Trump's sweeping tax-cut, spending bill clears first US Senate hurdle
The Republican-controlled US Senate narrowly advanced President Donald Trump's, sweeping tax-cut and spending bill on Saturday, during a marathon weekend session marked by political drama, division and lengthy delays as Democrats sought to slow the legislation's path to passage.
Lawmakers voted 51-49 to open debate on the 940-page megabill, with two of Trump's fellow Republicans joining Democrats to oppose the legislation that would fund the president's top immigration, border, tax-cut and military priorities.
Trump on social media hailed the "great victory" for his "great, big, beautiful bill."
After hours of delay, during which Republican leaders and Vice President JD Vance worked behind closed doors to persuade last-minute holdouts to support the measure, Democrats demanded that the megabill first be read aloud in the chamber - a task that could delay the start of the debate until Sunday afternoon.
Democrats say the bill's tax cuts would disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of social programs for lower-income Americans.
"Senate Republicans are scrambling to pass a radical bill, released to the public in the dead of night, praying the American people don't realise what's in it," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor.
"Democrats are going to force this chamber to read it from start to finish," he said.
Once the bill has been read, lawmakers will begin up to 20 hours of debate on the legislation. That will be followed by a marathon amendment session, known as a "vote-a-rama," before the Senate votes on passage. Lawmakers said they hoped to complete work on the bill on Monday.
Republican Senators Thom Tillis and Rand Paul voted against opening debate, a move that seemed for a time to be in danger of failing.
Trump attacked Tillis, who opposed the bill's cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for lower-income Americans, which he said would be devastating for his native North Carolina. Tillis is up for reelection next year.
"Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against 'Senator Thom' Tillis. I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks," the president posted.
Paul opposed the legislation because it would raise the federal borrowing limit on the $36.2 trillion US debt by an additional $5 trillion.
"Did Rand Paul Vote 'NO' again tonight? What's wrong with this guy???" Trump said on social media.
IN LIMBO
Saturday's vote was in limbo for hours as Vance, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and other top Republicans sought to persuade last-minute holdouts to support the legislation. It was not clear what deals if any were struck to win over their support.
Hardline Republican Senators Rick Scott, Mike Lee and Cynthia Lummis, who want deeper cuts in federal spending, voted to support the bill in the end. Another hardliner, Senator Ron Johnson, initially voted no but flipped his vote and backed the legislation.
Trump was monitoring the vote from the Oval Office late into the night, a senior White House official said.
The megabill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative achievement during his first term as president, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security.
The nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee released an analysis projecting that the Senate bill's tax provisions would reduce government revenue by $4.5 trillion over the next decade, increasing the $36.2-trillion US government debt.
The White House said this month the legislation would reduce the annual deficit by $1.4 trillion.
The world's richest person, Elon Musk, also took a swipe at the bill, which would end tax breaks for the electric vehicles that his automaker Tesla manufactures.
Calling the bill "utterly insane and destructive," he risked reigniting a feud with Trump that raged earlier this month, before Musk backed down from his rhetoric.
"The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!" Musk wrote in a post on his social media platform X.
MEDICAID CHANGES
Republicans from states with large rural populations have opposed a reduction in state tax revenue for Medicaid providers, including rural hospitals. The newly released legislation would delay that reduction and would include $25 billion to support rural Medicaid providers from 2028 to 2032.
The legislation would raise the cap on federal deductions for state and local taxes to $40,000 with an annual 1% inflation adjustment through 2029, after which it would fall back to the current $10,000. The bill would also phase the cap down for those earning more than $500,000 a year.
That is a major concern of House Republicans from coastal states, including New York, New Jersey and California, who play an important role in keeping the party's narrow House majority.
Republicans are using a legislative maneuver to bypass the Senate's 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber.
Democrats will focus their firepower with amendments aimed at reversing Republican spending cuts to programs that provide government-backed healthcare to the elderly, poor and disabled, as well as food aid to low-income families.
The bill also would raise the Treasury Department's debt ceiling by trillions of dollars to stave off a potentially disastrous default on the nation's debt in the coming months.
If the Senate passes the bill, it will then return to the House of Representatives for final passage before Trump can sign it into law. The House passed its version of the bill last month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump betrayed the diplomatic effort, says Iranian FM
Tehran: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has dismissed US President Donald Trump's declaration that their countries would re-engage in nuclear negotiations in the coming week. 'If our interests require a return to negotiations, we will consider it. But at this time, no agreement or promise has been made, and no talks have taken place.' Araghchi made the point that they were negotiating when Israel launched its June 13th unprovoked attack on Iran. Trump followed up last weekend by striking three Iranian nuclear sites with bunker buster bombs with the intention of finishing off Iran's nuclear programme. Araghchi accused Trump of betraying the diplomatic effort to resolve differences. While Trump claimed the US had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said the sites had been seriously damaged but suggested that Iran should be able to enrich uranium "in a matter of months." According to CNN, the Trump administration could encourage Iran to resume talks by offering $20-30 billion to establish a civilian nuclear energy programme without Iranian enrichment of its own nuclear fuel. The finance, it is said, could be provided by the Gulf countries, naturally not the US. The administration would also ease sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets in foreign banks. While such a speculative deal has been deliberately leaked and widely reported, it is unlikely to materialise. It looks like "pie in the sky," as the saying goes. Tehran is unlikely to reject a return to talks, but Iran is still assessing its military, political, and diplomatic losses from Israel's 12-day war and US strikes on its nuclear sites. Iran has to lay down its own conditions and decide when the atmosphere is propitious before re-engaging. Iran has laid down two red lines: low level uranium enrichment must continue on Iranian soil and Iran will not discuss its ballistic missile programme which Iran argues is essential for self-defence. Trump seeks to cross these red lines by eliminating both domestic enrichment and missiles. Trust has not characterised Iranian-US relations since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini over-threw Washington's ally Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in early 1979 and, radical "students" seized control of the US embassy in Tehran and held staff for 444 days. They were not freed until Ronald Regan had taken over the US presidency from Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, this gesture did not clear the way for the restoration of relations due to US rejectionism. The blow of losing the Shah, compounded by the humiliation of the embassy occupation made the US, particularly Congress, testy and unforgiving and easily influenced by domestic and Israeli anti-Iran hawks. Iranian popular trust in the US was undermined during the decades-long the rule of the shah who developed Iran's economy and carried out modernising social reforms but ruled with an iron fist. His tool was his intelligence agency Savak which allied with the US Central Intelligence Agency and Israel's Mossad. The shah put Iran firmly in the Western camp during the Cold War with the Soviet Union and adopted pro-Israel policies. Iranian resentment continues over the 1953 US-British coup against popularly elected Prime Minister Mossadegh who nationalised the Anglo-Iranian oil company. Resentment intensified when in 1954, the shah reached a deal giving Western countries control of Iran's oil industry. He also allowed US companies to play a dominant role in trade and Iran's domestic markets. This was exploited by the Iranian opposition, especially Khomeini who mounted his "revolution" from exile in France. He returned to Tehran in early 1979 after the shah had fled to the US. After several years of turmoil, Khomeini installed the cleric-dominated model of governance A decade after the fall of Shah, Iran's President Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997) tried and failed to reconcile with the US and the West. He was followed by Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005) who in 1999 launched his "Dialogue of Civilisations" which he hoped would achieve this end. One effort in this campaign was a Cyprus conference attended by US scholars, policy makers, influential Iranians, and foreign correspondents. While Khatami's call for dialogue failed to change Washington, one result of this conference was the creation of the website Gulf 2000 which continues to provide platform for information and comment on Iran, the Gulf and the region. Khatami was succeeded by erratic hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-2013). His hostile attitude toward the US and the West gave a boost to the powerful anti-Iran lobby in Washington, which was heavily influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who had tried for three decades to drag the US into a war with Iran. The landmark 2015 agreement limiting Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions was negotiated during the presidency of reformist Hassan Rouhani (2013-2021). Iran carried out its commitments under the Obama administration deal and secured some relief from sanctions which had crippled its economy. At that time, IAEA chief Grossi said Iran's nuclear programme was "primitive." The deal restricted enrichment to 3.67 per cent for civilian power plants, reduced its stockpile, compelled Iran to export enriched uranium above the limit, and compelled Iran to use old model centrifuges for enrichment. Iran was subjected to the most stringent and invasive regime of monitoring and inspections ever imposed on any country. However, in 2018, Trump aborted the deal and proclaimed1,500 sanctions, disrupting the process of reconstituting US-Iran relations. Iran responded in 2019 by enriching uranium to 20 and 60 per cent, amassing a large stockpile, building advanced centrifuges, and curbing IAEA monitoring, Hardliners in the Iranian clerical establishment engineered the 2021 election of Ebrahim Raisi who reverted to an anti-US stance until he died in a helicopter crash in 2024. Iran again swung to the reformist faction by electing Masoud Pezeshkian as president who had pledged to clinch a new nuclear agreement. Having failed to restore relations with the US, which remains Iran's chief antagonist on the global scene, Tehran has cultivated ties within the region. This process was expanded by the 2023 restoration of Saudi Iranian relations and promised the stability Gulf countries require to pursue economic and social advancement. This has been jeopardised by Israel's war on Iran and US military and political intervention.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Term limits won't fix what's wrong with Congress
David M. Drucker, Tribune News Service Support for imposing term limits on the US Congress is gaining steam, with at least half a dozen state legislatures approving resolutions urging a cap on service in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It stands to reason. Congress' job approval ratings are perennially in the tank, and a fresh Quinnipiac University poll reveals more of the same. In the survey, Republicans, who control both chambers, received positive marks from just 32% of registered voters. Democrats fared even worse, garnering a meager 21% approval rating. Many Americans across the political spectrum believe term limits would invigorate Capitol Hill, forcing older lawmakers to make way for new faces, loosening the stranglehold of politics and donors on lawmaking and enabling policy outcomes more responsive to their priorities. They're wrong — especially on that last part. Rather than making members of the House and Senate more responsive to the voters, term limits would shift power from veteran, experienced lawmakers to unelected staffers, executive branch bureaucrats and K Street lobbyists, none of whom would be subject to term limits. Just ask longtime political operatives in California, who have watched firsthand the impact of term-limits on the state legislature. Early in my career, I was a statehouse reporter in California, covering a legislature that limited assembly members to three, two-year terms and senators to two, four-year terms. Reform was minimal; political jockeying to reach the next elected position was rampant; and the work product generally was mediocre because novice lawmakers who didn't know what they were doing quickly assumed committee chairmanships and political leadership. Rob Stutzman, a veteran Republican operative in Sacramento, describes it as a 'transfer of institutional power' from elected officials to unelected government professionals and lobbyists. The experience was failure enough that in 2012 Californians approved Proposition 28, a voter initiative that overhauled term-limits. To solve the myriad problems created by letting inexperienced lawmakers govern the state with America's largest population and biggest economy, voters agreed to extend the years of service allowed in either chamber of the legislature to a dozen years (six, two-year terms in the assembly and three, four-year terms in the senate). But there was a trade-off. To sell voters on increasing the number of assembly and senate terms politicians can serve, the total years they are permitted to serve in the legislature overall were reduced from 14 to 12. And that means many of the governing pitfalls Proposition 28 aimed to address have lingered. 'Senior committee staff consider themselves members since they feel they know more than these neophyte legislators,' said David Louden, a Republican operative who previously served as chief of staff to four members of the California legislature. These legislative aides 'end up driving the policy of the committee, as opposed to the legislator,' he added. But cautionary tales about the potential downsides of terms limits have failed to dissuade voters from their firm belief that limits on Congressional service are the antidote for what ails the House and Senate. Over 80% of Americans support Congressional term limits. That would require a constitutional amendment. As political writer John Fund reports for National Review, six legislatures — Indiana, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee — have approved resolutions 'calling for an Article V convention to impose term limits on Congress,' with Arizona and Ohio poised to do the same. (A convention would only be triggered if 34 states passed such a resolution.) Meanwhile, there also is support for congressional term limits brewing in Congress. Freshman Senator Dave McCormick and fifth-term Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, both Republicans from Pennsylvania, have jointly proposed amending the Constitution to put a ceiling on congressional service. Their plan would limit senators to two, six-year terms and House members to six, two-year terms, so that no politician could spend more than a dozen years in either chamber. To encourage support for the measure, McCormick and Fitzpatrick would exclude members who were elected before the 2022 midterm elections. 'Our Founding Fathers never imagined that Congress would become an institution filled with career politicians who stay on well past retirement age,' McCormick said in a statement. The senator's point about politicians who stick around beyond the standard retirement age is particularly resonant in a political era with so many elderly political leaders — a development that has left many Democratic, Republican and independent voters hungry for new leadership. On this front, Stutzman pointed out that California's term-limits law has been effective. 'At a time when the US Senate is as old as it's ever been, term limits in California have certainly led to a younger legislature,' he said. 'There were certainly decades-long incumbents that were finally forced to move on once term limits took effect.' My opposition to congressional term-limits notwithstanding, I get the appeal. Roughly a dozen years before I took up political reporting, in the fall of 1990, I voted for Proposition 140, implementing term-limits on the California legislature. Get the career politicians out, I figured. Get imaginative industry professionals with real-world skills in. They would go to Sacramento and focus on good governance and solving problems, I thought, because constitutionally constrained tenures would free them from worrying about reelection. Then, in the winter of 2003, I started covering the statehouse and saw the consequences of my vote up close. It had only made things worse. I can only imagine what would happen in Washington, especially with presidents who take a rather expansive view of their executive powers.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Tourists are trickling into Afghanistan and Taliban government is eager to welcome them
By plane, motorbike, camper van and even on bicycles, tourists are beginning to discover Afghanistan, with solo travelers and tour groups gradually venturing into a country that until recently was wracked by war. And the country's Taliban government, which seized power more than three years ago but has yet to be formally recognised by any other nation, is more than happy to welcome them. "The Afghan people are warm and welcoming and wish to host tourists from other countries and engage with them,' Deputy Minister of Tourism Qudratullah Jamal told The Associated Press in an early June interview. "Tourism brings many benefits to a country. We have considered those benefits and aim for our nation to take full advantage of them.' Tourism is a vital, multi-billion-dollar industry for many countries. Deputy Minister of Tourism Qudratullah Jamal speaks with the Associated Press in Kabul. AP Afghanistan's isolation on the international stage, largely because of the Taliban's restrictions on women and girls, has left much of its 41 million people mired in poverty. As it struggles to attract foreign investment, the lucrative potential of tourism is far from lost on the government. "We are currently earning a considerable amount of revenue from this industry, and we are hopeful it will grow even more in the future,' Jamal said, noting money spent by visitors can reach more layers of society than revenue from other industries. "We are optimistic this sector will evolve into a large economy, bringing significant benefits. It plays an important role in strengthening our national economy.' Tourist visas are quick and easy to obtain and flights from major transit hubs such as Dubai and Istanbul operate several times a week. The government has even set up a training institute for men — and it is only for men — seeking jobs in the hospitality and tourism sector. Villagers walk in the fields near the niche of the giant Buddha statue destroyed by the Taliban in 2001, in Bamiyan, Afghanistan. AP While visitor numbers are still very much a trickle rather than a flood, they are increasing. Nearly 9,000 foreign tourists visited Afghanistan last year, while nearly 3,000 people visited in the first three months of this year, Jamal said. Four decades of near-continuous conflict kept nearly all vacationers away from this landlocked country of towering mountains, deep gorges and millennia of history. The Taliban's takeover from a US-backed government in August 2021 stunned the world and sent thousands of Afghans fleeing. But with the insurgency over, the bloodshed from frequent bombings and suicide attacks all but ended too. Attacks still occur, however. A Daesh affiliate in Afghanistan remains active and gunmen killed six people, including three Spanish tourists, in a May 2024 attack in Bamiyan, one of the country's main tourist attractions where centuries-old giant Buddhas carved into the cliffs were blown up by the Taliban in 2001. Band-e-Amir National Park, with its stunning blue lakes and towering cliffs, is seen in Afghanistan's central Bamiyan province. AP While Western countries still advise against travel to Afghanistan, a drop in violence from the two decades of US-led military presence is indisputable, as the government is keen to point out. "Afghanistan has gone through many years of war and hardship. Now, we want tourists to come and see the true traditions and customs of Afghans, to understand Afghan life, creativity and resilience,' Jamal said, noting there was "comprehensive security across Afghanistan.' Critics question the ethics of foreigners visiting Afghanistan for pleasure when its government discriminates so heavily against half the country's population. Education beyond primary school level is banned for girls and women and few professions are open to them. Women cannot enter parks, gardens or gyms. Beauty salons are forbidden. Authorities dictate how women dress and have demanded they cover their faces in public, a decree still flouted by many, particularly in Kabul. Some visitors say they contemplated the ethics, but ultimately wanted to see the situation for themselves. French-Peruvian Illary Gomez said she and her British partner, James Liddiard, debated for about a year whether to drive through Afghanistan as part of their U.K.-to-Japan camper van journey. "Some things didn't feel morally right,' she said. But once here, they said they found a warm, hospitable and welcoming people and beautiful landscapes. They didn't feel their presence was any form of support for the Taliban. By travelling, "you put money in the hands of the people, not the government,' Liddiard said. The treatment of women is particularly sensitive for government officials. Jamal declined to comment on the subject beyond saying male and female visitors were welcome. "Those who respect our laws and traditions have already come and can continue to come,' he said. While most restrictions are strictly enforced on Afghan women, they are far more relaxed for foreigners. Although they must still wear a headscarf in public, foreign women are more likely to gain entry into some restricted areas such as parks and are rarely asked to cover their faces in public. Opening the country to foreign visitors was also a way of building bridges, Jamal said. "It is a great way to promote interaction between the people of different countries. It helps build international relations and is also beneficial for trade,' he told the AP. "When foreigners come here, Afghans also learn a lot from them. In addition to expanding commerce, tourism also helps foster mutual understanding, cultural exchange and strengthens talents as people learn from one another.' A foreign traveler seeing the country with his own eyes "creates closeness, builds connections and fosters trust among people,' Jamal said. "They will respect each other's culture and the distance between peoples will diminish. "So this is not just economic development; it also brings spiritual and political benefits,' he said. Associated Press
