Latest news with #CapitolBuilding
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Everyone's A Critic After Trump Gets A New Portrait In Colorado Capitol
When it comes to portraits of Donald Trump, everyone is truly a critic ― especially the president himself. Colorado lawmakers discovered that earlier this year when Trump griped that a portrait of himself that's been hanging in the state Capitol for nearly six years was 'purposefully distorted.' Although Sarah Boardman, the artist who painted the portrait, said she 'completed the portrait accurately, without 'purposeful distortion,' political bias, or any attempt to caricature the subject, actual or implied,' her opinions were brushed aside. The complaining apparently worked, because lawmakers quickly announced Boardman's portrait would be removed and replaced with something more to the president's liking. The new portrait by Tempe, Ariz., artist Vanessa Horabuena was donated by the White House a month or so ago and was placed in the Capitol this week. The new portrait makes Trump resemble NBC Dateline's Keith Morrison, while the old one made him resemble JD Vance (sans beard and alleged 'guyliner'). You can compare and contrast the new work on the left with the old portrait on the right. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and many people had thoughts about the new portrait. The Colorado State Capitol replaced Trump's another terrible Trump portrait. Bold choice. — Gabe Sanchez (@iamgabesanchez) July 2, 2025 What do you think about the new Trump portrait👺at the Colorado State Capitol? Not really an upgrade from the abomination they had before. 😆😁😄😆 — LeftLaneLois 🔅Fascism is not American!🔅 (@lois_left) July 2, 2025 Trump's 'Worst' Portrait Ever Replaced With One Donated by White House what a crock of crap from this narcissist thug Trump White House — alexander bowen (@alexand65349161) July 2, 2025 A terrible portrait replaced by a 'Worst' Portrait Ever Replaced With One Donated by White House — ken benson Shah of Greater Idaho🤠🏁 (@borntoraisehogs) July 2, 2025 Trump is finally happy with his new portrait at the Colorado Capitol — they replaced the one he cried was 'distorted.'But now the real question is:Which one's actually distorted — the painting, or the man in it? 😂🎨#Trump#PortraitDrama#MAGAArtCritic# — ARIKA🇮🇳🚩 (@nidhisj2001) July 2, 2025 🗣 Trump happy with his new portraitThe Colorado State Capitol replaced the painting he whined was 'distorted' with a new which one looks more distorted to you? — brane mijatovic (@brane_mija64426) July 1, 2025 🗣 Trump happy with his new portraitThe Colorado State Capitol replaced the painting he whined was 'distorted' with a new which one looks more distorted to you? — brane mijatovic (@brane_mija64426) July 1, 2025 The new Trump portrait is beautiful. — Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) July 1, 2025 Are Ridiculous Pro-Trump Drawings Art? A HuffPost Discussion. 'Full-Blown Meltdown': Trump Flips Out Over A Not-Very-Flattering Official Portrait Trump's Freakout Over 'Distorted' Portrait Exposes Quite A Pattern, Experts Say
Forbes
02-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Senate Passes One Big Beautiful Bill Despite One Big Not-So-Beautiful Price Tag
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 1: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) pauses while speaking to reporters off the Senate floor after the Senate passes President Donald Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Act at the U.S. Capitol Building on July 1, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by) Getty Images Senate Republicans narrowly passed President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' with a 51-50 vote after three Republicans—(Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.)—joined Democrats in voting no. Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaker vote. The tax provisions in the Senate would make permanent a number of the expiring tax cuts contained in Trump's signature 2017 tax legislation— the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWB Model), a nonpartisan, research-based initiative that provides an economic analysis of public policy's fiscal impact, making those cuts permanent would increase the deficit by $4.3 trillion over 10 years. These changes would be partly offset by spending cuts of $1.460 trillion for a total conventional cost of $3.104 trillion. The PWB Model analysis scored the legislation against a current law baseline. That's also how the Joint Committee on Taxation originally scored the bill. The baseline impacts how the cost of extending tax cuts is calculated (that's called scoring) and how it impacts the overall budget. As you know from past bills, including the Bush tax cuts, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, it has long been the case that bills are scored based on the cost to move forward based on current law (so, in all of those examples, any provisions that were set to expire are reset to zero while those previously made permanent are ignored). Senate Republicans had requested that the JCT rescore it using a new approach called a current policy baseline. With a current policy baseline, extending provisions that are set to expire are scored as having zero cost. The Parliamentarian ruled that the new approach breaks the rules—this is consistent with precedent. With a current law baseline, the cost of the extensions is fully counted. Senate Committees According to the PWB Model analysis, increases in spending under the Armed Services, Judiciary, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees would add $290 billion to the deficit. While other committees proposed net spending cuts or revenue increases, the savings amount to only $1.5 trillion, offsetting less than one-third of the $4.6 trillion increase in deficits from tax cuts and spending increases. You can see how those costs are expected to play out here: Penn Wharton Budget Model Analysis, Senate Bill Kelly Phillips Erb (You can read more about the TCJA extensions as they originally appeared in the House version of the bill here.) Major Spending Cuts The Senate bill includes changes to health programs, including Medicaid. Notably, it would cut Medicaid spending by imposing work requirements, restricting state-level taxes on healthcare providers that receive federal matching funds, increasing the frequency of eligibility checks, changing Medicaid eligibility requirements based on immigration status, and phasing down state-directed payments to providers to align with Medicare rates. Overall, cuts to Medicaid would reduce the federal deficit by more than $900 billion. The bill also reduces spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) by $186 billion over ten years. The cost doesn't just disappear—it shifts the responsibility for payment to the states with a new cost-sharing formula. It would also create additional work documentation requirements, shift administrative costs to states, and make other changes to reduce federal SNAP costs. The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee eliminates subsidized and income-driven loan repayment plans, imposes new limits on student borrowing, and tightens the eligibility requirements for Pell Grants. Altogether, it would reduce spending by $350 billion over the budget window. Impact To The Federal Debt Overall, the PWB Model analysis predicts that the bill would increase debt by 7.6% over 10 years and decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.3% over the same period. That's different than the impact to the federal deficit. Here's the quick difference between deficit and debt: The federal deficit is the excess of expenditures over revenue in a fiscal year. In simple terms, if we spend more than we take in, we have a deficit. If we spend exactly what we take in, we achieve a balanced budget. If we take in more than we spend, we have a surplus. The deficit is recalculated annually based on the shortfall or surplus each month. If there is a deficit, the Treasury borrows money to make up the difference. The Treasury accomplishes this by selling securities like T-bills, notes, and savings bonds. The federal debt is essentially the total of the deficits. So, if we owe $800 million one year and it's not repaid, and in another year we owe $500 million that is also not repaid, we accumulate a debt of $1.3 billion. Make sense? Since this amount represents borrowed money, we also pay interest on it, causing it to continue growing even if we are not actively adding to it. Next Steps Now that the bill has passed the Senate, it moves back to the House. Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford to lose three votes—the last iteration in the House passed 215-214. The versions passed in the House and Senate must match exactly for the bill to become law. Forbes What's Comes Next For The One Big Beautiful Bill Act By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes As The Byrd Bath Continues, Here's A Look At What Will Likely Be Out Of The One Big Beautiful Bill (Updated) By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes House Passes Trump Tax Bill After Marathon Session, Now It Moves To The Senate By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes A Guide To The Tax Cuts In (And Out) Of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' By Kelly Phillips Erb
Forbes
01-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Senate Passes One Big Beautiful Bill Including Pass Through Entity Relief
The Senate passed their amended version of the One Big Beautiful Bill today, in a vote of 50-50 with Vice President Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. Republican Senators Rand Paul, Susan Collins, and Thom Tills voted no. The bill must now be passed by the House of Representatives, where only three Republican votes can be lost. WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 1: (EDITOR'S NOTE: Alternative Crop) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) ... More (C), accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) (L) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) (R), speaks to reporters off the Senate floor after the Senate passes President Donald Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Act at the U.S. Capitol Building on July 1, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was the tie-breaking vote as President Donald Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Act passes in the Senate. (Photo by) House leadership has indicated that they will vote on the bill tomorrow. If the House passes the Senate version, it will go to the President for his signature. If the House makes any changes to the bill, it will have to go back to the Senate for approval. While both the House and Senate bills proposed language that was extremely harmful to the pass-through entity community, the final Senate bill passed made significant modifications that will encourage continued investments via pass through entities. Pass Through Entity Tax (PTET) Payments: While both the House and the original Senate bill limited PTET deductions, no such language was included in the final bill passed by the Senate. In the original bill, the Senate has limited PTET payments to the greater of $40,000 or 50% of the PTET payment made. The removal of the language in the final Senate bill is a welcome relief, confirming that entity type should not dictate whether state and local taxes are deductible. The Senate bill, similar to the House bill, increases the individual state and local tax (SALT) cap from $10,000 to $40,000 staring in 2025. However, the SALT cap would be reduced for taxpayers with modified AGI over $500,000, but the overall SALT deduction cannot go below $10,000 ($5,000 for MFS). If a married filing joint taxpayers modified AGI exceeds $600,000, the SALT cap would be $10,000. Under the Senate bill passed, PTET deductions do not fall under the SALT cap, and would be fully deductible. Excess Business Loss (EBL) Provision: Both the House and the original Senate bill required that any EBL limitations be carried forward to the following year, and again included in the excess business loss limitation calculation. This is different from the current law, that allows for any excess business loss to be considered a net operating loss, and carried forward for use in future years. The original proposals essentially limited individual taxpayers and only allowed EBL carryforwards to be utilized on trade or business income. The bill passed by the Senate makes the EBL provisions permanent, but does not require the EBL to be carried forward in the EBL calculation for the following year. Instead, the bill would allow for the current law to remain and an EBL to be characterized as a net operating loss. The net operating losses can offset future year up to 80% of total taxable income in future years. Section 199A: The final Senate bill makes permanent the 199A deduction, and provides for a 20% deduction for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025. The House bill provided for an increase in the 199A deduction to 23%. The 199A deduction is eventually phased out for specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) when an owner's taxable income exceeds a certain threshold amount. Trades or businesses that are subject to this phase-out include businesses involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics or financial services. Current law starts to phase-out a SSTB's 199A deduction when taxable income exceeds $100,000 for married filing joint taxpayers ($50,000 for all others). The Senate bill would increase the threshold amount to $150,000 for married filing joint taxpayers ($75,000 for all others). In addition, the Senate bill provides for a $400 minimum 199A deduction if a taxpayer materially participates in a qualified trade or business and has income of at least $1,000. The Senate bill would enact these changes for taxable year beginning after December 31, 2025.
Forbes
01-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Senate Passes Massive Changes To Student Loan Borrowing And Repayment
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 1: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) (C), accompanied by Sen. John ... More Barrasso (R-WY) (L) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) (R), speaks to reporters off the Senate floor after the Senate passes President Donald Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Act at the U.S. Capitol Building on July 1, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was the tie-breaking vote as President Donald Trump's so-called "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," Act passes in the Senate. (Photo by) On Tuesday, the Senate passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' after multiple days of debates and minor changes. The sweeping legislation will impact nearly all facets of American life, but will specifically have major changes to higher education. The student loan provisions have some of the most significant higher education reforms we've seen in decades, and will impact both current borrowers and future borrowers. On the borrower side, the bill eliminates the Grad PLUS loan program, and introduces new caps on Direct Graduate Loans and Parent PLUS Loans. For future Parent PLUS loans, both repayment plan options and loan forgiveness options are severely restricted. On the repayment side, the bill phases out several popular income-driven repayment plans, and introduces a new repayment plan called the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP). The bill now moves back to the House of Representatives, who have to have a final vote before it moves to the President to be signed into law. President Trump has publicly said he wants to sign this bill into law by July 4, and the timeline to make that happen is possible. Borrowing Caps For Parents And Graduate Students One of the biggest changes is how families will pay for college. For undergraduates, the bill severely limits Parent PLUS loan borrowing to $20,000 per year and $65,000 in total per child. Currently, Parent PLUS loans have no borrowing caps. The implications for this are big, especially since the annual cap and total cap don't align - meaning if parents are hitting the annual cap, they can only borrow for three years of college. It's also important to note that there were no changes to undergraduate borrowing caps, which haven't been adjusted since 2008. This has led more families to Parent PLUS loans over the years. On the graduate student side, the bill eliminates Grad PLUS loans. Graduate students will now face strict borrowing caps for Direct Stafford Loans. Graduate students will be able to borrow $20,500 annually, with a $100,000 lifetime cap. Professional students will be able to borrow $50,000 annually, with a $200,000 lifetime cap. While these limits may seem high, they are a drop from the current Grad PLUS limits, which were capped at the total cost of attendance. Given that the cost of medical or dental school can exceed the $200,000 limit, it's making many prospective students worry they may not be able to afford to finish their education. The net result is that future college students lose big with the Big Beautiful Bill. Repayment Plan Changes Affecting Millions On the other side of the spectrum, most borrowers repaying their student loans will face changes as well. The bill eliminates popular repayment plans like PAYE, SAVE, and ICR. Borrowers in these plans will need to migrate to IBR between July 2026 and June 2028. Some borrowers, like those in SAVE, will likely have faster timelines. The Senate bill does keep both versions of IBR available, depending on when you first borrowed your student loans. Old IBR, for pre-2014 loans, will have payments set to 15% of discretionary income and forgiveness after 25 years, while New IBR, for post-2014 loans, will have payments set to 10% of discretionary income with loan forgiveness after 20 years. For new borrowers there will be two options, the Standard Repayment Plan (which will now have a repayment timeline based on loan balance), and the new income-based Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP). New borrowers after July 1, 2026 will only have a choice between these two plans. Existing borrowers can opt into RAP after July 2026, and if they do, prior payments under a qualifying repayument plan will count towards loan forgiveness. RAP sets monthly payments as a percentage of adjusted gross income, ranging from 1% to 10%. It also gives a dependent discount of $50 per dependent per month, and a principal subsidy for some borrowers of $50 per month. The downside is that loan forgiveness under RAP happens after 30 years. Here's a Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) Calculator that you can use to estimate your monthly payment under the new plan. Public Service Loan Forgiveness Changes There are some changes to note about Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF). While the bill didn't change rules for medical residents (like was planned in the House bill), the Senate did remove PSLF as an option for future Parent PLUS loan borrowers. After July 1, 2026, Parent PLUS loans will be excluded from all income-driven repayment plans (including RAP). The result is that they won't have any PSLF-eligible repayment plan options to pursue. Existing Parent PLUS loan borrowers can consolidate their loans get an on income-driven repayment plan (ICR for single consolidation, any IDR plan for double consolidation) by June 30, 2026. They will then be able to transition into amended IBR between July 1, 2026 and June 30, 2028, as the rules come out from the Department of Education. This is a big loss for Parent PLUS borrowers. What Happens Next The Senate-passed bill will now head back tot he House, where it could face changes or amendments. However, if they want to make the July 4 timeline, they would have to pass the bill as-is. There's still time for families to contact their Congressperson to express their opinion on the bill, but the window is closing. If signed into law, the Department of Education would start moving on these changes pretty quickly to achieve the 2026 timelines required.
Forbes
01-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Senate Passes Trump's Megabill: Here's What's In And Out
The Senate approved President Donald Trump's signature policy bill Tuesday afternoon after a record-breaking 25 hours of negotiations to win over some final Republican holdouts. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) walks toward the Senate floor after the Senate stayed in ... More session throughout the night at the U.S. Capitol Building on July 1, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by) Getty Images The Senate passed the legislation 51-50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. Three Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins, Maine, Rand Paul, Ky., and Thom Tillis, N.C..—voted against the bill. This is a developing story and will be updated.
