ReportWire

Tag: federal budget

  • Resilient learning begins with Zero Trust and cyber preparedness

    [ad_1]

    Key points:

    The U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) recently warned of a surge in cyberattacks from “insider threats”–student hackers motivated by dares and challenges–leading to breaches across schools. While this trend is unfolding overseas, it underscores a risk that is just as real for the U.S. education sector. Every day, teachers and students here in the U.S. access enormous volumes of sensitive information, creating opportunities for both mistakes and deliberate misuse. These vulnerabilities are further amplified by resource constraints and the growing sophistication of cyberattacks.

    When schools fall victim to a cyberattack, the disruption extends far beyond academics. Students may also lose access to meals, safe spaces, and support services that families depend on every day. Cyberattacks are no longer isolated IT problems–they are operational risks that threaten entire communities.

    In today’s post-breach world, the challenge is not whether an attack will occur, but when. The risks are real. According to a recent study, desktops and laptops remain the most compromised devices (50 percent), with phishing and Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) cited as top entry points for ransomware. Once inside, most attacks spread laterally across networks to infect other devices. In over half of these cases (52 percent), attackers exploited unpatched systems to move laterally and escalate system privileges.

    That reality demands moving beyond traditional perimeter defenses to strategies that contain and minimize damage once a breach occurs. With the school year underway, districts must adopt strategies that proactively manage risk and minimize disruption. This starts with an “assume breach” mindset–accepting that prevention alone is not enough. From there, applying Zero Trust principles, clearly defining the ‘protect surface’ (i.e. identifying what needs protection), and reinforcing strong cyber hygiene become essential next steps. Together, these strategies create layered resilience, ensuring that even if attackers gain entry, their ability to move laterally and cause widespread harm is significantly reduced.

    Assume breach: Shifting from prevention to resilience

    Even in districts with limited staff and funding, schools can take important steps toward stronger security. The first step is adopting an assume breach mindset, which shifts the focus from preventing every attack to ensuring resilience when one occurs. This approach acknowledges that attackers may already have access to parts of the network and reframes the question from “How do we keep them out?” to “How do we contain them once they are in?” or “How do we minimize the damage once they are in?”

    An assume breach mindset emphasizes strengthening internal defenses so that breaches don’t become cyber disasters. It prioritizes safeguarding sensitive data, detecting anomalies quickly, and enabling rapid responses that keep classrooms open even during an active incident.

    Zero Trust and seatbelts: Both bracing for the worst

    Zero Trust builds directly on the assume breach mindset with its guiding principle of “never trust, always verify.” Unlike traditional security models that rely on perimeter defenses, Zero Trust continuously verifies every user, device, and connection, whether internal or external.

    Schools often function as open transit hubs, offering broad internet access to students and staff. In these environments, once malware finds its way in, it can spread quickly if unchecked. Perimeter-only defenses leave too many blind spots and do little to stop insider threats. Zero Trust closes those gaps by treating every request as potentially hostile and requiring ongoing verification at every step.

    A fundamental truth of Zero Trust is that cyberattacks will happen. That means building controls that don’t just alert us but act–before and during a network intrusion. The critical step is containment: limiting damage the moment a breach is successful.  

    Assume breach accepts that a breach will happen, and Zero Trust ensures it doesn’t become a disaster that shuts down operations. Like seatbelts in a car–prevention matters. Strong brakes are essential, but seatbelts and airbags minimize the harm when prevention fails. Zero Trust works the same way, containing threats and limiting damage so that even if an attacker gets in, they can’t turn an incident into a full-scale disaster.

    Zero Trust does not require an overnight overhaul. Schools can start by defining their protect surface – the vital data, systems, and operations that matter most. This typically includes Social Security numbers, financial data, and administrative services that keep classrooms functioning. By securing this protect surface first, districts reduce the complexity of Zero Trust implementation, allowing them to focus their limited resources on where they are needed most.

    With this approach, Zero Trust policies can be layered gradually across systems, making adoption realistic for districts of any size. Instead of treating it as a massive, one-time overhaul, IT leaders can approach Zero Trust as an ongoing journey–a process of steadily improving security and resilience over time. By tightening access controls, verifying every connection, and isolating threats early, schools can contain incidents before they escalate, all without rebuilding their entire network in one sweep.  

    Cyber awareness starts in the classroom

    Technology alone isn’t enough. Because some insider threats stem from student curiosity or misuse, cyber awareness must start in classrooms. Integrating security education into the learning environment ensures students and staff understand their role in protecting sensitive information. Training should cover phishing awareness, strong password practices, the use of multifactor authentication (MFA), and the importance of keeping systems patched.

    Building cyber awareness does not require costly programs. Short, recurring training sessions for students and staff keep security top of mind and help build a culture of vigilance that reduces both accidental and intentional insider threats.

    Breaches are inevitable, but disasters are optional

    Breaches are inevitable. Disasters are not. The difference lies in preparation. For resource-strapped districts, stronger cybersecurity doesn’t require sweeping overhauls. It requires a shift in mindset:

    • Assume breach
    • Define the protect surface
    • Implement Zero Trust in phases
    • Instill cyber hygiene

    When schools take this approach, cyberattacks become manageable incidents. Classrooms remain open, students continue learning, and communities continue receiving the vital support schools provide – even in the face of disruption. Like seatbelts in a car, these measures won’t prevent every crash – but they ensure schools can continue to function even when prevention fails.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Gary Barlet, Illumio

    Source link

  • Canada’s 2025 budget bets on capital projects to drive long-term growth – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    But that estimate was issued before U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada and countries across the world, which turned economic forecasts upside down. Ottawa said the effects of the Canada-U.S. trade war and uncertainty over future trade rules have weighed heavily on the Canadian economy, while creating risks to its outlook.

    Deficit growth reflects focused fiscal strategy

    While the latest deficit comes in well above last year’s estimate, experts say it’s broadly in line with expectations.

    The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer projected in late September that the deficit for the current fiscal year would increase “sharply” to $68.5 billion. A report that month by TD Securities also said the government’s announced spending commitments would likely drive the 2025-26 deficit above $60 billion amid a shift to a “more expansionary fiscal policy.” 

    TD senior economist Francis Fong called it a “hard-nosed budget” compared with those of previous Liberal governments under former prime minister Justin Trudeau. That’s because it focuses on “just a few key areas” for spending—competitiveness, trade diversification, defence, and housing—rather than a broader range of various initiatives.

    “Carney’s still swinging for the fences in terms of trying to fundamentally reorient the Canadian economy,” Fong said in an interview. “That’s an expensive proposition and hence we see the deficit blow out partly as a consequence of that.”

    Best savings accounts in Canada

    Find the best and most up-to-date savings rates in Canada using our comparison tool

    Federal debt forecasts show range of possible outcomes

    The Liberals’ budget pegged this year’s federal debt-to-GDP ratio at 42.4%. Ottawa said it expects a deficit-to-GDP ratio of 2.5% , which would fall to 1.5% over five years.

    Tuesday’s budget also includes alternative economic forecasts in both downside and upside scenarios.

    In the former, trade uncertainty would persist beyond 2026 amid escalating geopolitical tensions, ambiguous U.S. tariff plans and continued challenges in negotiating trade agreements. That would cause the budgetary balance to deteriorate by an average of approximately $9.2 billion per year, while the federal debt-to-GDP ratio would be expected to rise to 45.3% by 2028-29 before falling to 45.2% by 2029-30.

    Article Continues Below Advertisement


    In the upside scenario, the budgetary balance would improve by an average of approximately $5 billion per year and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio would stabilize in the near-term before falling to 42.2% by 2029-30. That optimistic alternative hinges on trade policy uncertainty easing more quickly than anticipated, including through Canada’s efforts to streamline internal trade, bolster competition, and build relationships with global partners other than the U.S.

    Government defends higher deficit amid economic uncertainty

    Earlier this week, the federal Conservatives urged the Liberals to cap this year’s deficit at $42 billion. But Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Tuesday the ongoing level of economic uncertainty “is higher than what we have seen and felt for generations.”

    “When your largest trading partner fundamentally reshapes all of its trade relationships, there are two responses. You can slash the deficit, hunker down, hope for the best, wait and see if the ‘trickle down’ ever comes,” said Champagne in his remarks in the House of Commons. “That approach, to balance the budget this year, would have to eliminate vital social programs and all the capital investments needed for Canada’s future. We choose a different path.”

    Budget promises $1 trillion in generational investments

    Ottawa is promising “generational” investments in key projects—$25 billion for housing, $30 billion for defence and security, $115 billion for major infrastructure, and $110 billion to drive productivity and competitiveness over five years.

    “Budget 2025 is a plan to catalyze investments from provinces, territories, municipalities, Indigenous communities and the private sector,” said Champagne. “With this plan, in five years, we will see $1 trillion in total investments in this country.”

    The Liberals’ 2025 budget makes a key change to the presentation of the annual deficit, as it divides the budget into capital and operating streams. Anything related to creating capital assets is considered capital spending, such as infrastructure and homes. Operational spending is largely made up of government salaries, transfers, and program spending—costs the Liberals have been examining under a spending review.

    Capital spending to drive private investment, but questions remain

    The federal government said capital investment would account for 58% of this year’s projected deficit, but rise to 100% from 2028-29 onward, when day-to-day operational spending would be brought in line with revenues. “This necessary shift is key to the government realizing its target of catalyzing $500 billion in additional private sector investment over the next five years,” the budget said.

    While the budget is optimistic about driving private investment through boosted capital spending, Fong said it’s unclear if those dollars will indeed follow. He said the budget didn’t adequately address the “fundamental difficulty” that firms in Canada face when it comes to tax and regulatory compliance.

    [ad_2]

    The Canadian Press

    Source link

  • Canadians to see lower fees and simpler account transfers – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    “We will introduce measures to enhance competition across the economy—starting with the financial and telecommunications sectors,”  said Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne in the prepared text of his budget speech.

    Fintech challengers gain ground against Canada’s big banks

    The moves should offer a boost to fintech companies looking to challenge the dominance of Canada’s big banks, which hold a commanding share of the market. Several companies have been working to offer alternatives. 

    Questrade Financial Group, best known for its online trading platform, said this week that it has secured regulatory approval to launch Questbank. Meanwhile, Wealthsimple, which has been expanding its offerings to include chequing accounts, credit cards, and mortgages, said recently its assets under administration have grown to more than $100 billion.

    Michael Katchen, head of Wealthsimple, said the budget delivered many wins for Canadians, including the plan to ban transfer fees. “By standing up for ordinary investors and removing this barrier to choice, the government is taking exactly the kind of bold action we need to unlock real competition in financial services,” he said in a statement.

    Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers made the case for more competition in the banking sector in a speech last month. She said the concentration of Canada’s banking sector is often cited as one of the main factors contributing to its stability, however, she added that many argue that this level of concentration has clear negative impacts on productivity, innovation, capital allocation, cost, and consumer choice.

    The best online banks and credit unions in Canada

    Ottawa advances open banking to boost competition

    The Canadian Bankers Association said in a statement that Canada has a highly competitive financial services sector with a large number of competitors and product offerings across Canada. 

    Spokeswoman Nathalie Bergeron said the CBA looks forward to working with the government as it engages with industry on its budget initiatives. Among them is moving forward on an open banking framework that could see consumers take more control over their own financial data, making it easier to switch banks.

    While open banking is yet to launch in Canada, the government has promised in the budget to expand it further by mid-2027 to allow the sending of payments through the system. And to make the system a reality, the federal government said it is shifting responsibility for implementation of open banking to the Bank of Canada, from the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada.

    Article Continues Below Advertisement


    Adriana Vega, head of industry group Fintechs Canada, said in a statement the government had delivered a bold and clear path forward for the sector. “The financial sector is the heart of any modern economy,” said Vega. “That’s why we are thrilled that the government has made it a key focus as a means to make life more affordable for Canadians and boost productivity.” 

    New measures seek lower fees and faster deposits

    Also in the budget Tuesday, the government said it will review fees charged by banks and other federally regulated financial institutions, including Interac e-transfer and ATM fees.

    The government said it will also work with banks to bring more transparency to fees around sending money abroad.

    The budget will also change the Bank Act to increase the amount immediately available when someone deposits a cheque to $150 from $100 and look to reduce the number of days banks may hold deposited cheque funds before releasing them.

    The changes in the financial sector come after Canadians already saw a cut to the income tax rate for the lowest bracket that came into effect on July 1. The tax cut is expected to mean savings of up to $420 per person a year in 2026.

    Get free MoneySense financial tips, news & advice in your inbox.

    Read more news:



    About The Canadian Press


    About The Canadian Press

    The Canadian Press is Canada’s trusted news source and leader in providing real-time stories. We give Canadians an authentic, unbiased source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

    [ad_2]

    The Canadian Press

    Source link

  • A wish list for Carney’s fall budget – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    But things changed in the second quarter as Canada’s economy weakened. This has put the spotlight on the weakness of Canadians’ income and savings in the face of change. It also provides an important opportunity for the November 4 federal budget to protect financial well-being in the months ahead.  

    The income gap reaches a new high

    The income gap, which is the difference in the share of disposable income between households in the top 40% and the bottom 40% of income distribution, is a common measure that makes the news. It was at a record high of 49% in the first quarter, with a slight reduction in Q2, and has been increasing every year since the pandemic. 

    Interest rates have had a lot to do with this. Fortunately, for the first time since 2022, household interest payments declined by almost 5% in Q1. Disposable income, therefore, increased for those indebted households. 

    Then the U.S. tariffs entered the economic picture. Lower-earning households tend to suffer the most during periods of uncertainty and this is holding true now. Statistics Canada reported declining average wages, mainly due to reduced hours of work in Q1. Those working in mining and manufacturing, professional and personal services were particularly affected. 

    For the lowest-income households, income grew at a faster-than-average pace (+5.6%) in the second quarter. But on closer inspection, this was actually due to an increase in government transfers including Employment Insurance (EI), social assistance, and retirement benefits.  

    Unfortunately, tax collections—the very source of these payments in the future— will decline too. The Parliamentary Budget Office projects a lower nominal GDP (which measures the size of the tax base), averaging $12.9 billion less annually from 2025 to 2029. This too is due to the impact of tariffs.

    The government plans to increase taxes for some as well as penalties and fines and resulting interest charges to bolster its revenues. However, a more positive, proactive approach is to make income- and wealth-building easier. That starts with getting back to the basics.

    Diversification of investments matters    

    Despite a good start in the first quarter of the year (Q1), Canadians’ financial well-being was affected by the impact of tariffs imposed in the second quarter (Q2). Consider the following investing trends:

    Article Continues Below Advertisement


    1. Lower-income households tend to earn interest income. Net investment income dropped the most for low-income households. The decline in investment earnings (-35.3%) more than offset the decline in interest payments (-7.1%). Second-quarter outcomes were similar.
    2. Higher-earning households have more diversified portfolios, holding more equities. These produce more tax-efficient capital gains and dividend income. These households’ net worth grew as the value of their financial assets increased by 7.1% in Q1—close to three times the rate of inflation—and 9.6% in Q2. These families also had limited growth in mortgage debt (+1.9%).
    3. As a result, by the end of the second quarter, the wealthiest 20% of households had accumulated almost two-thirds (64.8%) of Canada’s total net worth, averaging $3.4 million per household. The bottom 40% of households accounted for 3.3% of total net worth, averaging $86,900.  
    4. As a special wealth-builder category, homeowners experienced lower borrowing costs and lower inflation and this resulted in more savings as debt reduction in Q1. Still, personal net worth declined for younger Canadians and those without investment portfolios, because real estate values also declined.

    Income Tax Guide for Canadians

    Deadlines, tax tips and more

    The wealthy will be OK, others need help

    What can we learn from this? The wealthiest households can continue to increase their net worth, even if incomes are interrupted or don’t keep up with inflation and debt servicing costs are threatened by unemployment, incapacity, or retirement. That’s because their investment earnings and capital appreciation make up for the income gap.  

    Where are the opportunities for lower-income households? There are two. In the face of the same issues, it is critical to be able to continue to save consistently. Second, it is important to earn more tax-efficient investment income.

    This is where government policy comes in. It seems to be an easy ask for some to pay more tax, but that can result in brain drain, reduced incentives work or innovate, and the flight of capital. The real opportunity in the next federal budget is to help all Canadians build both income and wealth, against the backdrop of economic uncertainty, and to do so with the help of knowledgeable professionals.

    Building income and capitala six-part plan

    Tax and financial literacy is elusive but critical to the prosperity of Canadians. Having the knowledge, skills, and confidence to make responsible financial decisions enables people to plan ahead and deal with increasingly complex systems that are a barrier to accessing income supplements through tax refunds, credits, and social benefits. 

    To that end, here’s my six-point wish list. Perhaps you’d like to add to it?

    1. Protection for interest earnings. Periods of high interest rates to combat inflation are particularly damaging to average households that earn interest income. If this monetary policy is necessary, protect those fragile savings from both inflation and taxes. Bring back the $1,000 investment income deduction, eliminated in 1987, to do so.  
    2. Deduction for professional help. Canadians need help with their tax and financial literacy. They won’t get that interacting with online help alone, no matter how good it is. Especially at a time the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is pushing for increased digitization, helping individuals better understand basic tax planning—what comes first, an RRSP, a TFSA or FHSA, for example—can bolster lifelong wealth-building habits and help to diversify their investments. To remove barriers to professional help, make income tax preparation and financial planning costs tax-deductible.
    3. Waive CRA penalties and interest from auto-filing. Even though the federal government is touting automatic tax filing for 5.5 million of the lowest-income Canadians by 2028, in reality, navigating both tax and digital complexity underlying this initiative may be unattainable for most targeted filers. Imagine the repayment nightmare for years to come (remember CERB?) if these tax returns are incorrect. The CRA should be empowered to permanently waive interest or penalties resulting from honest errors in automatic tax filing processes. 
    4. Help young people start saving. Young workers are most susceptible to job loss but have the most to gain from increased compounding time in their investments. By enabling matching grants for start-up savings for the first five years after post-secondary education, similar to the grants available for registered education savings plan (RESP) and registered disability savings plan (RDSP) savings, sound saving habits could be encouraged with a New Graduate Savings Plan.   
    5. Recognize community service as a tax deduction. Younger Canadians aged 15 to 24 are most likely to volunteer, while those over age 65 volunteer the most hours. Keeping track of volunteer hours is not much more onerous than keeping track of dollars donated to charity. The resulting tax savings could help with community wealth creation. The Liberals had proposed a Health Care Workers Hero Tax Credit in their party platform. This should be extended to those who volunteer to help others with tax preparation and financial planning, by expanding the charitable donation credit. 
    6. Change retirement savings options. Most people know that the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) alone will not fund their retirement, even with the higher premiums workers and their employers are now paying. Rising CPP premiums squeeze out cash flows needed to fund a tax-free savings account (TFSA), which ensures a tax-free retirement. Required matching premiums also make it difficult for employers to give raises or increase staffing. One way to improve cash flow for more private savings is to increase take-home pay. Governments should encourage TFSA savings by making contributions tax deductible for both employees and employers who contribute to their employees’ accounts.

    Get free MoneySense financial tips, news & advice in your inbox.

    Read more about tax planning:



    About Evelyn Jacks, RWM, MFA, MFA-P, FDFS


    About Evelyn Jacks, RWM, MFA, MFA-P, FDFS

    Evelyn Jacks is President of Knowledge Bureau, a world-class financial education institute where readers can take micro-credentials in Financial Literacy, the Fundamentals of Income Tax Preparation, and earn career-enhancing Specialized Credentials, all online.

    [ad_2]

    Evelyn Jacks, RWM, MFA, MFA-P, FDFS

    Source link

  • The Case of the Missing Federal Budget

    [ad_1]

    In the flurry of federal government action since January, you may have missed one noteworthy thing that didn’t happen.

    Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump 1.0 and Joe Biden had vastly different visions for the United States. But they all agreed to codify their ideas in comprehensive budget proposals that laid out revenues and outlays in great detail during their first year in office.

    Bush submitted his first in April 2001. Obama produced his in May 2009. Trump 1.0 submitted an early version in March 2017, then a broader budget in May of that year. Biden’s first landed in May 2021. You can get a little budget history here.

    But fiscal year 2026 dawned on Oct. 1 with just a Trump 2.0 “skinny budget” – a preliminary document with broad top lines but without program-by-program specifics of a full budget. A brief “Mid-Session Review to the 2026 Budget” added little nuance. There’s no sign of a more comprehensive assessment. (The White House did not acknowledge an email asking when the more detailed document might be landing.)

    It’s a bit of a cliché to say that a budget is a statement of values, or that it turns the poetry of campaign rhetoric into the prose of governing. But it certainly is a statement of a president’s priorities for the nation as well as a detailed look at how they view federal power.

    In 2017, Trump delivered a speech laying out his economic plans to a joint meeting of Congress in February. That was followed shortly by an overview and then more detailed budget documents.

    So what does the lack of a spending blueprint this time around tell us?

    Trump is the Alpha and the Omega

    In that sense, the second Trump presidency looks impervious to budgeting of the conventional variety.

    The administration is swallowing tens of billions of dollars every month via his tariffs – a significant source of revenues that is expected to shrink the annual deficit. (Reminder: These are taxes paid by importers, not the country of origin, with some portion being passed on to consumers.)

    But the on-again-off-again-on-again nature of the tariffs, as well as shifting exemptions for specific sectors or even individual companies, make it impossible to draw up a firm prediction of their revenue effects with any confidence.

    Sign Up for U.S. News Decision Points

    Your trusted source for breaking down the latest news from Washington and beyond, delivered weekdays.

    Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy.

    It’s not just tariffs, of course, where Trump has broken with tradition and even his past decisions:

    • Trump set aside the law that banned TikTok from the U.S. unless it were sold to non-Chinese investors, delaying it repeatedly until a deal he favored materialized.
    • He has broken sharply with precedent (and Republican orthodoxy) by having the government take equity stakes in private companies or demanding a share of their sales.
    • And Trump, who signed a 2019 law designed to ensure that federal employees furloughed in a partial government shutdown would get back pay, flirted this week with the idea that they might not all be made whole.

    Why It Matters to You

    Why should you care about a document that doesn’t become law? Because every federal agency, every state and every city looks to the budget for guidance on what amount of money from Washington they can count on.

    Law enforcement assistance? Disaster aid? Infrastructure spending? Federal food programs? The clues are in the budget. It’s hard to plan in the absence of information.

    But perhaps the biggest unknown without a budget is the nation’s social insurance programs, where Trump again has past promises to reckon with.

    Running for office in 2016, Trump broke with the GOP orthodoxy by promising not to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

    Why is this relevant to the question of where his budget is?

    Because detailed budgets are supposed to include 10-year projections. The trust fund from which Social Security benefits are paid is due to become insolvent in 2034. Medicare’s hospital insurance fund is expected to reach that same unhappy milestone a year earlier.

    A budget might tell us – promise us, really – how he plans to address those challenges, with ramifications for tens of millions of Americans dependent on those programs.

    [ad_2]

    Olivier Knox

    Source link

  • Video: The Man Expanding Trump’s Presidential Powers

    [ad_1]

    new video loaded: The Man Expanding Trump’s Presidential Powers

    Coral Davenport, a New York Times reporter, explains how Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, plans to circumvent Congress’s budgetary powers to advance the Trump administration’s agenda.

    By Coral Davenport, Melanie Bencosme, Stephanie Swart, Laura Bult, June Kim and Ray Whitehouse

    September 29, 2025

    [ad_2]

    Coral Davenport, Melanie Bencosme, Stephanie Swart, Laura Bult, June Kim and Ray Whitehouse

    Source link

  • Trump to meet with top congressional leaders Monday ahead of government shutdown deadline at midnight on Wednesday | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump plans to meet with the top four congressional leaders at the White House on Monday, one day before the deadline to fund the federal government or face a shutdown.

    The meeting involving House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune as well as House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was confirmed Saturday by a White House official and another person familiar with the planning. Both were granted anonymity to discuss a meeting that has not been announced.

    The meeting was first reported by Punchbowl News.

    The parties have been in a standoff for days as Democrats, namely in the Senate, have refused to offer the necessary votes to pass a funding measure that would keep the government open beyond Tuesday.

    Absent any action, a shutdown would begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday.

    Democrats, believing they have leverage, have insisted on key health care provisions in exchange for their votes. They want an extension of subsidies that help low- and middle-income earners purchase insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Democrats are also insisting on reversing cuts to Medicaid that were included the GOP’s signature tax measure earlier this year.

    Republicans say those demands are nonstarters and that they are willing to have a conversation with Democrats on those issues separate from government funding talks. The GOP is asking for a straight extension of current funding for seven weeks.

    Earlier in the week, Johnson acknowledged he encouraged Trump not to meet with the Democratic leaders this past week after the White House had already scheduled a meeting for last Thursday. Trump abruptly pulled out.

    “He and I talked about it at length yesterday and the day before. I said, look, when they get their job done, once they do the basic governing work of keeping the government open, as president, then you can have a meeting with him,” Johnson, R-La., said on the Mike & McCarty Show. “Of course, it might be productive at that point, but right now, this is just a waste of his time.”

    Thune, R-S.D., said he “did have a conversation with the president” and offered his opinion on the meeting, which he declined to disclose. “But I think the president speaks for himself, and I think he came to the conclusion that that meeting would not be productive,” Thune said.

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Seung Min Kim, The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Harris repeats dubious claim on Trump, Social Security

    Harris repeats dubious claim on Trump, Social Security

    [ad_1]

    In the 2024 presidential campaign, Democrats have repeatedly targeted former President Donald Trump as a threat to Social Security.

    Vice President Kamala Harris, just over a week into her status as the presumptive Democratic nominee, repeated the line during a July 30 rally in Atlanta. 

    “Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare,” Harris said.

    For this fact-check, we will focus on Trump’s plans for Social Security. We’ll cover Harris’ claim about Medicare in another fact-check.

    During his yearslong tenure in the public eye, Trump has provided his critics with a rich vein of statements expressing openness to cutting Social Security. But the Harris campaign ignores most of what Trump has said during the 2024 campaign — namely, that he will not cut Social Security and Medicare.

    We previously rated a similar claim by President Joe Biden — whom Harris succeeded as presumptive nominee — Mostly False. The evidence the Harris campaign provided to PolitiFact for this article was essentially the same as Biden’s campaign gave us for our earlier fact-check. It’s no more persuasive now.

    What is Social Security’s fiscal challenge?

    The key threat to the long-term viability of Social Security, the universal income-support program for older Americans, is a shortage of workers feeding their tax dollars into the system, plus a growing number of retirement-age Americans qualifying to receive benefits.

    As the baby boom generation has increasingly shifted into retirement, fewer workers are paying into the system. 

    Unless changes are made, such as increasing the retirement age or paring benefit levels, the trust fund that supports Social Security is poised to run out in the 2030s. If nothing is done, significant cuts would take effect.

    However, cutting Social Security has long been the “third rail of politics” — touch it and you die politically — so even making smaller cuts to avoid bigger ones down the road has been controversial.

    That’s why both Biden and Trump pledged in their 2024 campaigns not to cut the program.

    Trump’s past history of statements on Social Security

    Prior to the 2024 campaign, Trump has flirted with support for Social Security cuts. 

    At least two occurred during the 2020 presidential campaign: a 2020 Fox News town hall that was clipped and shared June 12 by the Biden campaign and a 2020 interview with CNBC

    And before he became president, Trump periodically opined that Social Security needed to be cut or privatized, including in a 2012 interview with CNBC; a 2004 appearance on MSNBC, and a 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” in which he called Social Security “a huge Ponzi scheme” and said he’d consider privatization.

    “The solution to the Great Social Security Crisis couldn’t be more obvious: Allow every American to dedicate some portion of their payroll taxes to a personal Social Security account that they could own and invest in stocks and bonds,” he wrote. “We can also raise the age for receipt of full Social Security benefits to 70.”

    Trump’s record in office

    The Harris campaign also noted that as president, Trump submitted budget proposals that included cuts to Social Security. These were never implemented, due to opposition in Congress.

    However, Harris (and Biden before her) glossed over what these cuts involved. The proposed cuts were focused on two parts of the program — Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income — not the more widely used old-age and survivor benefits. 

    SSDI benefits people with physical and mental conditions that are severe enough to permanently keep them from working. SSI payments are limited to low-income Americans — older adults, or adults or children who are disabled or blind. 

    While these cuts would have affected close to 10 million Americans, the pool of those who receive old-age and survivor benefits is almost seven times as large. The Harris campaign’’s decision to frame Trump’s record as cuts to “Social Security” may leave people assuming that Trump sought to cut old-age and survivor benefits, when he didn’t.

    What Trump has said recently

    Biden and Harris both cited a March 11 remark by Trump on CNBC that, with regard to entitlement programs such as Social Security, “there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.”

    But this is the exception to the rule for Trump during this campaign cycle, and he immediately walked back his CNBC comments. 

    In an interview with the conservative outlet Breitbart News, Trump said he would “never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt” Social Security. He added, “We’ll have to do it elsewhere. But we’re not going to do anything to hurt them.”

    The rest of Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric is more aligned with his comment to Breitbart — that he does not intend to cut Social Security — than the openness to cuts that he suggested to CNBC. 

    More than a year before the CNBC appearance, Trump posted a video to his campaign website in which he says not “a single penny” should be cut from Social Security. “DO NOT CUT the benefits our seniors worked for and paid for their entire lives,” Trump said. “Save Social Security. Don’t destroy it.”

    Trump has repeatedly said he would not cut Social Security at campaign rallies in Michigan and Georgia and in multiple posts on his Truth Social platform.

    Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, told PolitiFact in June that he “will continue to strongly protect Social Security and Medicare in his second term.”

    Our ruling

    Harris said, “Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security.”

    Before the 2024 campaign, Trump said about a half dozen times that he’s open to major Social Security overhauls, including cuts and privatization. Most recently, in a March CNBC interview, Trump said of entitlement programs such as Social Security, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.” 

    However, Trump quickly walked that statement back, and the CNBC comment stands at odds with essentially everything else Trump has said during the current presidential campaign. His campaign website says that not “a single penny” should be cut from Social Security, and he’s repeated similar lines in campaign rallies.

    The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give it a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How will the changes to capital gains in Canada affect tech sector? – MoneySense

    How will the changes to capital gains in Canada affect tech sector? – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    In response to the criticism, Freeland’s office said it pursued capital gains changes to create fairness for younger Canadians who are struggling with the cost of living.

    Small business owners to see tax changes

    The budget also included a new program that lowers how much tax some small business owners pay when selling their companies. Those who qualify will be taxed on only one-third of their capital gains up to $2 million.

    Several Shopify Inc. executives, including president Harley Finkelstein, posted about the capital gains changes Freeland proposed on X. Hours after the budget’s release, he wrote, “What. Are. We. Doing?!?” 

    “This is not a wealth tax, it’s a tax on innovation and risk taking” he added on Wednesday. “Our policy failures are America’s gains.”

    The Ottawa-based e-commerce giant’s chief executive Tobi Lütke also chimed in, saying a friend had messaged him to say, “Canada has heard rumours about innovation and is determined to leave no stone unturned in deterring it.” 

    Forbes estimates Lütke’s net worth is valued at USD$6.4 billion. While he’s been more vocal in his criticism of the federal government’s policy decisions in recent months, he previously chaired a digital strategy table that convened in 2018 and hosted Trudeau at his company’s conference.

    Meanwhile, the head of the Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association said on LinkedIn the capital gains changes left her feeling “baffled.”

    “This measure, which effectively taxes innovation and risk-taking, will significantly dampen Canada’s entrepreneurial spirit, stifle economic growth in critical sectors of our economy, and impact job creation,” Kim Furlong said. “Such (a) policy change undermines Canada’s position to attract the talent needed to grow and scale companies here.”

    Furlong promised to “work tirelessly to reverse the decision.”

    AI technology in Canada

    Alison Nankivell, chief executive of the MaRS innovation hub in Toronto, took such reaction to the budget to be a reflection of the tug of war that can pit fairness against economic opportunity. “In some ways, what you’re hearing from the entrepreneur community is a feeling that that balance is maybe not where they want it to be in terms of the ability to build a business,” she said.

    The tension masked some of the benefits for the sector she saw in the budget. For example, the government set aside $2.4 billion to boost artificial intelligence (AI) capacity with the bulk dedicated to a fund that would increase access to computing and technical infrastructure.

    [ad_2]

    The Canadian Press

    Source link

  • Do Jesse Watters’ LGBTQ+ and DEI funding claims add up?

    Do Jesse Watters’ LGBTQ+ and DEI funding claims add up?

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Senate passed a $1.2 trillion dollar spending package, narrowly avoiding a partial government shutdown. Before the bill was signed into law in the wee hours of March 23, one pundit criticized some of its details.

    “What’s in the new monster bill Congress is rushing to pass?” Fox News host Jesse Watters posted March 21 on X, where it had 2.3 million views as of March 28. He wrote that the bill included:

    • $850,000 for a “gay senior home.”

    • $15 million to pay for Egyptians’ college tuition.

    • $400,000 for a “gay activist group to teach elementary kids about being trans.”

    • $500,000 for a “DEI zoo.”

    • $400,000 for “a group to give clothes to teens to help them hide their gender.” 

    His X post also included a clip of him discussing the earmarks on his show, “Jesse Watters Primetime,” the same night. He posted a similar claim on TikTok, where it amassed more than 500,000 views and 55,000 likes. 

    We contacted Fox News, and a spokesperson shared a list of the funding items Watters was referring to. 

    Joshua Sewell, research and policy director at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group, said the majority of federal spending is not distributed through earmarking. Sewell said the earmarks Watters noted “don’t appear to be unique or out of character” or “excessively large” when compared with other projects receiving earmarks. 

    Except for the Egyptian college funding, all of the items Watters cited are from the budget’s Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education portion, which  Sewell said, has approximately 1,000 earmarks. 

    Given the large number of earmarks, “I’m sure everybody could find something they don’t think is a best use of funds,” Sewell said.

    E.J. Fagan, assistant professor of political science at the University of Illinois Chicago, agreed that earmarks “are a teeny-tiny piece of the federal budget.” 

    Fagan also said his “impression from the backlash to these very small set of earmarks is that it is just cherry-picking.” His research on the FY 2022 budget found that 0.6% of all federal earmarks mentioned LGBTQ+ as a target population. 

    Here, we examine each of Watters’ claims. 

    $850,000 for a “gay senior home”

    This needs more context. 

    The $850,000 earmark is for the Boston-based nonprofit LGBTQ Senior Housing Inc. to provide affordable housing for people 62 and older. It will help fund “The Pryde,” a 74-unit housing complex in Boston’s Hyde Park neighborhood that is slated to open this spring. But that complex  is not exclusive to gay people; it is open to anyone who meets the income and age requirements.

    The organization’s mission is to “facilitate access to welcoming, safe and affordable housing for low-income LGBTQ+ seniors,” by developing that housing and establishing onsite services and programming “that addresses the needs of LGBTQ seniors.” 

    The $850,000 will be used for programming and the complex’s community center, which also will be open to older people from the neighborhood who don’t live in the complex.

    The organization says the project is needed because of the challenges faced by LGBTQ+ seniors, some of whom may not have offspring to serve as caregivers or who may face discrimination or isolation. 

    Applicants for the housing complex were not asked about their sexual orientation. 

    “It would be against the law to limit this affordable housing to just members of the LGBTQ+ community,” said the organization’s executive director, Gretchen Van Ness. 

    The money will come from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ funds for community living.

    Van Ness told PolitiFact that she applied for the funding through the office of Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., last year, because The Pryde is in Pressley’s district

    $15 million to pay for Egyptians’ college tuition

    This is missing context.

    Fifteen million dollars is allocated to USAID, the federal agency that manages foreign aid, “for scholarships for Egyptian students with high financial need to attend not-for-profit institutions of higher education in Egypt,” that are accredited by agencies recognized by the United States Department of Education or meet equivalent standards, the budget description says.

    Similar Egyptian higher education funding has been provided to USAID over the past four decades, a USAID spokesperson told PolitiFact. The scholarships allow Egyptians to study at universities “in fields critical to Egypt’s sustained economic growth and development.” 

    Spending bills passed during Donald Trump’s presidency provided $10 million per year for the higher education scholarship program from 2017 through 2019 and increased it to $15 million in 2020

    “The State Department and USAID have a long history of funding numerous programs to support the spread of democracy and western values throughout the world,” Taxpayers for Common Sense’s Sewell said. “This is not a surprise.”

    $400,000 for a “gay activist group to teach elementary kids about being trans”

    This is misleading.

    Watters is referring to “Garden State Equality,” a New Jersey LGBTQ+ advocacy group and a state affiliate of the Equality Federation, a national network of LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations. 

    The budget describes the $400,000 earmark as funding “for trauma-informed strategies to support LGBTQ+ youth.” 

    Garden State Equality Executive Director Christian Fuscarino told PolitiFact the funding will support programs to educate communities about adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, traumatic events early in life such as violence, abuse or neglect that can affect long-term health. Research has shown that LGBTQ+ people report higher rates of adverse childhood experiences.

    Fuscarino said some of the federal funding will be used for a summer camp for high school-aged kids that teaches about the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion, and imparts some trauma-informed strategies. That can include sharing techniques such as breathing exercises to cope with trauma’s impacts, Fuscarino said. The money comes from the Department of Education’s funds for “innovation and improvement.”

    The organization also conducts professional development training with kindergarten through 12th grade educators on LGBTQ+ terminology and anti-bullying initiatives. It has developed LGBTQ+ lessons and curriculum resources

    Since 2019, New Jersey law has required schools to teach LGBTQ+ history in middle and high schools, and adopt instructional materials that portray society’s diversity including the “political, economic, and social contributions” of LGBTQ+ people.

    A breakdown of how this funding will be spent is not yet finalized, Fuscarino told PolitiFact. Although the money is earmarked, the organization may not access the money until it submits a proposed budget and receives Department of Education approval.

    Fuscarino said Watters’ characterization of the organization’s work as “teaching” elementary kids about “being trans” is inaccurate.

    “We may go to a kindergarten class by being invited and read a story that is about an LGBTQ character,” said Fuscarino, “but that’s not the core of what we’re doing.”

    $500,000 for a “DEI zoo”

    Watters’ framing is misleading. (“DEI” is an acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion.) 

    The $500,000 earmark is for the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, the nonprofit that manages the acclaimed San Diego Zoo. 

    The money is for the nonprofit’s Nature Biodiversity Corps program that “brings together inner-city high school students from diverse cultural, ethnic, and lived-experience perspectives,” according to the website. The students “design, implement, maintain, and monitor native wildlife gardens on their school campuses,” alongside experts and Wildlife Alliance mentors, the website says.

    The funding comes from the Department of Education’s funds for “innovation and improvement.” 

    In the clip from his show that Watters shared on X, Watters described the biodiversity program as “an anti-racist nature appreciation program where high school kids from diverse backgrounds can observe wildlife.” But the program is more than a trip to the zoo.

    Students spend 10 to 20 hours monthly working on wildlife gardens at their own schools and participating in nature-based learning experiences at wildlife conservation sites.

    The website says that since 2022, 200 high school students have participated, creating 14 gardens. 

    Race and ethnicity are not considerations for participation in the program, zoo spokesperson Jake Gonzales said. 

    The earmark funding will go toward staff salaries, transportation and supplies — including native plants for the gardens — and toward reaching more students at more schools, Gonzales said. The zoo has received federal earmarks in previous years, but for other conservation projects.

    $400,000 for “a group to give clothes to teens to help them hide their gender” 

    This claim is inaccurate.

    The funding is for Briarpatch Youth Services, a Madison, Wisconsin, nonprofit that runs a youth homeless shelter and works with at-risk youth.

    The earmark was requested by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and would come from the Department of Health and Human Services’ funds for substance abuse and mental health services. 

    Briarpatch’s website lists several programs including employment services, support for those navigating the criminal justice system and street outreach and counseling for homeless youth.

    The nonprofit’s “Teens Like Us” program has a support group for “queer and questioning youth” beginning at age 13. In 2023, the Teens Like Us program included what organizers called the “Briar-Attire Gender Affirming Clothing Program.” The program provided gender-affirming clothing such as chest binders and tucking underwear to those who could not afford or access them. The Teens Like Us website no longer lists the clothing program.

    Baldwin’s office told PolitiFact the $400,000 earmark can be used only for mental health services and counseling for kids experiencing homelessness, and will not be used for the Teens Like Us program. Briarpatch Executive Director Jill Pfeiffer confirmed that to PolitiFact.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Joe Biden’s misleading claim about cutting the deficit

    Joe Biden’s misleading claim about cutting the deficit

    [ad_1]

    As he has done on several occasions, President Joe Biden used the State of the Union address to tout his administration’s efforts to cut the federal deficit.

    During his March 7 address to Congress, Biden said, “I’ve been delivering real results in fiscally responsible ways. We’ve already cut the federal deficit by over $1 trillion.”

    Biden has presided over smaller deficits than former President Donald Trump’s administration saw in its final year. However, Biden’s remarks omit important context about the unusual federal spending that both presidents approved to stabilize the country during the coronavirus pandemic. 

    “President Biden has presided over declining deficits, but that’s because the deficit started staggeringly high because of the pandemic,” Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks federal spending, told PolitiFact this month. “If you compare the deficit to pre-pandemic levels, they are incredibly high. Some of that is still residual effects from the pandemic response and higher interest rates, but it is also from increased spending and decreased revenues.”

    What is the deficit? What is the debt?

    The deficit isn’t the same as the debt, although the terms are related.

    The federal deficit is calculated by subtracting federal spending from federal revenue, primarily tax collections, for a given year. If revenue exceeds spending, there’s a surplus for that year; if spending exceeds revenue, there’s a deficit. (There hasn’t been a federal surplus since 2001.)

    The national debt is the accumulation of all past deficits, minus any surpluses. 

    A smaller deficit does not mean the federal debt has shrunk; only a surplus can do that. A smaller deficit means only that the debt grows more slowly than it did before.

    So, the debt has continued to rise under Biden. When Biden entered office, the broadest measure of the federal debt stood a little below $27.8 trillion. Currently, it’s around $34.4 trillion, an increase of almost one-fourth in a little more than three years.

    The debt also rose under Trump, by about $7.8 trillion over his four years in office.

    How big has the deficit been in recent years?

    Biden’s claim about the annual deficit, meanwhile, leaves out important context.

    During Trump’s presidency, the deficit rose from $666 billion in 2017, his first year in office, to $984 billion in 2019, his third year.

    But the coronavirus pandemic sent the annual deficit into record territory. In 2020, Trump’s fourth year, the deficit skyrocketed to $3.13 trillion, largely because of government stimulus payments, unemployment insurance expansions, business operation grants and increased funding for public health.

    The deficit remained high in 2021, another significant pandemic year. That year, a newly elected Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, which provided more money for the pandemic response. In 2021, the deficit fell but remained historically high, at $2.78 trillion.

    The deficit declines were greater during Biden’s second and third years in office, as vaccines and therapies cut the risks associated with COVID-19 and the economy opened. The deficit was about $1.38 trillion in 2022 and $1.7 trillion in 2023.

    The $1.4 trillion decline in the deficit from 2021 to 2022 was larger than any previous one-year reduction in the deficit. The decline from 2021 to 2023 was almost $1.1 trillion. 

    How much credit does Biden deserve for reducing the deficit?

    Although Biden often touts the federal spending from bills he’s signed — including the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — he’s also tried to promote the argument that he’s been responsible with the public purse.

    The White House told PolitiFact that Biden’s administration deserves some credit for successfully tamping down the pandemic, partly because it embraced and promoted  vaccinations. 

    Also, White House officials say that key legislation Biden signed, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, was written in a way to boost federal revenue enough to balance out the spending increases. The Fiscal Responsibility Act, which Biden signed in 2023 as a negotiated way to lift the debt limit, included spending curbs that were designed to reduce deficits from 2024 to 2033 by a collective $1.5 trillion, according to Congressional Budget Office projections.

    However, the pandemic was an extraordinary historical occurrence that provoked an aggressive, and temporary, government response. The other bills Biden signed, although large in dollars, are phasing in their spending over a decade.

    The deficit, even at its reduced levels, remains higher under Biden than it was pre-pandemic. The deficit in 2022 and 2023 under Biden was higher than in each of Trump’s first three years, partly because of bills such as the 2021 American Rescue Plan.

    The same pattern emerges when the deficit is compared with the U.S. gross domestic product, a common measure of the economy’s overall size. The deficit peaked at 14.7% of gross domestic product in 2020 and fell to 5.4% in 2022. That was still bigger than the highest pre-pandemic percentage under Trump, 4.6%.

    Our ruling

    Biden said, “We’ve already cut the federal deficit by over $1 trillion.” 

    The annual deficit did decline by $1.4 trillion on Biden’s watch, from 2021 to 2022. That was larger than any previous one-year reduction in the deficit. Looking at the two-year period from 2021 to 2023, the deficit declined by less, but still by almost $1.1 trillion.

    However, the pandemic was an extraordinary historical occurrence that provoked an aggressive, and temporary, government response.

    On Biden’s watch, even this reduced deficit is larger than any of the deficits on Trump’s watch. And the federal debt has kept rising, just more slowly than it did during the pandemic.

    We rate the statement Half True.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The new CDCP: Here’s when seniors can apply for the federal government’s dental plan – MoneySense

    The new CDCP: Here’s when seniors can apply for the federal government’s dental plan – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    “Far too many people have avoided getting the care that they need simply because it was too expensive, and that’s why this plan is essential,” Mark Holland, the federal health minister, said at a press conference on Dec. 11, 2023. He also noted that the plan is “going to help make life better for eligible Canadian residents because they won’t have to make the choice between paying their bills and getting the care that they absolutely need.”

    The plan will cost $13 billion over the next five years, and $4.4 billion annually in subsequent years.

    When can you apply for the federal dental plan for seniors?

    The government has announced that application dates for the CDCP will be rolled out gradually. According to its website, it will mail letters to potentially eligible seniors aged 87 and older in mid-December; ages 77 to 86 in January 2024; ages 72 to 76 in February 2024; and ages 70 to 71 in March 2024. The letters will contain a personalized application code and instructions to call Service Canada and apply by phone.

    Letters will only go out to those who had an adjusted family net income of less than $90,000 in 2022, based on their tax return for that year, and they will be mailed to the address used in that tax return. (Haven’t filed your 2022 taxes? It’s a good time to catch up!) There’s no information yet on what to do if you think you qualify for the CDCP but don’t receive a letter, but you could try calling a CDCP representative at 1-833-537-4342. And if your address has changed, contact the Canada Revenue Agency to ensure its records are up to date.

    Starting in May 2024, potentially eligible Canadians aged 65 to 69, and those aged 70 and up who received a letter but could not apply by phone, can apply for the CDCP online. Those who are approved for the CDCP will be enrolled in the program by Sun Life, the service provider that has been contracted to manage the dental plan. 

    When can other eligible Canadians apply for the federal dental care plan?

    For children under age 12, applications for the Canada Dental Benefit are open until June 30, 2024—here’s how to apply

    The government will start accepting CDCP applications for children under 18 and adults who have a valid disability tax credit certificate starting in June 2024. All other eligible Canadians can apply in 2025.

    Who qualifies for the Canadian Dental Care Plan?

    To qualify for the CDCP, the government says that you must:

    [ad_2]

    Jaclyn Law

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Is Joe Biden right that Republicans “would cut Social Security benefits”?

    PolitiFact – Is Joe Biden right that Republicans “would cut Social Security benefits”?

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden said Republicans intend to chop Social Security.

    “Their plan would cut Social Security benefits,” Biden said Nov. 27 during a White House event. “I thought (Republicans) agreed not to do this a couple times. But they’re back at it. Average benefit cut would be 13%.”

    Almost 67 million Americans this year will receive Social Security payments, totaling about $1 trillion. Many older Americans rely on the benefits to pay their basic living expenses. People can start receiving Social Security retirement benefits at age 62, but full benefits kick in when they turn 67. 

    Social Security is funded through the payroll tax; that revenue is put into trust funds to pay for current beneficiaries. These trust funds could be depleted as early as 2032 if further action is not taken. That could mean that in about a decade, monthly checks could be reduced by about 23%.

    But because of its widespread support among older Americans — who usually have the highest voter turnout — Social Security has long been known as the “third rail of politics.” Many politicians in both parties are reluctant to broach major structural changes. 

    In his 2023 State of the Union address, Biden seemed to cow Republican lawmakers in the audience into pledging not to cut benefits. That nationally televised faceoff set the table for Biden’s criticism on Nov. 27.

    The White House told PolitiFact that Biden was referring to a budget proposed in June by the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservatives in the House GOP.

    That proposal opens the door to Social Security cuts, but its effects are far less clear or specific than Biden portrayed. Republicans said it would not affect people who are near retirement or have retired, which Biden left out. He also omitted important context about what could happen to Social Security under his own plan.

    The Republican Study Committee did not answer an inquiry for this article.

    What the Republican Study Committee proposed

    In its 167-page fiscal year 2024 budget proposal, the Republican Study Committee backed some changes to Social Security’s structure that it said would preserve the program’s fiscal health.

    The group said it would “make modest changes” in the benefit formula for “individuals who are not near retirement” and are on the income scale’s higher end. It also said it would make “modest adjustments” to the retirement age for full benefits “to account for increases in life expectancy.” And the budget said it would phase out “auxiliary benefits” for high earners.

    Would the proposal “cut Social Security benefits,” as Biden said?

    The proposal would cut benefits, at least for some people. 

    In its proposed budget, the Republican Study Committee emphasized that its proposal “does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement,” and Biden did not repeat this caveat.

    However, the flip side of the group’s pledge is that younger Americans would see reductions under the group’s plan.

    In an analysis of the proposal for PolitiFact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — a fiscally hawkish group that tracks budget matters — said it is “generally true that an increase in the full retirement age is roughly equivalent to an across-the-board cut in benefits.” 

    For instance, if people want to retire at 67, but the age for receiving full benefits is raised to 69, they can still choose to retire at 67, but if they do, they will have to accept a lower monthly payment than before the age was raised.

    Future beneficiaries’ payments could be cut further depending on their income and other factors.

    Would the “average benefit cut” be 13%, as Biden said?

    Biden’s 13% figure is speculative, but plausible.

    The White House told PolitiFact that the 13% figure originated in a table the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities published.

    In the table, raising the retirement age from 67 to 69 would reduce an “illustrative monthly benefit” from $1,000 to $867, which is a 13.3% cut.

    The paper was last updated in 2020, but Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said the math it uses is “still applicable.”

    However, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget urged caution.

    “There both isn’t enough detail to say what the full (Republican Study Committee) plan is, and there also isn’t a comprehensive assessment of the full plan to say what the average cut would or wouldn’t be,” the group told PolitiFact.

    Is this the Republican plan, as Biden suggested?

    Whether this can be characterized as the Republican plan is more debatable.

    The Republican Study Committee’s membership includes about 80% of the House Republican Conference, which holds a narrow majority in the chamber. But this doesn’t mean the Republican Study Committee’s plan is an official plan for all Republicans — nor would it be a slam dunk to pass.

    It’s one proposal from one faction, albeit a sizable one, within the House Republican Conference. Given the political sensitivity of Social Security and that one-fifth of House Republicans aren’t bound by the Republican Study Committee’s plan, it could face trouble on the floor, if it gets that far.

    Also, Democrats control the Senate narrowly, and it’s not clear that the Republican minority in the chamber would close ranks behind such a plan.

    What is Biden leaving out?

    In contrast to the changes the Republican Study Committee envisions, the White House in February said Biden would “commit to taking cuts to Social Security … off the table.” 

    A status quo approach like this, however, would also lead to significant benefit cuts if nothing changes.

    This is a point the Republican Study Committee makes repeatedly in its proposal, describing the prospect of what it calls “Biden’s 23% across-the-board cuts” “devastating.” That figure stems from projections by the trust funds’ trustees. 

    “As President Biden criticizes proposals that would prolong the life of the Social Security trust fund, his current approach of doing nothing would lead to 23% benefit cuts for all participants, including current seniors,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “We are running out of time, and serious leaders should offer their own solutions, not try to score cheap political points against those who do.”

    Our ruling

    Biden said of Republicans, “Their plan would cut Social Security benefits. … Average benefit cut would be 13%.”

    A Republican Study Committee proposal from June would result in cuts to beneficiaries from a combination of a higher retirement age and formula changes, though the proposal said current retirees and those nearing retirement age would be exempted. Experts found the 13% cut Biden cited to be speculative, but plausible — but there isn’t enough detail to really know.

    Also, this is one Republican faction’s plan, not something universally adopted by the party, and it’s far from guaranteed to be passed in the House, let alone in the Senate. And Biden’s framing also ignores that his own policy, which is essentially to continue the status quo, threatens even bigger across-the-board reductions by the early 2030s.

    We rate the statement Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Wisconsin lawmaker falsely claims US House speaker  ‘opposes Social Security’

    PolitiFact – Wisconsin lawmaker falsely claims US House speaker ‘opposes Social Security’

    [ad_1]

    Soon after House Republicans voted in Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., as House speaker, a number of Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin took to X to lament the pick. 

    This included state Rep. Francesca Hong, D-Madison, who tweeted soon after the vote: “House Republicans voted in an anti-abortion insurrectionist who opposes Social Security benefits as their speaker today. Shameful.”

    While Hong makes several claims in her tweet, the last one caught our attention, and we decided to look into the new speaker’s views on Social Security benefits. 

    Social Security is a government program primarily funded through payroll taxes to provide financial support to retirees, disabled individuals and survivors of deceased workers.

    Does Johnson oppose such benefits?

    Johnson once said debt from entitlement programs is an “existential threat” to government 

    When asked to back up the claim, Hong pointed to Johnson’s leadership on the conservative Republican Study Committee, which he chaired from 2019 to 2021.

    In 2020, while Johnson chaired the caucus, the committee released a budget plan that urged Congress to adopt changes to Social Security and its benefits.

    These included measures to raise the retirement age and scale back cost-of-living adjustments to benefits for higher-income people. Those changes, among others, would have cut spending on Social Security by $756 billion over a decade, according to the budget plan.

    After pointing to the committee’s recommendations to cut Social Security benefits, Hong argued the large cuts are synonymous with opposing the benefits:  

    “While these changes might be messaged by the committee as ‘cuts,’” they are significant enough slashes to evidence that Republicans like Speaker Johnson are in opposition to the inherent goals of programs like Social Security and Medicare.” 

    Hong also pointed to a comment Johnson made while speaking at a 2018 event for the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank

    When talking about debt accrued from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, Johnson said they pose an “existential threat” to the American way of life and the “whole form of government.”

    Experts: Budget cuts don’t necessarily signify elimination

    It’s worth noting Social Security is in financial trouble and its funding is expected to be depleted as soon as 2033, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Johnson has endorsed reforming Social Security in a way that would significantly cut back its budget and is openly critical of the program’s spending, but experts say his record doesn’t equate to supporting elimination of the program. 

    Eric Kingson co-founder of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for entitlement programs, said the committee’s plan takes “significant shots at Social Security” and would scale back benefits, but Johnson’s position doesn’t necessarily go against the program. 

    The Republican Study Committee’s plan under Johnson’s leadership specifically called for “long-term solvency” for Social Security, which Richard Burkhauser, a political analysis professor at Cornell University argues could be Johnson’s approach toward preventing default of Social Security before 2033.

    Our ruling

    Hong claimed Johnson “opposes Social Security benefits.”

    It’s true Johnson’s endorsed Social Security reform would scale back entitlement benefits for some Americans, which Hong argues should be interpreted as opposition to the program. 

    But endorsing significant cuts to the program is not the same as opposing the program itself, especially given its precarious financial picture.

    Indeed, Johnson hasn’t outright said he opposed Social Security benefits.

    We rate this claim Mostly False, which means: “The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.”

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – US military aid isn’t the majority of foreign assistance, contrary to what Marianne Williamson said

    PolitiFact – US military aid isn’t the majority of foreign assistance, contrary to what Marianne Williamson said

    [ad_1]

    Does most of U.S. aid to foreign countries consist of military assistance? That’s what Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson said during a Nov. 7 town hall at a store in Manchester, New Hampshire.

    “So, when you look at most American aid over the last few decades, what do we mean by American aid to other countries?” Williamson said, in remarks captured by PolitiFact’s partner, WMUR-TV in New Hampshire. “The vast majority of it is military aid. And we sell arms to 60% of the world’s autocrats. We are the world’s largest arms exporters.”

    In reality, official federal data shows that U.S. military aid accounts for a minority of overall U.S. foreign aid. (We are checking the portion about arms exports separately.)

    Military vs. economic assistance

    U.S. military aid is defined as equipment, training and other defense-related services to national-level security forces of U.S. allies and partners. 

    The ForeignAid.gov website, a project of the State Department and the Agency for International Development, tracks U.S. foreign aid to every country, including the breakdown between economic and military aid. This source is the official one for such breakdowns, said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    It shows that for the most recent full year, 2022, the U.S. provided about $60 billion in economic aid and about $8.9 billion in military aid. That means about 13% of total aid was military aid.

    That was a smaller percentage for military aid than in other recent years; for instance in 2011, military aid accounted for about 38% of all foreign aid.

    Still, at no point in this century has military aid accounted for a majority of all U.S. foreign aid. 

    Our ruling

    Williamson said that looking at “American aid to other countries … the vast majority of it is military aid.”

    In 2022, military aid accounted for about 13% of overall U.S. foreign aid, and in this century, even at its peak, military aid has accounted for less than 40% of overall foreign aid.

    We rate the statement False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Despite Mike Johnson’s claim, some spending cuts can increase deficits

    PolitiFact – Despite Mike Johnson’s claim, some spending cuts can increase deficits

    [ad_1]

    Pending legislation for an emergency aid package to Israel includes a Republican provision that has become a source of contention: stripping $14.3 billion in funding from the Internal Revenue Service. 

    Republicans, including newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., have hoped those savings would offset the aid to Israel, preventing any additions to the federal deficit.

    But the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ nonpartisan number-crunching arm, disagreed, saying that cutting IRS funding would actually increase the deficit by $12.5 billion because reducing enforcement would, in turn, reduce revenue collections.  

    Johnson decried this logic during a Nov. 5 appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”

    “Look, only in Washington can you cut funding, add a pay-for to a new spending measure, and they say it’s terrible for the deficit,” he said.

    However, CBO has long used this method, and budget experts say it’s logical.

    CBO’s approach “may be counterintuitive, but it’s not weird,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a think tank that tracks federal budget policy. “Talk to any business — sometimes when you cut spending, it costs money, because you’re cutting from something that makes them money. And administering the tax code makes the U.S. money.”

    Johnson’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article. 

    The Republican bill to fund Israel

    A few weeks after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel, the House Republican majority introduced the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, which would provide $14.3 billion for military assistance to Israel and for the return of American citizens in the region.

    The bill passed on a largely party-line vote of 226-196

    Most Democrats voted against it because they wanted to pass the Israel aid alongside military assistance for Ukraine. They also opposed the provision to strip the IRS of funding. 

    The IRS funding was part of $80 billion allocated for the agency to spend over 10 years. It was originally included in the Inflation Reduction Act, a bill signed by President Joe Biden in 2022 after being passed with only Democratic votes in the House and Senate.

    Backers of the Inflation Reduction Act said much of that money was intended to fill positions over the next decade after expected retirements among existing IRS staff. Analyses have shown that more than half the agency’s workforce is nearing retirement.

    An April 2023 IRS report said through the end of 2024, the IRS planned to fill roughly 20,000 positions, including customer service representatives, information technology experts and accountants. 

    Of those, about 7,000 new hires would focus on enforcement, and the report said that most of that enforcement would be targeted at wealthy taxpayers and big corporations, to forestall noncompliance that drains the treasury of expected tax dollars. 

    Republican critics of the 2022 IRS funding boost have argued that middle-income Americans would face a higher audit risk. However, top Treasury and IRS officials consistently confirmed that the new resources allocated to the IRS will be focused on audits of the highest-paying Americans. 

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said auditing corporations and people with high net worth requires staff with specialized skills. Prior to the funding boost, she said, the agency was able to audit only about 7,500 out of 4 million such returns annually.

    Why would cutting spending cost money?

    For the Israel aid bill, CBO — widely considered the gold standard for such calculations — concluded that rescinding the $14.3 billion from the IRS budget would decrease enforcement actions over the next decade and reduce revenue by $26.8 billion between 2024 and 2033. 

    With IRS funding reduced by $14.3 billion under the bill, but with IRS revenues projected to decrease by $26.8 billion, the net increase in the federal deficit, according to CBO, would be $12.5 billion.

    “CBO’s estimate makes great sense,” said Paul N. Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. “Although the estimates are uncertain, it’s logical that revenues will shrink if the IRS has less funding and fewer staff to enforce tax laws.”

    This is not the first time the CBO has made a similar calculation. The Democratic majority on the Senate Budget Committee released a memo Oct. 31 that cited four prior examples in 2023 in which the CBO rated a spending cut as increasing the deficit, all relating to proposed IRS cuts.

    Goldwein said this phenomenon is relatively rare, but not unprecedented. He recalled examples of cuts to anti-fraud enforcement budgets of other agencies such as the Social Security Administration being projected by the CBO to cost the government money.

    “Cutting IRS funding for savings is short-sighted and costs taxpayers in the end,” said Steve Ellis, president of another budget-focused group, Taxpayers for Common Sense. 

    Our ruling

    Johnson said, “Only in Washington can you cut funding, add a pay-for to a new spending measure, and they say it’s terrible for the deficit.” .

    The cuts Johnson references would be to the IRS’ enforcement budget, and the “pay-for” refers to cutting $14.3 billion on IRS spending to offset the $14.3 billion in aid to Israel.

    However, CBO’s longstanding practice has been to classify enforcement cuts as reducing revenue, which increases the deficit. The CBO projected that rescinding $14.3 billion from the IRS would decrease enforcement actions over the next decade and reduce revenue by $26.8 billion by 2033. 

    With IRS funding reduced by $14.3 billion, but with IRS revenues projected to decrease by $26.8 billion, the net increase in the federal deficit would be $12.5 billion.

    It’s also common for businesses to use the same methods when they cut expenditures on areas that generate revenue, experts said.

    We rate the statement False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government on brink of shutdown ahead of midnight deadline as McCarthy slates last-minute vote | CNN Politics

    Government on brink of shutdown ahead of midnight deadline as McCarthy slates last-minute vote | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Federal agencies are making final preparations with the government on the brink of a shutdown and congressional lawmakers racing against Saturday’s critical midnight deadline – as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy mounts a last-minute push to avert the lapse in funding.

    McCarthy announced that the House will vote on a 45-day short-term spending bill Saturday, and it will include the natural disaster aid that the White House requested.

    The bill does not include $6 billion in funding to aid Ukraine, a key concession that many House Republicans demanded and a blow to allies of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who lobbied Congress earlier this month for additional assistance.

    Asked if he is concerned that a member, including Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, could move to oust him over this bill, McCarthy replied, “If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.”

    Infighting among House Republicans has played a central role in bringing Congress to a standoff over spending – and it is not yet clear how the issue will be resolved, raising concerns on Capitol Hill that a shutdown, if triggered, may not be easy to end.

    Democrats in the House have been trying to slow down passage of the GOP-led continuing resolution throughout the day Saturday, objecting to being forced to vote on a bill just introduced and wanting to keep Ukraine aid. It’s unclear how long Democrats will stall the House from voting.

    House Republicans met throughout Saturday morning, seesawing between options for how to proceed. Republicans including veteran appropriators and those in swing districts pushed to bring a short-term resolution to keep the government funded for 45 days to the House floor for a vote Saturday.

    McCarthy has faced threats to keeping his job throughout the month if he works with Democrats as he endures a consistent resistance from the hardline conservatives in his own party.

    A shutdown is expected to have consequential impacts across the country, from air travel to clean drinking water, and many government operations would grind to a halt – though services deemed essential for public safety would continue.

    Both chambers are scheduled to be in session Saturday, just hours before the deadline. The Senate was expected to take procedural steps to advance their own plan to keep the government funded – GOP Sen. Rand Paul had vowed all week to slow that process beyond the midnight deadline over objections to the bill’s funding for the war in Ukraine. The Senate is now waiting to see how the House developments shake out before proceeding.

    But Paul told CNN on Saturday afternoon that he won’t slow down the Senate’s consideration of the House GOP’s 45-day spending bill, if it passes the House and the Senate takes it up, allowing the Senate the ability to move the bill quickly – though any one other senator could slow that down beyond the midnight deadline.

    House Republicans have so far thrown cold water on a bipartisan Senate proposal to keep the government funded through November 17, but they have failed to coalesce around a plan of their own to avert a shutdown amid resistance from a bloc of hardline conservatives to any kind of short-term funding extension.

    “After meeting with House Republicans this evening, it’s clear the misguided Senate bill has no path forward and is dead on arrival,” McCarthy wrote on X. “The House will continue to work around the clock to keep government open and prioritize the needs of the American people.”

    His late Friday night message came after a two-hour conference meeting in the Capitol, where McCarthy floated several different options – including putting the Senate bill on the floor or passing a short-term bill that excludes Ukraine money. But there is still no consensus on what – if anything – they will put on the House floor Saturday to avoid a government shutdown.

    McCarthy suffered another high-profile defeat on Friday when the House failed to advance a last-ditch stopgap bill.

    In the aftermath of Friday’s failed vote, McCarthy told reporters he had proposed putting up a “clean” stopgap bill, and said he was “working through maybe to be able to do that.”

    “We’re continuing to work through – trying to find the way out of this,” McCarthy said.

    The Senate’s bipartisan bill would provide additional funds for Ukraine aid, creating a point of contention with the House where many Republicans are opposed to further support to the war-torn country.

    McCarthy argued on Friday that aid to Ukraine should be dropped from the Senate bill. “I think if we had a clean one without Ukraine on it, we could probably be able to move that through. I think if the Senate puts Ukraine on there and focuses on Ukraine over America, I think that could cause real problems,” he told CNN’s Manu Raju.

    The Senate, meanwhile, is working to advance its own bipartisan stopgap bill. The chamber is on track to take a procedural vote Saturday afternoon to move forward with the bill, particularly if the last-minute House bill falters. But it’s not yet clear when senators could take a final vote to pass the bill and it may not happen until Monday, after the government has already shut down.

    Border security has also become a complicating factor for the Senate bill as many Republicans now want to see the bill amended to address the issue.

    Senate Republicans said Friday that they were still discussing what kind of border amendment they would want to add to the bill, and were unsure if the chamber could even advance the bill in Saturday’s procedural vote without the addition of a border amendment.

    “Nothing’s really coming together, too many moving parts at this stage,” said Sen. Mike Braun, an Indiana Republican. “I think what I understand is we’re going to have a vote tomorrow … and other than that, there’s nothing that’s really crystallized in anything that probably would be palatable with the House.”

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House strategy on government funding meets serious test this week | CNN Politics

    White House strategy on government funding meets serious test this week | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden and his top aides at the White House plan to hammer away at a blunt message as the US government inches closer to a shutdown this week: A handful of extremist Republicans are entirely to blame for the havoc that would be unleashed across the country.

    For Biden, there’s a lot riding on that message getting through to Americans.

    Biden’s advisers have been assessing for weeks how involved to get in lawmakers’ deliberations to fund the government ahead of the end-of-month deadline, and ultimately decided to take a hands-off approach. The expectation: Should the Republican-led House struggle to reach consensus, they would ultimately shoulder the blame for any disruption.

    “Watch the GOP struggle and force them to govern or be blamed for shutdown,” a Biden administration official said, summing up the strategy.

    The White House is planning to dispatch a number of Cabinet officials this week to help lay out the broad range of ramifications if the government were to shutdown – everything from flight delays to childcare centers shutting down.

    Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will appear at Monday’s White House news briefing to discuss how a government shutdown could hit everything from food programs to loans for farmers, a White House official said.

    “This would stop us in our tracks,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said on CNN on Sunday. “A shutdown that would mean service members wouldn’t get paid, coming back to transportation to air traffic controllers who would be working in the towers. They wouldn’t get paid.”

    Over the weekend, White House officials continued to monitor for any signs of movement on Capitol Hill to extend funding for the federal government ahead of the deadline. How to handle a possible shutdown was a key agenda item when White House chief of staff Jeff Zients huddled with senior advisers in the West Wing on Saturday, according to people familiar. But heading into a new work week, Republican members had not put anything realistic on the table, officials said, leaving the White House bracing for what is to come.

    In the days ahead, the president and his allies will repeatedly point to “who’s responsible” for the mess that could unfold, one senior administration official said simply.

    The White House took a similar approach this spring during the debt ceiling negotiations, but not without a seeming hit to Biden. In a CNN poll conducted mid-May, 59% of respondents said the president was not acting responsibly as talks stalled and the government careened toward default. The difference then: Republicans had coalesced around a specific position, passing a bill in the House that reflected their priorities and catching the White House off guard. Negotiations escalated in the weeks that followed, resulting in a deal that set broad guardrails around federal spending for the 2024 fiscal year.

    That deal was supposed to usher in months of in-depth appropriations work that would yield a full-year spending package and avert a government shutdown. Now, the White House says Republicans dropped the ball.

    Speaking over the weekend at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Phoenix Awards Dinner, Biden said it was “small group of extreme Republicans” that was refusing to “live up to the deal” that he had struck months ago with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

    “The president did his job,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked whether the White House would do anything to stave off a shutdown. “This is not something we can fix. The best plan is for House Republicans to stop their partisan political play and not do this to hurt Americans across the country. That’s the plan.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy privately outlines new GOP plan to avert shutdown, setting up clash with Senate | CNN Politics

    McCarthy privately outlines new GOP plan to avert shutdown, setting up clash with Senate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy privately outlined to members a new GOP plan to keep the government open on Wednesday after a marathon two-and-a-half-hour GOP conference meeting.

    The California Republican later told reporters that Republican negotiators made “tremendous progress as an entire conference,” following days of GOP infighting and less than two weeks before a government funding deadline.

    “We are very close,” McCarthy said Wednesday evening when asked specifically what progress had been made on the GOP short-term bill. “I feel like just got a little more movement to go there,” he added of the new GOP plan. When asked specifically about the topline numbers, he wouldn’t get into details but said: “We’re in a good place.”

    The plan, as outlined by the speaker, would keep the government open for 30 days at $1.471 trillion spending levels, a commission to address the debt and a border security package. Separately, they also agreed to move year-long funding bills at a $1.526 trillion level. That level is below the bipartisan agreement that the speaker reached with the White House to raise the national debt limit.

    The levels are also far lower than what senators from both parties and the White House are willing to accept, meaning it’s unclear how such a deal would avert a government shutdown. With just 10 days left to fund the government, the new plan sets up a standoff with the Senate over how to keep the government open.

    As part of the deal, Republicans now believe they have the votes to move forward on the yearlong spending bill that five conservative hardliners scuttled just Tuesday.

    GOP Rep. Mike Garcia of California said after Wednesday evening’s conference meeting there is now “a little more clarity” on the path forward.

    “We have a little more clarity as to a potential plan moving forward,” Garcia said, adding, “We are still negotiating that final number and trying to figure out exactly what we can do.”

    Some of the people that were previously opposed now signaled they are supportive. Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Ken Buck of Colorado indicated they will flip to a yes on the rule and will vote to advance the Department of Defense bill Thursday after the speaker came down to the spending levels that Norman had been demanding.

    “Sounds like we’ve got the votes for the rule,” Garcia said, pointing to Buck and Norman as having committed to changing to a “Yes.”

    With McCarthy’s extremely thin margin in the chamber – and Democrats so far united against the GOP proposal – Republican leadership has been negotiating for days to try to win over enough GOP support to pass their legislation.

    When asked about struggling to make progress earlier Wednesday, McCarthy repeated his favorite line, insisting he will never back down from a challenge no matter how messy.

    “I wouldn’t quit the first time I went for the vote for speaker,” McCarthy said, a reference to how he was voted speaker only after 15 rounds and days of voting in January. “The one thing if you haven’t learned anything about me yet, I will never quit.”

    However, an additional potential complicating factor emerged Wednesday night with former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination, coming out in opposition to a short-term funding bill as he called on lawmakers to defund the DOJ and the investigations into him.

    McCarthy and his GOP leadership team have been trying to sell the House Republican Conference on unifying behind a plan to fund the government, brokered between the House Freedom Caucus and the more moderate Main Street Caucus over the weekend. But that proposed legislation encountered immediate opposition from more than a dozen far-right Republican lawmakers who wanted deeper spending cuts attached.

    Amid that impasse with conservatives, moderates in the bipartisan House Problem Solver’s Caucus are close to finalizing their own framework on a short-term spending bill that would fund the government for several months at current levels and include Ukraine aid and disaster assistance, according to two sources. Even with Democratic support, that plan would still likely face major challenges – not the least of which is how it would get to the floor before the government runs out of money.

    There are already signs that this alternative plan could face its own strong headwinds – not just with Republicans but with Democrats. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a progressive Democrat from Washington state, told CNN on “Inside Politics” that she wants a “clean” continuing resolution of funds, a sign that progressives may not back some of the border security provisions that the Problem Solvers Caucus members are eyeing.

    House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries met with the House Problem Solvers Caucus earlier Wednesday, and said afterward that they need a bipartisan agreement in line with what was already negotiated in the debt ceiling package.

    “We need to find a bipartisan agreement consistent with what was previously reached,” he said.

    House GOP leadership announced Wednesday night that the House will be in and voting on Friday and Saturday, making official what was expected as the majority struggled to reach an agreement all week.

    The House is expected to pass a rule for the defense appropriations bill Thursday. Assuming the rule passes, the House will then start consideration of the defense bill with final passage expected Friday.

    The thinking would then be to pass the new GOP stopgap plan on Saturday, which is expected to be a full day.

    Members were advised on Tuesday to keep their schedules flexible as weekend votes were possible. Members filtering in and out of Whip Emmer’s office the past two days are insistent that they are making progress, but Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota told CNN earlier Wednesday that while they are getting closer, they are not close yet.

    Rep. Garrett Graves from Louisiana, who has been in the room for negotiations, had echoed that schedule change and projected Friday and Saturday work.

    “I think we’re going to be here this weekend,” he said.

    When pressed on what exactly they’d be up to and if they’d be able to vote by Saturday, Graves said, “Well, we won’t be having Mardi Gras parties,” indicating they’d be voting.

    Rep. Steve Womack, a Republican from Arkansas who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, lambasted the hardliners, calling it a “breach of duty.”

    “We’ve got a handful of people that are holding the rest of the conference, the majority of our conference kind of held hostage right now and in turn, holding up America,” he told CNN.

    Womack also said this will likely extend into the weekend and that “either it’s gonna be good or it’s gonna be bad.”

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Americans are feeling gloomier about the economy | CNN Business

    Americans are feeling gloomier about the economy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    Americans aren’t feeling gloomy about higher gas prices just yet, but they’re still on edge about inflation and the economy’s direction — and concerns are starting to surface about the possibility of a government shutdown.

    Consumer sentiment tracked by the University of Michigan edged down in September from the prior month by 1.8 points, according to a preliminary reading released Friday.

    “Both short-run and long-run expectations for economic conditions improved modestly this month, though on net consumers remain relatively tentative about the trajectory of the economy,” said the University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers Director Joanne Hsu in a release. “So far, few consumers mentioned the potential federal government shutdown, but if the shutdown comes to bear, consumer views on the economy will likely slide, as was the case just a few months ago when the debt ceiling neared a breach.”

    Sentiment could start to sour soon, since gas prices are highly visible indicators of inflation. Sentiment fell to its lowest level on record last summer when gas prices topped $5 a gallon and inflation reached a four-decade high. The national average for regular gasoline stood at $3.87 a gallon on Friday, according to AAA, seven cents higher than a week ago and 17 cents higher than the same day last year.

    Consumers’ expectation of inflation rates in the year ahead fell to a 3.1% rate in September, down from 3.5% in the prior month.

    This story is developing and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link