logo
Republicans Are (Almost) Ready for Maximum Pressure on Russia

Republicans Are (Almost) Ready for Maximum Pressure on Russia

Bloomberg13-06-2025
The epiphany of common sense came late in an otherwise tedious congressional subcommittee hearing, and from a Democrat, Representative Jim Costa. He gets that Republicans and the administration of Donald Trump take pride in exerting 'maximum pressure' on Iran, Costa made clear. But at this 'seminal moment in American and world history,' he asked, 'what about maximum pressure on Russia?'
What about it indeed? The greatest puzzle (among many) about MAGA foreign policy is why Trump refuses to get tough with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who shows no interest in good-faith peace negotiations and is cynically stringing Trump along — 'playing this president like a fiddle,' in the words of Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit
Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit

Newsweek

time27 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Senate has passed a significant expansion to the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), more than tripling the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 starting in 2025. Senators voted 50-50 on President Donald Trump's broad tax and spending bill on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The increased SALT deduction cap would phase out for those earning above $500,000 and increase 1 percent annually until 2029, then revert to the current $10,000 limit in 2030. Why It Matters The move marks a dramatic reversal in policy on SALT deductions, one of the most contentious features of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and has implications for millions of taxpayers, especially those living in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California where property and income taxes often far exceed the old $10,000 cap. Analysts have said the provision will most likely benefit wealthier Americans who have high property taxes, as taxes paid on income and property ownership are typically the largest for those who itemize their taxes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald... Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald Trump's signature bill of big tax breaks and spending cuts, at the Capitol in Washington on July 1, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP What To Know Prior to 2017, taxpayers who itemized deductions could fully subtract the amount paid in state and local income, property and sales taxes from their federal taxable income. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 cap on these deductions, a limit that mostly affected residents of states with higher tax rates. Along with raising the cap to $40,000 until 2029, the Senate bill also increases a tax break for pass-through businesses to 23 percent while clamping down on a frequently used tax loophole for certain pass-through businesses. The House bill had proposed the same higher limit and $500,000 income phaseout but for a longer period of time, rising 1 percent each year from 2026 to 2033. The House also blocked certain white-collar professionals from being able to use a popular SALT deduction workaround. While the Senate version appears to be cheaper for the federal government, given its shorter time frame, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said that "it's actually far more generous." The CRFB said the Senate's direct SALT relief is "roughly 10 percent larger than the House," adding that it estimated the Senate changes would cost $325 billion while the House bill would cost roughly $200 billion. Affluent homeowners and high-income individuals stand to benefit the most from the expanded cap, according to the Tax Foundation's May analysis. The Tax Foundation also warned that the Senate's provisions would cost about $320 billion more than an extension of the existing cap, and cost $150 billion more than a $30,000 cap. "The bill is already suffering from a math problem," Tax Foundation analysts wrote. "This is a recipe for worsening deficits at a time when Congress needs to be more concerned about the country's fiscal outlook." What People Are Saying Owen Zidar, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, told Newsweek: "The broader bill and the SALT cap increase are a boon for high-income taxpayers, especially high-income private business owners who got a special loophole that lets them avoid the SALT caps. Millions are estimated to lose health insurance coverage. The bill is very irresponsible fiscally. It's mortgaging our future for our children. "The increase in the deficits will put pressure on interest rates and crowd out productive investment, hurting economic growth." What Happens Next After being passed by the Senate, the GOP tax bill will now head to the Joint Conference Committee for reconciliation of differences between the Senate and House.

Fact check: Trump lies again about gas prices, falsely claiming five states are at $1.99
Fact check: Trump lies again about gas prices, falsely claiming five states are at $1.99

CNN

time27 minutes ago

  • CNN

Fact check: Trump lies again about gas prices, falsely claiming five states are at $1.99

The president's imaginary list keeps getting longer. In April, President Donald Trump claimed gas prices in 'a couple' unspecified states had just fallen to $1.98 per gallon. That wasn't even close to true. But the next day he said it was 'three states' that had just hit $1.98 per gallon, which also wasn't remotely accurate. Trump used the 'three' figure on multiple occasions in subsequent weeks, again with no factual basis. Then, during an immigration-focused visit to Florida on Tuesday, Trump made it five states with supposed sub-$2 gas. 'Gasoline just hit $1.99 today in five states – $1.99, isn't that a nice sound?' he said, adding moments later, 'We just hit, in five states, $1.99, $1.98.' Once more, this was a lie. The lowest state average price on Tuesday for a gallon of regular gas was about $2.71 in Mississippi, according to data published by AAA. The state with the fifth-cheapest Tuesday average, Louisiana, was at about $2.79 per gallon, per the AAA data. And the national average was about $3.18 per gallon, AAA reported. GasBuddy, a firm that tracks prices at tens of thousands of stations around the country, did not find a single station selling regular gas for below $2.26 per gallon on Tuesday. (There are sometimes individual drivers who get special discounts.) And GasBuddy's head of petroleum analysis, Patrick De Haan, told CNN that the last time his data showed any state average below $2 per gallon was more than four years ago, in January 2021, when demand was unusually weak because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The White House did not respond to CNN's Tuesday request to explain Trump's claim. The president has a long history of using inaccurate statistics even when he could make a similar point using accurate statistics. His false Tuesday boast was especially needless given that he could have correctly said that – as CNN reported in an article earlier in the day – gas prices for this Fourth of July weekend are expected to be the lowest for the holiday since at least 2021, according to GasBuddy.

Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban

CBS News

time28 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother "intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child." It was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store