also released a statement calling the legislation a “deal-breaking budget that attacks essential government programs, undermines economic growth and national safety, and raises costs for households nationwide.”

“Using the same old, tired, trickle-down playbook, they are seeking to balance the budget on the backs of regular folks, while delivering huge tax cuts for big businesses and billionaires,” he added. “Their massive tax giveaways are based on fantasy math — the arithmetic just doesn’t work.”

The Republican budget comes in stark contrast to the one the White House rolled out months ago that included boosts for non-defense spending and Democratic priorities, while pressing for tax increases on the wealthy aimed at tackling the nation’s deficits.

But Republicans have pushed back on the criticisms, often pointing to the growth of national debt, which recently climbed to more than $33 trillion, as cause for alarm.

The Congressional Budget Office also projected earlier this year that country’s deficit for fiscal year 2023 was on track to totalling $1.7 trillion.

The GOP plan includes some changes to Medicare, but Republicans have maintained those reforms would amount to “non-benefit” cuts.

“Like site neutrality, like hospital debt that we’re paying at 100 percent. That we don’t need to pay it 100 percent,” Arrington said at a press conference.”

The new budget plan also doesn’t include changes to Social Security – which, like Medicare, faces threats to solvency in the coming years – after a bruising partisan debate over potential reforms to extend the lifetime of the program earlier this year.

“We don’t cut Medicare benefits, and we don’t cut Social Security or veterans benefits,” Arrington said. “But let me be clear, in this 10 year window, both the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds will become insolvent.”

Arrington instead said Republicans are recommending a bipartisan commission to explore potential changes to the programs, which account for a chunk of federal spending.

Republicans say the budget plan would result in “$4.6 trillion in savings” on the discretionary side over the next decade, with proposals to set base discretionary budget authority for most of next year at fiscal year 2022 levels. The plan also calls for capping discretionary spending growth at 1 percent after 2024.

“You’ve got to grow faster than inflation plus population. This budget does that,” Arrington argued on Monday. “We return to pro-growth, pro-work, pro-energy policies that we know will reignite this economy.”

Budget, Business, House, News Republicans on the House Budget Committee on Tuesday rolled out the party’s 10-year budget plan as the conference races to strike a deal on spending little under two weeks out from a looming government shutdown deadline. Republicans say the ambitious measure would balance the federal budget over the next decade, with proposals aimed at cutting…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

2 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

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

4 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.