Musk calls Trump spending bill 'disgusting abomination'
"I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," the billionaire Musk wrote in an X post.
"This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination."
He added: "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."
The House of Representatives last month passed the bill by one vote after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure - which would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative accomplishment in his first term - would add $US3.8 trillion ($A5.9 trillion) to the federal government's $US36.2 trillion in debt.
The Senate, also controlled by Trump's Republicans, aims to pass the measure titled the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" in the next month although senators are expected to revise the House-passed version of the bill.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Musk's calculations were in error.
"It's very disappointing," Johnson told reporters.
"With all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong."
But two House Republicans - Representatives Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson - who opposed the measure went to Musk's social platform X to endorse his message.
"The Big Beautiful Tweet," Davidson said while reposting Musk's words.
Senator Mike Lee, one of at least four Republicans pushing for deeper spending cuts, also rallied to Musk in a tweet that called on party members to use the Trump bill and future spending measures to reduce the deficit.
"We must commit now to doing so, as this is what voters justifiably expect - and indeed deserve - from the GOP Congress," the Utah Republican said on X.
Trump appointed Musk, the world's richest person, to lead a government cost-cutting and efficiency drive, during which he upended several federal agencies but ultimately failed to deliver the massive savings he had sought.
Musk left his formal role in the administration last week as his time as a special government employee with the Department of Government Efficiency came to an end.
The Tesla CEO also criticised the bill in an interview the week before he left, saying it will undermine DOGE's work.
Trump brushed off the criticism.
Musk came out against it even more strongly on Tuesday.
"It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt," Musk said on X.
The White House dismissed the most recent attack.
"Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said at a White House briefing.
"It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it."
Thune, who aims to pass the bill through his chamber in the next month, said he disagreed with Musk.
"My hope is that as he has an opportunity to further assess what this bill actually does, that he comes to a different conclusion," Thune, of South Dakota, told reporters.
"But nevertheless, I mean, we have a job to do."
Elon Musk has plunged into the congressional debate over US President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill, calling the measure a "disgusting abomination" that will increase the country's federal deficit in social media posts that fiscally hawkish Republicans quickly embraced.
"I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," the billionaire Musk wrote in an X post.
"This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination."
He added: "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."
The House of Representatives last month passed the bill by one vote after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure - which would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative accomplishment in his first term - would add $US3.8 trillion ($A5.9 trillion) to the federal government's $US36.2 trillion in debt.
The Senate, also controlled by Trump's Republicans, aims to pass the measure titled the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" in the next month although senators are expected to revise the House-passed version of the bill.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Musk's calculations were in error.
"It's very disappointing," Johnson told reporters.
"With all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong."
But two House Republicans - Representatives Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson - who opposed the measure went to Musk's social platform X to endorse his message.
"The Big Beautiful Tweet," Davidson said while reposting Musk's words.
Senator Mike Lee, one of at least four Republicans pushing for deeper spending cuts, also rallied to Musk in a tweet that called on party members to use the Trump bill and future spending measures to reduce the deficit.
"We must commit now to doing so, as this is what voters justifiably expect - and indeed deserve - from the GOP Congress," the Utah Republican said on X.
Trump appointed Musk, the world's richest person, to lead a government cost-cutting and efficiency drive, during which he upended several federal agencies but ultimately failed to deliver the massive savings he had sought.
Musk left his formal role in the administration last week as his time as a special government employee with the Department of Government Efficiency came to an end.
The Tesla CEO also criticised the bill in an interview the week before he left, saying it will undermine DOGE's work.
Trump brushed off the criticism.
Musk came out against it even more strongly on Tuesday.
"It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt," Musk said on X.
The White House dismissed the most recent attack.
"Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said at a White House briefing.
"It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it."
Thune, who aims to pass the bill through his chamber in the next month, said he disagreed with Musk.
"My hope is that as he has an opportunity to further assess what this bill actually does, that he comes to a different conclusion," Thune, of South Dakota, told reporters.
"But nevertheless, I mean, we have a job to do."
Elon Musk has plunged into the congressional debate over US President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill, calling the measure a "disgusting abomination" that will increase the country's federal deficit in social media posts that fiscally hawkish Republicans quickly embraced.
"I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," the billionaire Musk wrote in an X post.
"This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination."
He added: "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."
The House of Representatives last month passed the bill by one vote after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure - which would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative accomplishment in his first term - would add $US3.8 trillion ($A5.9 trillion) to the federal government's $US36.2 trillion in debt.
The Senate, also controlled by Trump's Republicans, aims to pass the measure titled the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" in the next month although senators are expected to revise the House-passed version of the bill.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Musk's calculations were in error.
"It's very disappointing," Johnson told reporters.
"With all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong."
But two House Republicans - Representatives Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson - who opposed the measure went to Musk's social platform X to endorse his message.
"The Big Beautiful Tweet," Davidson said while reposting Musk's words.
Senator Mike Lee, one of at least four Republicans pushing for deeper spending cuts, also rallied to Musk in a tweet that called on party members to use the Trump bill and future spending measures to reduce the deficit.
"We must commit now to doing so, as this is what voters justifiably expect - and indeed deserve - from the GOP Congress," the Utah Republican said on X.
Trump appointed Musk, the world's richest person, to lead a government cost-cutting and efficiency drive, during which he upended several federal agencies but ultimately failed to deliver the massive savings he had sought.
Musk left his formal role in the administration last week as his time as a special government employee with the Department of Government Efficiency came to an end.
The Tesla CEO also criticised the bill in an interview the week before he left, saying it will undermine DOGE's work.
Trump brushed off the criticism.
Musk came out against it even more strongly on Tuesday.
"It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt," Musk said on X.
The White House dismissed the most recent attack.
"Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said at a White House briefing.
"It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it."
Thune, who aims to pass the bill through his chamber in the next month, said he disagreed with Musk.
"My hope is that as he has an opportunity to further assess what this bill actually does, that he comes to a different conclusion," Thune, of South Dakota, told reporters.
"But nevertheless, I mean, we have a job to do."
Elon Musk has plunged into the congressional debate over US President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill, calling the measure a "disgusting abomination" that will increase the country's federal deficit in social media posts that fiscally hawkish Republicans quickly embraced.
"I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," the billionaire Musk wrote in an X post.
"This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination."
He added: "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."
The House of Representatives last month passed the bill by one vote after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure - which would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative accomplishment in his first term - would add $US3.8 trillion ($A5.9 trillion) to the federal government's $US36.2 trillion in debt.
The Senate, also controlled by Trump's Republicans, aims to pass the measure titled the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" in the next month although senators are expected to revise the House-passed version of the bill.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Musk's calculations were in error.
"It's very disappointing," Johnson told reporters.
"With all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong."
But two House Republicans - Representatives Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson - who opposed the measure went to Musk's social platform X to endorse his message.
"The Big Beautiful Tweet," Davidson said while reposting Musk's words.
Senator Mike Lee, one of at least four Republicans pushing for deeper spending cuts, also rallied to Musk in a tweet that called on party members to use the Trump bill and future spending measures to reduce the deficit.
"We must commit now to doing so, as this is what voters justifiably expect - and indeed deserve - from the GOP Congress," the Utah Republican said on X.
Trump appointed Musk, the world's richest person, to lead a government cost-cutting and efficiency drive, during which he upended several federal agencies but ultimately failed to deliver the massive savings he had sought.
Musk left his formal role in the administration last week as his time as a special government employee with the Department of Government Efficiency came to an end.
The Tesla CEO also criticised the bill in an interview the week before he left, saying it will undermine DOGE's work.
Trump brushed off the criticism.
Musk came out against it even more strongly on Tuesday.
"It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt," Musk said on X.
The White House dismissed the most recent attack.
"Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said at a White House briefing.
"It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it."
Thune, who aims to pass the bill through his chamber in the next month, said he disagreed with Musk.
"My hope is that as he has an opportunity to further assess what this bill actually does, that he comes to a different conclusion," Thune, of South Dakota, told reporters.
"But nevertheless, I mean, we have a job to do."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Iran's latest decision reveals flaw in Trump's big plan
If before the strike Iran seemed able to race for a bomb but was not yet quite ready, after the strike it is dependent on playing a giant game of nuclear three-card monte. Iran will keep shuffling its nuclear assets around, as the Mossad, US intelligence agencies and the banned UN inspectors will constantly be looking for human intelligence or satellite evidence of the tunnels and caves where the projects might be hidden. 'After the strike the old problem remains: Iran has enriched uranium, it has centrifuges and there are no inspectors,' said Jake Sullivan, who helped refine strike plans against the Iranian program when he served as national security adviser under president Joe Biden, who decided against using them. 'With mowing the lawn, you have uncertainty, instability and continued military action,' he said. 'Yet if you try to do a deal, President Trump will confront the same problem he had before: Do you insist on complete dismantlement, which Iran probably won't agree to even now? Or try to contain the program,' allowing for some form of low-level, highly inspected enrichment, 'in a way that gives you confidence they can't go for a nuke?' The Pentagon is not exactly encouraging that confidence. Its chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, said on Wednesday (Thursday AEST) that he believed Iran's nuclear program had been pushed back 'probably closer to two years' – an assessment that, if accurate, would mean that Trump bought less time with the attack than president Barack Obama did when he signed the 2015 accord that froze Iran's program. With their main production facilities buried beneath the rubble, the only leverage the Iranians have these days is the suggestion – with no proof – that their stockpile of 10 or so bombs' worth of fuel survived, and their surviving nuclear scientists have access to it. Maybe they are bluffing. But it is the best card they have to play. And the only way to be sure, Sullivan noted, is 'with a deal, one that ensures every inch of the program is inspected'. Other experts agree. 'We can't yet judge how likely the covert nuclear weapons production scenario really is,' said Robert Einhorn, a former US diplomat and Brookings Institution nuclear expert who dealt with the Iranian program a decade ago. But, he noted, 'it is a potential pathway for Iran building a small nuclear arsenal relatively soon, and so we must do what we can to block it', chiefly getting International Atomic Energy Agency monitors back into the country's widely distributed nuclear facilities, including two suspected new enrichment centres. Iranian officials have accused the agency's director-general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, of complicity in the attacks. Grossi says he had no involvement or advance warning. Early talk of a meeting between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to reach a post-strike nuclear deal – presumably a more restrictive one than was on the table before the attack – has melted away, at least for now. The Iranians insist they want assurances they will not be attacked during negotiations again. It is unclear that they would believe such a commitment even if it is offered, since Trump declared in mid-June that he was giving them two weeks to respond to a final US offer. The B-2 bombers were over their targets two days later. With Iran's leaders portraying the end of the conflict with Israel as a victory, and downplaying the damage done by US strikes, experts see little hope of an accord that would satisfy both sides. 'They are not going to agree to unconditional surrender next week or even next month,' said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, using the term Trump employed before he ordered military action. 'I think that's a process which plays out the more we tighten the economic grip on their ability to export oil.' The central question, of course, is what lesson the Iranians emerge with as they survey the damage done. Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth have declared there is only one lesson for the Iranians: their nuclear program is over. That is why Trump and Hegseth are so invested in the narrative that the program was 'obliterated', suggesting it could never be revived. Loading Most experts expect Iran to come to a different conclusion; that countries that inch toward a nuclear weapon – but stop short of crossing the line, as Iran did – get bombed. In contrast, countries that race for an arsenal do not. The Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981 to keep Iraq from getting the bomb, though Saddam Hussein resurrected the program before the first Gulf War, only to have it discovered and dismantled. (He famously did not build it anew before the US-led invasion in 2003.) A little more than two decades later, Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nascent nuclear program, before many of the components were unboxed, a move he may have regretted as he was chased across Libya and killed eight years later. In 2007, Israeli jets took out a Syrian nuclear reactor that was being constructed with the help of North Korea, to prevent the Assad government from going down the nuclear road. In all three cases, the countries had not yet made it to the cusp of a bomb. Loading Iran may conclude from the events of the past 10 days that its wiser choice for the future is to follow the path of North Korea. Rather than walk up to the nuclear line, it stepped over it, conducting its first nuclear test in 2006, when president George W. Bush was in office. Since then, North Korea has developed an arsenal of 60 or more nuclear weapons, experts say, and it is creeping up on a capability to reach the United States with its missiles – one of the reasons Trump is pushing so hard for a 'Golden Dome' defensive shield. One former senior intelligence official noted that if Iran already had nuclear weapons, rather than inching toward them, neither Israel nor the United States would have taken the risk of attacking. It is a mistake, he added, that the Iranians are not likely to make twice.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Does Sir Joh remind you of someone else?
Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Trump's tax-cut bill heads to a final vote in US House
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default.
