‘Big, beautiful bill' tax cuts touted in ad blitz as Senate GOP gears up for midterms
The spots by One Nation, a public policy organization aligned with Majority Leader John Thune, applaud Senate Republicans for "delivering President Trump's agenda" by passing the sweeping and controversial measure named by Trump as the "one, big, beautiful bill."
The ads, which One Nation said will run for several weeks on broadcast, cable and digital, are part of an eight-figure issue campaign. The spots were shared first with Fox News Digital on Wednesday.
"America is back, thanks to President Trump and Leader John Thune's Working Family tax cuts. Not tax on tips or overtime. Real relief for every American up early and home late," the narrator in the national ad touts.
Besides the national ad, the spots will run in Alaska, Florida, Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia, and will thank GOP Sens. Dan Sullivan, Ashley Moody, Jon Husted, Lindsey Graham, and Shelley Moore Capito for helping to pass the megabill.
And the ads are part of a concerted messaging effort by the White House and Senate and House Republicans to showcase how the tax cuts in the measure will benefit working-class Americans.
"One Nation will never cease to educate Americans about the Republican Party's historic effort to pass the Working Family Tax Cuts," said former GOP Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, who serves as One Nation chairman.
The Republican package is stuffed full of Trump's 2024 campaign trail promises and second-term priorities on tax cuts, immigration, defense, energy and the debt limit.
It includes extending the president's signature 2017 tax cuts — which were set to expire later this year — and eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay.
The measure also provides billions for border security and codifies the president's controversial immigration crackdown.
"Senate Republicans got President Trump's conservative agenda done, securing the border, finishing the wall, bringing manufacturing jobs back home," the narrator in the ad highlights.
The massive legislation is also projected to surge the national debt by $4 trillion over the next decade, but many Republicans dispute the projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
And the new law also restructures Medicaid — the almost 60-year-old federal program that provides health coverage to roughly 71 million low-income Americans. The CBO this week estimated that 10 million people could lose their health insurance over the next decade.
The changes to Medicaid, as well as cuts to food stamps, another one of the nation's major safety net programs, were drafted in part as an offset to pay for extending Trump's tax cuts. The measure includes a slew of new rules and regulations, including work requirements for many of those seeking Medicaid coverage.
"It protected Medicaid for Americans, not illegals," the narrator in the ad emphasizes.
But Democrats, for months, have repeatedly blasted Republicans over the social safety net changes. And they spotlighted a slew of national polls last month and this month that indicate the bill's popularity in negative territory.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) claims that the bill, which Trump signed into law on July 4 after the GOP-controlled House and Senate narrowly passed the measure along near-party-line votes, will gut Medicaid, forcing rural hospitals and nursing homes to close their doors.
"Rural hospitals were already on the brink of collapse thanks to Donald Trump, but now he has put the last nail in the coffin for rural hospitals with his billionaire budget bill," DNC chair Ken Martin argued in a statement to Fox News earlier this week.
Martin highlighted that "in states across the country, hospitals are either closing their doors or cutting critical services, and it's Trump's own voters who will suffer the most. This is what Donald Trump does — screw over the people who are counting on him."
Both parties see the "big, beautiful bill" as a key part of their messaging heading into next year's midterm elections, when the Republicans will be defending their slim majorities in the House and Senate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas' proposed congressional map dismantles districts flagged by DOJ
In early July, as President Donald Trump was pushing Texas to redraw its congressional map to better favor Republicans, the Department of Justice sent state leaders a letter. Four of Texas' congressional districts were unconstitutional, the department warned. Three, the 9th, 18th and 33rd, were unconstitutional 'coalition districts,' where Black and Hispanic voters combine to form a majority. The 29th, while majority Hispanic, was also unconstitutional, the letter said, because it was created by its two neighbors being coalition districts. 'It is well-established that so-called 'coalition districts' run afoul of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment,' assistant attorney general Harmeet Dhillon wrote, threatening legal action if Texas didn't bring the districts into compliance. On Wednesday, Texas House Republicans released their first draft of a redrawn map designed to give the GOP five new seats in next year's midterms. As for the four districts that troubled Dhillon? In the Houston area, the 9th and the 18th districts, where no one race currently constitutes a majority of eligible voters, would be redrawn as just over half Hispanic and half Black, respectively. But as a result, the nearby 29th District — a fixture of east Houston's Latino community — would lose its Hispanic majority, becoming 43% Hispanic, 33% Black and 18% white. The 33rd District in North Texas, although entirely redrawn, would still have no single racial or ethnic group that constitutes a majority. Texas has long maintained that it drew these maps without an eye toward race. But tinkering with the lines now that these racial concerns have been raised risks triggering a Voting Rights Act complaint, legal experts said. States generally cannot redraw districts based on race without a compelling argument that it's necessary to protect voters' ability to elect their candidates of choice, said Justin Levitt, a redistricting expert at Loyola Law School. 'It sure seems like they have actually done what the DOJ, without any basis, accused them of,' Levitt said, noting that he had not done sufficient analysis to say for sure. Legal experts say the DOJ's interpretation of the law around coalition districts, and thus its legal threats to Texas, are based on faulty logic that could be backing the state into a discrimination lawsuit. 'Nothing in this decision suggests, much less holds, that the VRA prohibits the very existence of coalition districts,' Ellen Katz, a redistricting expert at the University of Michigan Law School, told the House redistricting committee at its first hearing last week. 'There are hundreds of these districts nationwide in which jurisdictions relying on traditional principles create these districts.' Coalition districts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 says states cannot engage in election or voting practices that dilute the electoral power of voters of color, including by packing them into a single district or diffusing them throughout multiple. For decades, courts held that states can satisfy the requirements of Section 2 by creating districts where multiple politically cohesive racial voting groups constitute a majority. Currently, Texas has nine districts where no one racial or ethnic group has a majority; in eight of them, Black, Hispanic and Asian voters combined create a majority. In 2024, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears Texas-based cases, reversed a prior ruling and said coalitions of different racial or ethnic groups within one district cannot claim their rights have been violated under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Citing this ruling, Dhillon told Texas that its coalition districts were 'nothing more than vestiges of an unconstitutionally racially based gerrymandering past, which must be abandoned, and must now be corrected by Texas.' But this reflects a misunderstanding of this case, legal experts say. Under this ruling, the Voting Rights Act can't require states to create coalition districts, but that doesn't mean coalition districts are inherently unconstitutional. 'All it says is that you don't have the affirmative obligation to purposely create [a coalition district] at the outset,' said Mark Gaber, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center who is representing a group of plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit against the current maps. 'It certainly doesn't say, go through the map and eliminate all of the ones you drew.' Texas leaders have contradicted themselves and each other on the question of whether the state has coalition districts and what should be done about them. Gov. Greg Abbott, days after receiving Dhillon's letter, included redistricting on his agenda for the Legislature's special session, citing 'constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.' He later told Dallas' Fox 4 News that redistricting was necessary because of the 5th Circuit's ruling. 'We want to make sure that we have maps that don't impose coalition districts while at the very same time ensuring that we will maximize the ability of Texans to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice,' he said. At a House committee hearing Friday, GOP Rep. David Spiller of Jacksboro asked Rep. Todd Hunter, who carried the 2021 maps in the lower chamber, whether Texas currently has coalition districts. Hunter said 'the law was different then.' 'You had coalition districts being interpreted differently,' he said. 'Today, you have a 2024 5th Circuit case absolutely changing the law.' But in court, Texas has long argued it has not drawn coalition districts to address racial disparities, because it draws 'race blind' maps. Attorney General Ken Paxton doubled down on this argument in response to the Dhillon letter. 'The Texas Legislature has led the Nation in rejecting race-based decision-making in its redistricting process — it has drawn its current maps in conformance with traditional, non-racial redistricting criteria to ensure Texas continues to adopt policies that will truly Make America Great Again,' Paxton wrote. At the request of Democrats, the House and Senate redistricting committees have invited Dhillon to testify on the letter and her allegations against Texas, but neither she nor any representative from the DOJ has responded to the request. The Senate panel this week voted not to subpoena her. What happened to the Houston DOJ districts Three of the districts Dhillon cited in her letter are neighbors in the Houston area. All three would be radically redrawn by the House's proposed map. The 9th Congressional District is a multiracial district made up of 45% Black voters, 25% Hispanic voters, 18% white voters and 9% Asian voters. The district, which covers parts of southwest Houston and outlying suburbs, voted for Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 by 44 points, and has reliably reelected Democratic Rep. Al Green since 2004. Under the House's proposed map, the 9th District has been redrawn around an entirely new part of Houston, retaining just 2% of Green's current district and scooping up conservative swaths of east Harris County. The Hispanic population would climb to just over 50% and the white population would almost double to 34%. Black voters would drop to 12% and Asian voters to 2%. In 2024, this new district would have voted for Trump by 15 points. Green, who is essentially drawn out of his district, condemned the proposal as racist, saying 'the DOJ demanded that the race card be played, and the governor dealt the people of Texas a racist hand.' Republicans pointed to the changing preferences of Latino voters, who swung sharply for Trump and other GOP candidates in 2024, to defend these new lines. 'Each of these newly-drawn districts now trend Republican in political performance,' Hunter said. 'it does allow Republican candidates the opportunity to compete in these districts.' Some of Green's existing district has been pushed into the newly drawn 18th Congressional District. While this was previously a seat with no single racial majority, its electorate would become 50.8% Black, while cutting the Hispanic and white populations. It would also tilt even further to the left; Harris carried the district by 40 percentage points in 2024 and would have won it by a 54-point spread under the new lines. Next door, Rep. Sylvia Garcia's 29th Congressional District would also be reconfigured, with Hispanic residents making up 43% of its new eligible voting population — down 20 percentage points from the current makeup. The district's Black and white populations would increase to create a district without a single racial group dominating. It would become more strongly Democratic. In challenging Texas' maps, plaintiffs have contended that Houston's population justifies two majority Hispanic districts. Instead, the one strong majority Hispanic district has been eliminated, and replaced with a district that is almost exactly half Hispanic, alongside one that is almost exactly half Black. '50.5% is unlikely to perform for Latino preferred candidates, or Black preferred candidates,' Gaber said. 'And they know that. It's a mirage.' What happened to the North Texas DOJ district In her letter, Dhillon also said the 33rd Congressional District ran afoul of the Constitution through its coalition status. The district is currently anchored in Fort Worth, with an electorate that is 44% Hispanic, 25% Black, 23% white and 6% Asian. The district went for Harris by 34 percentage points and has consistently reelected Rep. Marc Veasey, a Black Democrat. A decade ago, Texas, and the federal courts, asserted that the 33rd was not a coalition district. 'District 33 is not a 'minority coalition opportunity district' in which two different minority groups 'band together' to form an electoral majority,' the state and plaintiffs said in a joint advisory to the court. A district court judge agreed, saying it was 'not intentionally drawn as a minority coalition district.' The revised 33rd Congressional District maintains about a third of Veasey's old district, moving out of his Fort Worth base. The proposed new lines would reduce the Hispanic and Black population and increase the white population, while maintaining about the same Democratic lean. Just like in the current map, the proposed 33rd district does not have a single racial group that dominates. Legal experts say that is not inherently a problem, despite what the DOJ letter alleged, as long as voters of color have sufficient power to elect their candidate of choice. At a House committee hearing last week, Nina Perales, the vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the groups suing over Texas' current maps, testified that the Dallas-Fort Worth area, like Houston, should have an additional Hispanic-majority district on top of Veasey's Hispanic-plurality seat. 'In light of the growth of the population over the past two decades, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does require the creation of additional districts,' Perales said. 'If the committee and the legislature decides to take up redistricting, it is certainly true that you cannot subtract from the current level of representation that we have.' Few districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area went without major changes in the new draft map. In the reshaped downtown Dallas district of Rep. Jasmine Crockett, 50.2% of the voting population would be Black, not unlike the two new Houston districts to inch just past the majority threshold. If Hispanic or Black voters were electing their candidate of choice, there is no legal reason to move more voters of one group into the district to hit a perfunctory benchmark of 50%, Levitt said. 'It tells me you're trying really hard to hit a particular target, such that the target itself was the predominant reason for moving people in or out of the district,' Levitt said. 'That's exactly what the courts have said you can't do.' The lineup for The Texas Tribune Festival continues to grow! Be there when all-star leaders, innovators and newsmakers take the stage in downtown Austin, Nov. 13–15. The newest additions include comedian, actor and writer John Mulaney; Dallas mayor Eric Johnson; U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota; New York Media Editor-at-Large Kara Swisher; and U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso. Get your tickets today! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kleiner Perkins is having a very good week
Even while the tech industry is still fanning its face over Figma's hot IPO on Thursday, another significant tech IPO occurred this week: Ambiq Micro. On Wednesday, the chip maker for wearable devices saw its shares climb from the initial price of $24 to over $42 on Friday. There's one thing both companies have in common: Kleiner Perkins was a major investor. So it's been a very good week for the venerable venture firm. Just for fun, we've calculated the value of Kleiner Perkins' stake in each company. Kleiner sold 1,346,499 shares of Figma at the IPO price of $33, Figma disclosed, and could have sold as many as 2,756,020 shares at that price if the bankers exercised their option to nab additional shares. Given how much demand outstripped supply for shares of Figma, we're going to assume the bankers will snap up the full tranche (or they already have). Meanwhile, Kleiner still holds 52,364,374 shares of Figma, the company says. Share prices are still fluctuating wildly in heavy trading on Day 2, from about $110 to over $142, but closed Day 1 at $115, so we'll use that number. For Figma: An estimated $91 million returned from share sales and a remaining stake worth more than $6 billion (2,756,02 shares at $33 = $90,948,660, and 52,364,374 shares at $115 = $6,021,903,010). For perspective, this stake in Figma alone is worth 3x the last mega-funds the firm raised, which was $2 billion across two vehicles in 2024. By the way, the Kleiner partner who oversaw its investment was Figma board member Mamoon Hamid. Ambiq is a much smaller company and it was a much smaller IPO. It sold a total of 4 million shares and raised $96 million for itself in its IPO. Existing shareholders are subject to the classic 180 days lockup before they can sell. Kleiner holds 2,081,831 shares, the company disclosed. Shares are still trading at a premium to the IPO price as of Friday and closed Thursday at $43.85. So we'll use that price. Ambiq stake: $91.3 million (2,081,831 at $43.85 = $91,288,289). But wait! There's more. Kleiner is also having a good month and possibly year (Kleiner has declined comment for this story). The firm reportedly scored a decent return earlier this month as part of Google's deal to license tech from Windsurf and hire away its top talent. We don't know exactly how much of the $1.1 billion or so VCs obtained from the Windsurf deal went to Kleiner specifically. But TechCrunch's Marina Temkin reports the total return was about 3x the original funding. And at least one more Kleiner-backed company is waiting in the wings to IPO. Fleet tracking startup Motive Technologies raised $150 million led by Kleiner Perkins, with Ilya Fushman joining the board, the company announced this week. Bloomberg reported in December that Motive is gearing up for an IPO, potentially still in 2025. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Want to Get Rich? Mark Cuban Says To Save '6 Months Of Income' — Here's How Some Homeowners Are Using Real Estate To Make It Happen
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Mark Cuban didn't get rich clipping coupons or stockpiling airline miles. His advice? Keep your junker car, avoid credit cards like the plague, and save up six months of income — not because it sounds good in a finance blog, but because life happens. "If you don't like your job at some point or you get fired or you have to move or something goes wrong," Cuban said in a Vanity Fair video, "you're going to need at least six months' income." But for many Americans, that kind of cash cushion feels more like a pipe dream than a practical step. In fact, most adults in the U.S. don't even have $1,000 saved, according to a Bankrate survey. Still, Cuban's "get rich advice" isn't just for aspiring billionaires — it's a survival-level strategy in a shaky economy. Don't Miss: Accredited Investors: Grab Pre-IPO Shares of the AI Company Powering Hasbro, Sephora & MGM— 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. Cash is King — But Where Do You Find It? Even people who've been steadily employed for years often feel "house rich, cash poor." They've got equity tied up in their homes but little flexibility when an emergency hits. That's where some are getting creative — unlocking liquidity from real estate without selling their homes or taking on new debt. Enter platforms like EquityMultiple, which offer a modern way to put money to work through passive commercial real estate investing. These platforms allow investors to earn cash flow from real estate without becoming landlords — while still keeping their own home intact and their equity untouched. Think of it as making your money multitask: while your primary residence appreciates quietly in the background, your real estate investments can generate monthly income and diversify your savings. Trending: $100k+ in investable assets? – no cost, no obligation. Toothpaste and Tenants — Cuban's All About ROI Cuban's approach to building wealth might involve investing in mutual funds or even tossing a little into Bitcoin — if you're feeling bold — but the underlying theme is always the same: maximize return, minimize regret. "It's so hard to make a return on regular investments... you're better off, when you see a sale, [buying in bulk]," he said in the same Vanity Fair video. "That's an immediate return on your money." That logic — stretching your dollars with purpose — is why more investors are shifting toward income-generating alternatives like real estate-backed offerings. Instead of letting money sit in savings accounts losing value to inflation, they're deploying it in vetted property deals that pay out on a regular basis.A Modern Path To The Six-Month Safety Net Most people aren't hitting Cuban's six-month cash goal overnight. But that doesn't mean it's out of reach. It just requires some strategy — and maybe a shift in how you think about savings. Start small: rework your budget, look for dead weight in subscriptions, and automate deposits to a high-yield savings account. Then, once you've got your emergency fund foundation set, diversifying into passive real estate could help build the next layer — with monthly income that can go right back into your cash cushion or be reinvested for growth. Because, as Cuban says, "the one thing you can control in life is your effort." And putting your money in the right place? That counts, too. Read Next: With Point, you can Image: Shutterstock This article Want to Get Rich? Mark Cuban Says To Save '6 Months Of Income' — Here's How Some Homeowners Are Using Real Estate To Make It Happen originally appeared on Sign in to access your portfolio
