House Bill Seeks to allow senior, PWD discounts on top of promos
House Bill 16, filed by Speaker Martin Romualdez with co-authors Reps. Jude Acidre and Andrew Romualdez of Tingog party-list, clarifies that discounts for seniors and PWDs should not be overridden or absorbed by ongoing promos or sales offered to the general public.
Additionally, the bill proposes that booklets should not be required for claiming discounts during purchases, aiming to make the process more convenient.
The measure seeks to reaffirm the intent of the Senior Citizens Act and the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, ensuring that preferential treatment remains intact and is not diminished by retail promotions.
A similar measure was approved by the House in 2024 but failed to pass in the Senate. Lawmakers hope this renewed version will finally be enacted during the 20th Congress, which opens on July 28.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Democrats see Trump's big bill as key to their comeback
Steve Peoples and Hannah Fingerhut, Associated Press It is big and it is beautiful, President Donald Trump says. But for many Democratic leaders, the tax break and spending cut package passed by Trump's Republican allies in Congress on Thursday represents the key to the Democratic Party's resurgence. Even before the final vote, Democratic officials were finalizing ambitious plans for rallies, voter registration drives, attack ads, bus tours and even a multiday vigil, all intended to highlight the most controversial elements of Trump's "big beautiful" bill: deep cuts to the nation's safety net that will leave nearly 12 million more people without health coverage and millions of others without food assistance, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In political battlegrounds across Alaska and Iowa, Pennsylvania and California, Democrats have begun to use the bill against Republicans. Democrats are promising that the Republican president's domestic policy achievement to date will be the defining issue of every major election between now and next fall's midterms. "One thing is abundantly clear: Republicans own this mess and it's an albatross around their necks heading into the midterms," Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin told the medeia. "This is the least popular legislation in modern history, and the more voters learn about it, the more they hate it. That's a clear directive for Democrats — we're going to make sure every single voter knows who is responsible." Even with early public opinion on their side, however, it's far from certain that the legislation will be the political winner Democrats hope. The Democratic brand remains deeply unpopular, the party has no clear leader, its message is muddled and core elements of the Democratic base are frustrated and drifting. Some of the bill's provisions will not take effect until after the 2026 election, so voters may not have felt the full impact by the time they vote. At the same time, it's unclear how many voters are paying attention to the Washington-based debate. The Democratic super political action committee Priorities USA warned this week that Democrats must work harder if they want their message to break through. "We can't just assume that because we're angry that the voters that we need to communicate with are angry. Everyone needs to step up and realise the enormous challenge that's in front of us," executive director Danielle Butterfield said. "We're nowhere near a good starting place." The bill provides for $4.5 trillion in tax breaks that were enacted in Trump's first term and would have expired if Congress failed to act. New breaks will allow workers to deduct tips and overtime pay. There are $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps and a major rollback of green energy investments. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the decade. Privately, some Democrats conceded that Republicans were smart to pass the bill on the eve of a holiday weekend when fewer voters would be paying attention. As some Democrats in Washington predicted a political backlash across America, the response was somewhat muted Thursday at a Democratic event in Iowa, barely 10 miles from the State Fairgrounds where Trump later drew thousands for an evening rally. An audience of roughly 100 people listened as local Democratic officials railed against the legislation and called on voters to oust Republican Rep. Zach Nunn, the local congressman, for supporting it. Audience member Michael Rieck, 69, said Iowa Democrats left him a message about the rally, but when he went online to learn more, "there was nothing." "I texted back to them that I didn't see any advertisement," he said. "They slowly corrected that. I'm still not impressed with what they did to advertise this event." Rieck said he wants to see different factions of the party better coordinate their message. Progressive activists were moving through Minnesota in a big green bus as part of Fair Share America's 29-stop "stop the billionaire giveaway" tour. The group is focused on Republican-led congressional districts where elected officials have largely stopped having in-person town halls with constituents. "We know we're fighting upstream," said Fair Share's executive director, Kristen Crowell. "But when people hear exactly what's in this bill, they're adamantly opposed." The bill is generally unpopular, according to polling conducted throughout the month of June, although some individual provisions are popular. For example, a Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that majorities of US adults support increasing the annual child tax credit and eliminating taxes on earnings from tips, and about half support work requirements for some adults who receive Medicaid. On the other hand, the poll found that majorities oppose reducing federal funding for food assistance to low-income families and spending about $45 billion to build and maintain migrant detention centers.
Gulf Today
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
The Supreme Court's majority is playing the long game
Noah Feldman, Tribune News Service Many legal commentators apparently believe that, in the term that just ended, the Supreme Court further enabled President Donald Trump. The court did, in fact, issue a series of conservative decisions that Trump likes. However, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the court also simultaneously pursued a careful strategy aimed at preserving the rule of law in the face of Trump's unprecedented challenges to it. The court picked its battles, upholding a meaningful number of lower court orders that blocked unlawful Trump initiatives. At the same time, the justices worked hard to avoid a direct confrontation in which Trump might overtly declare his intention to ignore a court ruling. Even its most controversial recent decision — ending the Trump-era judicial practice of issuing universal injunctions against presidential action — may be understood as an effort to prevent lower courts from creating a direct conflict with the administration that might lead to a showdown the courts would lose. On this interpretation, Roberts wants to exercise his own careful judgment about when to go toe-to-toe with Trump. His goal is to avoid a constitutional crisis that could undermine the power of the judiciary for generations. Let me be crystal clear: I disagree strongly with essentially all of the ideologically conservative decisions the court issued this term. (You can read my columns on each of them to see why.) Yet these decisions, wrong though they are, were not the most important element of the Supreme Court's job since Trump took office. No, since Jan. 20, 2025, the court's essential function has been to fight for the preservation of the rule of law. That fight cannot be won simply by bluster, for a very specific constitutional reason: The Supreme Court has no direct enforcement power and no power of the purse. It is, as Alexander Hamilton famously wrote, 'the least dangerous branch' — which also means it is the least powerful. In the end, the Supreme Court has power only because the executive obeys it. If the president defies the courts, the only constitutional remedies available are congressional attempts to withhold funds (which is not going to happen under this Congress) and impeachment (good luck). Maybe — one can only hope — millions of people would go into the streets in defense of the rule of law. Maybe the financial markets would decline sharply. But these are extreme contingencies, and they might not work. Trump, more than any president before — even Abraham Lincoln in wartime — has shown he is prepared to openly violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States. His attacks on the judiciary, echoed by his vice president, are clearly intended to signal his openness to outright defiance. And in a direct constitutional crisis triggered by defiance of judicial orders, it's hard to say with confidence that Trump wouldn't win. So the job of the court over the last six months has been to hold the line. It has done so — not resoundingly, but cautiously, as befits judges who aren't politicians and don't have a constituency to rely on. When the lower courts blocked some of the president's efforts to freeze federal grant money and fire career government employees, the Supreme Court mostly left those orders in place. When District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been deported to El Salvador without due process, the justices upheld the order — and he is now back in the US, albeit facing new criminal charges. When other detainees slated for deportation sought their day in court, the justices affirmed their due process rights. Of course, the court's majority hasn't stood up to the Trump administration in every instance. Sometimes that has been for technical legal reasons. But it is also because Roberts wants, ideally, to avoid a situation where Trump directly defies a court order. And if the confrontation must happen, Roberts and the other justices want it to be on an issue where the court's legal and rhetorical power is at its maximum. That means trying to pick an issue where the law is clearly against Trump; all nine of the justices agree; and no foreign actors outside the court's jurisdiction are necessary to effectuate the court's judgment.
Gulf Today
9 hours ago
- Gulf Today
'Big Beautiful Bill Act:' Trump signs tax and spending bill into law
US President Donald Trump signed into law a massive package of tax and spending cuts at the White House on Friday, staging an outdoor ceremony on the Fourth of July holiday that took on the air of a Trump political rally. With military jets flying overhead and hundreds of supporters in attendance, Trump signed the bill one day after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives narrowly approved the signature legislation of the president's second term. The bill, which will fund Trump's immigration crackdown, make his 2017 tax cuts permanent, and is expected to knock millions of Americans off health insurance, was passed with a 218-214 vote after an emotional debate on the House floor. The US President described the law as a major achievement. Donald Trump shows his signature on the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the White House in Washington on Friday. WAM "I've never seen people so happy in our country because of that, because so many different groups of people are being taken care of: the military, civilians of all types, jobs of all types," Trump said at the ceremony, thanking House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune for leading the bill through the two houses of Congress. "So you have the biggest tax cut, the biggest spending cut, the largest border security investment in American history," Trump said. Trump scheduled the ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House for the July 4 Independence Day holiday, replete with a flyover by stealth bombers and fighter jets like those that took part in the recent US strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran. Hundreds of Trump supporters attended, including White House aides, members of Congress, and military families. After a speech that included boastful claims about the ascendance of America on his watch, Trump signed the bill, posed for pictures with Republican congressional leaders and members of his cabinet, and waded through the crowd of happy supporters. Donald Trump arrives with First Lady Melanie Trump to sign the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the White House in Washington. AFP The bill's passage amounts to a big win for Trump and his Republican allies, who have argued it will boost economic growth, while largely dismissing a nonpartisan analysis predicting it will add more than $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt. While some lawmakers in Trump's party expressed concerns over the bill's price tag and its hit to healthcare programmes, in the end just two of the House's 220 Republicans voted against it, joining all 212 Democrats in opposition. The tense standoff over the bill included a record-long floor speech by House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who spoke for eight hours and 46 minutes, blasting the bill as a giveaway to the wealthy that would strip low-income Americans of federally-backed health insurance and food aid benefits. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin predicted the law would cost Republicans votes in congressional elections in 2026. "Today, Donald Trump sealed the fate of the Republican Party, cementing them as the party for billionaires and special interests - not working families," Martin said in a statement. "This legislation will hang around the necks of the GOP for years to come. This was a full betrayal of the American people. Today, we are putting Republicans on notice: you will lose your majority." Reuters
