House budget debate day 1
The 61.4 billion dollar budget is 6.5% higher than last year's, but the bottom line is $600 million lower than Healey's proposal.
Over the course of debate, the Senate will need to make decisions on 1,650 amendments–the most in over a decade. These amendments look to add at least $2.5 billion to the budget.
House budget chief Aaron Michlewitz spoke about his goals in creating this budget. 'While there has been some progress in bringing inflation under control, recent actions in Washington are likely reversing those gains and bringing further chaos to our economy and our nation,' said Michlewitz.
The House began its day with talk about tax revenue amendments, which will likely all be debated publicly. Most other amendments are expected to be decided in closed-door meetings.
One Ways and Means committee member and member of the minority party spoke to his satisfaction with how the budget is handling taxes.
'We are so grateful that they embraced the ideology of the Republican Party and put no tax increases in this budget, no doubt inspired by the minority party,' said Representative Todd Smola of Warren.
The most notable moment of today's debate–a Republican representative proposed a 5% tax cut that did not receive sufficient support, even among fellow Republicans, to hold a roll call vote.
Once the House finishes its debate and passes a budget, it's the Senate's turn. Finally, their differences will be reconciled before a final draft is sent to the governor to be passed into law.
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on WWLP.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana football player offered $1.5 million to transfer elsewhere, Curt Cignetti says
LAS VEGAS — Indiana football coach Curt Cignetti is hopeful the introduction of revenue-sharing and a NIL clearinghouse will usher in some much-needed stability into a sport that's been plagued by a lack of guard rails. Cignetti told reporters at Big Ten media days that an unnamed Hoosiers player received a $1.5 million offer to transfer during the spring portal window in a blatant example of tampering. The offer came at a time when teams across the country were rushing to sign players to front-loaded deals that avoided having to go through the clearinghouse. "We're all hoping once we sign these contracts they can hold water," Cignetti said. "There's a difference between an inadvertent phone call and calling him during the spring and offering him $800,000 or $1.5 million, which I had happen this spring." Indiana's athletic department began directly paying student-athletes on July 1 as part of the House vs. NCAA settlement. The Hoosiers are fully funding the $20.5 million they are allowed to share with athletes as outlined in the court settlement, with the football program accounting for 70-75% of that amount. Cignetti described revenue-sharing as a potential "equalizer" with the College Sports Commission (CSC), the entity created to police the NIL space, helping to create a more level playing field. It's part of the reason why Cignetti didn't reveal the name of the school that tampered with his player. "You can go down that road, but right now I've been totally lead to believe there's a new sheriff in town post July 1 and I got to trust the people I believe in," Cignetti said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
LSBF Singapore Campus Contributes Thought Leadership to National Dialogue on Electric Vehicles
SINGAPORE, July 23, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Dr. Roy Yap, Head of the School for Business and Law at LSBF Singapore, was featured on Channel 8 News (3 June 2025) in a prime-time segment discussing the evolving electric vehicle (EV) insurance landscape and what it means for risk profiling, consumer protection, and insurers' responsibilities in a green economy. "The rise of EVs in Singapore is not just about infrastructure or adoption. It raises important questions about how we insure, regulate, and protect consumers in a fast-changing landscape," said Dr. Roy Yap. Dr. Roy Yap explored how the shift toward EVs introduces new considerations in risk assessment, policy coverage, and regulatory safeguards, urging stakeholders to rethink legacy systems in light of technological change. Watch the original feature (Channel 8 News, Chinese with subtitles): If you're exploring angles on green mobility, insurance innovation, or talent readiness, media enquiries and interview requests with Dr. Roy Yap are welcome. About London School of Business & Finance (LSBF) The London School of Business & Finance (LSBF), founded in 2003 and a member of the Global University System (GUS), serves over 25,000 students across more than 40 countries. With campuses in key cities including the UK, Singapore, and Malaysia, LSBF has expanded its international footprint, particularly in Asia. LSBF Singapore campus offers over 100 programmes in business, finance, law, hospitality, and technology, and collaborate with reputable universities to provide internationally recognised qualifications. LSBF holds EduTrust certification, partners with organizations like Grab, Deloitte and ISCA, and is an ACCA Approved Learning Partner. In recognition of its future-focused approach to education, LSBF was honoured with the Singapore Business Review's International Business Award in Education for two consecutive years – 2024 and 2025. These accolades reaffirm LSBF's commitment to delivering quality, industry-aligned education that empowers aspiring professionals globally. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE London School of Business & Finance Singapore Campus Sign in to access your portfolio
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump escalates attacks on Obama and Clinton as questions swirl about Epstein
'Obama was trying to lead a coup,' Trump said. 'And it was with Hillary Clinton.' Trump's extended digression, which came during a visit with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines, was a stark example of his campaign of retribution against an ever-growing list of enemies that has little analogue in American history. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up It even prompted a rare response from Obama's office. Advertisement 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' said Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesperson for Obama. 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.' After Trump's attack on Obama, reports continued to surface about his relationship with Epstein. CNN published photos of Epstein at Trump's 1993 wedding to Marla Maples, the president's second wife. Gabbard's report, which claimed there was a 'treasonous conspiracy' by top Obama officials, contradicted a lengthy study by the Senate Intelligence Committee that was signed by all Republican members of the committee, including Marco Rubio, now the secretary of state. Advertisement The Obama administration never contended that the Russians had manipulated votes; instead, the administration, and the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, concluded that Russia mounted a major effort to influence voters. Still, in his remarks Tuesday, Trump claimed that he could have sent Clinton, the former secretary of state and another of his political rivals, to prison but chose not to. He said he would show no such leniency to Obama. 'I let her off the hook, and I'm very happy I did, but it's time to start after what they did to me,' Trump said. 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' The president then listed even more enemies he wanted his Justice Department to target, including his former FBI director, James Comey and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, and former President Joe Biden. 'It would be President Obama,' Trump said. 'He started it, and Biden was there with him, and Comey was there, and Clapper, the whole group was there.' 'He's guilty,' he said of Obama. 'This was treason. This was every word you can think of.' Trump's campaign to exact revenge against his perceived enemies has taken many forms. Over the past six months, he has pulled protective details from former colleagues facing death threats from Iran. He has revoked or threatened to revoke the security clearances of Biden, members of his administration and dozens of others. His administration has taken steps to target members of the media seen as unfriendly, taken the hatchet to entire agencies perceived as too liberal, and fired or investigated government workers deemed disloyal. Advertisement The re-examination of the intelligence around the 2016 election began with John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, ordering a review of the agency's tradecraft that went into the intelligence community assessment in December of that year. The review was deeply critical of the Obama administration and the former CIA director, John Brennan. CIA analysts took issue with the speed of the assessment and accused Brennan of allowing an unverified dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer to influence the assessment. But Brennan has long denied that the so-called Steele dossier had any impact on the assessment, and other former officials said that the analysts working on the report paid no attention to it, maintaining that it was unverifiable rumor. Ratcliffe wrote on social media that the review had shown that the process was corrupt, and then he made a criminal referral to the FBI. Last week, Gabbard issued another report that criticized the findings of the intelligence assessment even more directly. Gabbard's report suggested that in the winter of 2016, intelligence officials under pressure from the White House changed their assessment from one that Russia had failed to mount a significant effort to hack election infrastructure to one that the Kremlin was trying to boost Trump and denigrate Clinton, the Democratic nominee. But Gabbard's report conflated two different intelligence findings. Intelligence officials had concluded that Russia had not engaged in any major effort to hack election systems and change votes. But they also believed that Russia had tried to influence the election in various ways by releasing hacked documents to harm Clinton and sow dissent. Advertisement Gabbard has also called for several Obama officials to face criminal investigation, without naming them. This article originally appeared in
