Business

Shutdown averted, lawmakers fret about next looming deadline on January 21, 2024 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

1 year ago

January 21, 2024

The latest shutdown threat may have been averted but some lawmakers are already worried about the next government funding deadline.

While leaders on both sides of the aisle were able to come to agreement earlier this month on a topline for the 12 annual government funding bills for fiscal year 2024, spending cardinals say they have yet to learn how the dollars will be divided among the measures as spending talks continue.

Without those allocations, lawmakers say they can’t begin crafting the individual bills.

In comments to reporters this week, Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she’s “concerned about the lack of a resolution” on the matter of allocations for the individual bills.

“This has been dragging on for a long time and I really don’t know why,” Collins said.

Some senior appropriators say they were hopeful they would receive the allocations last week, others the week before that.

But as talks continue, so-called spending cardinals are pointing to areas like funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other nondefense programs as potential sticking points for top negotiators.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) — head of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriation subcommittee — expressed confidence earlier this week in top appropriators in either chamber striking a deal.

But he added he thinks “they’re struggling,” while noting a potential dispute “over Labor-H versus Homeland,” referring to the annual DHS and Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS) funding bills.

“Of course, none of us know whether or not the supplemental will pass and that has money for Homeland and that impacts it,” Cole said.

Senators have been negotiating a major border policy and foreign package for weeks. The plan is expected to have severe restrictions on asylum, drum up border security measures like wall construction, and include aid for Ukraine and Israel.

“If the supplemental passes, there’s a lot of money in there, and that may well impact what you would normally do for Homeland as well,” Cole said. “So, I think they’re all trying to be cautious and get there to help.”

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who heads the subcommittee that crafts DOL and HHS funding, said on Thursday that top negotiators seem to be “closing in” on a deal, but added that DHS funding “seems to be the real tension.”

Murray also said earlier in the week that she’s heard Democrats are fighting for numbers that resemble the levels of the bipartisan funding bills they marked up in the Senate “as close as possible,” noting “that there’s some resistance in the House to that.”

But she added that she doesn’t believe lawmakers “have the time to wait” until Congress tackles a supplemental bill when it comes to finalizing the subcommittee allocations, particularly if lawmakers hope to avoid passing another stopgap in the weeks ahead.

“Once you have the [allocations] it takes time to write the bills, and it’s not an easy process,” Baldwin said Wednesday, while acknowledging how far apart both chamber’s sets of funding bills are and the difficulties that await in conferencing the legislation into measures that can pass a divided Congress.

In brief comments to The Hill on Wednesday, Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who is leading negotiations with House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas), also said that Democrats “are waiting for the House to make a significant move” when asked for an update on negotiations over the allocations.

Thanks to a stopgap measure passed Thursday, Congress was able to punt another shutdown deadline, kicking the next target dates into March to buy time for broader spending talks.

Under the bill, Congress agreed to extend funding at temporary levels for agencies that fall under four of the 12 annual appropriations bills through March 1. That includes dollars for the departments of Agriculture, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies.

The bill extends the deadline for the remaining eight bills through Mar. 8, when agencies like the departments of Defense (DOD), DOL, Education, State, Homeland Security and others face funding lapses.

Appropriators on both sides of the aisle are confident the extra time will be enough for them to finish crafting the 12 annual funding bills but acknowledge it’s a time crunch that will only get tighter the longer it takes for them to ramp up talks on their own bills.

“We don’t have a hell of a lot of time,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who heads the subcommittee that oversees funding for the State Department and other agencies, said this week, noting the amount of time it can take to pass the funding bills even after negotiations are finalized.

“Just the technical aspects of it, [the Congressional Budget Office] usually takes about five days to review these bills, and then we’ve got the 72-hour thing here in the House,” he said. “And then you’ve got, for example, the readouts, so the staff has to get together and literally … read every comma, every sentence of the bill and the report.”

“We have enough time today,” he said Wednesday, but he added the cardinals need to receive their subcommittee allocations quickly to finish the work.

Senior appropriators from both chambers will also be heading into negotiations with drastically different funding bills, as the House wrote their spending bills to levels significantly lower than the budget caps agreement struck between President Biden and then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy last year.

The House bills also include a list of riders in areas like abortion and diversity that Democrats have denounced as “poison pills,” while House conservatives have come out strongly against the bills crafted in the Senate that they say are too high.

Also on the minds of lawmakers is an impending April deadline for automatic cuts to defense and nondefense programs if Congress doesn’t finish its funding work on time – a penalty Republicans and Democrats alike are hoping to avoid.

“I’m worried about that,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), spending cardinal for Defense funding in the upper chamber, said on the matter on Thursday. “I mean, the truth is, there needs to be some urgency.”

Rafael Bernal contributed.

Senate, Business, House, News The latest shutdown threat may have been averted but some lawmakers are already worried about the next government funding deadline. While leaders on both sides of the aisle were able to come to agreement earlier this month on a topline for the 12 annual government funding bills for fiscal year 2024, spending cardinals say they have yet to learn…

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

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.