Connect with us

Government

Senate Passes Delayed Budget Deal in Bid to End U.S. Shutdown

Published

on

donald-trump
  • Senate Passes Delayed Budget Deal in Bid to End U.S. Shutdown

The Senate passed a two-year budget agreement early Friday that would boost federal spending by $300 billion and suspend the debt ceiling for a year, as lawmakers sought to end a partial government shutdown that began at midnight after Congress missed a funding deadline.

The measure passed 71-28 after a day-long delay prompted by objections from Republican Senator Rand Paul over its cost. It now moves to the GOP-controlled House, where opposition from many Democrats and a faction of conservatives threatened to scuttle the bipartisan deal. House leaders are planning a vote early Friday morning.

If it passes the House, funding would be restored before most government workers arrive at their jobs and financial markets open. A failure would trigger the second full government shutdown in three weeks and would be another signal to voters and investors of Congress’s dysfunction.

The drama was playing out against a backdrop of tumbling global stock markets. The benchmark S&P 500 index fell 3.75 percent Thursday — down more than 10 percent since its Jan. 26 peak.

The budget accord appeared to be headed for quick passage in the Senate on Thursday with a strong endorsement from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and backing from President Donald Trump.

Senator’s Protest

But Paul of Kentucky, protesting the huge spending increases that are central to the deal, delayed the vote until after midnight deadline to fund the government by demanding a vote on an amendment to keep existing budget limits in place.

“Are we to be conservative all the time or only when we’re in the minority?” he said.

Objections to increased domestic spending were being raised by a group of Republican conservatives in the House. Representative Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus called the deal “fiscally irresponsible.”

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, analyzing a report from the Congressional Budget Office, said the deal would add a net $320 billion to deficits over a decade, or $418 billion counting the additional interest costs. That’s in addition the estimated $1 trillion added to the deficit over a decade by the Republican tax cut legislation passed in December.

Democrats Object

On the other side, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called the agreement “a good bill” but said she would vote against it because House Speaker Paul Ryan refused to promise an open debate and vote on immigration legislation.

With the prospects of Republican defections denying Ryan a majority, many — though not all — Democrats lined up behind Pelosi.

Representative Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, urged his party to kill the bill unless it includes a path to protecting young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children and have been protected under the soon-to-end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. He said that if the legislation passes, “all the leverage is gone” to force a solution for the young immigrants.

Ryan’s Pitch

Ryan made a public pitch for votes on Thursday, emphasizing the increased funding for the Pentagon to assuage the concerns of Republicans who’ve said they’ll vote no because it also raises spending on domestic programs. But his promise to bring up an immigration bill “that the president will sign” fell short of demands from Democrats.

Before the Senate adjourned just before 2 a.m. McConnell set up a procedural vote for Monday on shell legislation that will be used as the vehicle for the chamber’s debate on immigration. That was a key part of his agreement with Schumer that ended the last shutdown.

The budget measure would temporarily finance the government at current levels through March 23 while lawmakers fill in the details on longer-term spending, which includes raising the caps on defense spending by $80 billion over current law in this fiscal year and $85 billion in the one that begins Oct. 1. Non-defense spending would rise by $63 billion this year and $68 billion next year.

It’s filled with long-stalled or long-sought priorities for both sides. Republican defense hawks get more funds for the military, while Democrats get extra money for domestic priorities like combating opioid addiction, the National Institutes of Health budget and community health centers.

The agreement also repeals a piece of Obamacare — a Medicare cost-cutting board aimed at ensuring the program’s long-term solvency. And it would provide $90 billion in disaster assistance for California, Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The bill authorizes the sale of 100 million barrels from the Strategic Oil Reserve to pay for some of the new spending, and raises customs and airport security fees in the next decade. It also renews a number of expired tax breaks for calendar 2017 including for cellulosic biofuel, while extending a nuclear power tax credit that was scheduled to expire so that it is available after 2020.

Is the CEO/Founder of Investors King Limited. A proven foreign exchange research analyst and a published author on Yahoo Finance, Businessinsider, Nasdaq, Entrepreneur.com, Investorplace, and many more. He has over two decades of experience in global financial markets.

Continue Reading
Comments

Government

Netanyahu Stands Firm as US Halts Bomb Shipment Over Rafah Invasion Warning

Published

on

Netanyahu

Amidst escalating tensions between Israel and the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adopted a defiant stance following the US decision to halt a shipment of bombs and warned against Israel’s potential invasion of the southern Gaza city of Rafah.

In a bold statement, Netanyahu declared, “If we have to stand alone, we will stand alone,” emphasizing Israel’s resolve to pursue its objectives despite opposition.

The Prime Minister’s comments, delivered via social media and a subsequent interview with American talk show host Dr. Phil, underscore Israel’s determination to address security threats posed by the Gaza Strip, particularly by Hamas militants operating in Rafah.

Netanyahu reiterated the necessity of military action in Rafah to eliminate the remaining Hamas battalions, condemned Hamas’s history of violence and reiterated Israel’s commitment to achieving victory and ensuring the safety of its citizens.

The US administration, led by President Joe Biden, expressed concerns over the potential humanitarian impact of an Israeli invasion of Rafah, prompting the decision to withhold additional offensive weapons shipments to Israel.

Biden’s statement echoed broader international apprehensions about the escalation of violence and civilian casualties in the conflict-stricken region.

However, Netanyahu remained resolute in Israel’s approach, asserting the country’s right to defend itself against security threats. He emphasized Israel’s efforts to minimize civilian casualties and facilitate the evacuation of civilians from Rafah before any military action.

Despite the US’s decision to pause the bomb shipment, Netanyahu affirmed Israel’s commitment to its longstanding alliance with the US. He acknowledged past disagreements between the two nations but expressed optimism about resolving current tensions through dialogue and cooperation.

In response, White House officials reiterated the US’s support for Israel’s security while urging restraint and emphasizing the need to avoid actions that could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The administration clarified that the decision to halt the bomb shipment was aimed at preventing potential civilian casualties in Rafah.

The confrontation between Israel and the US underscores the complexity of navigating regional conflicts and balancing strategic interests. As tensions persist, both nations face the challenge of reconciling their respective security imperatives with broader humanitarian concerns, seeking to avert further escalation while addressing the root causes of the conflict in the Middle East.

Continue Reading

Government

EFCC Declares Former Kogi Governor, Yahaya Bello, Wanted Over N80.2 Billion Money Laundering Allegations

Published

on

Yahaya Bello

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has escalated its pursuit of justice by declaring former Kogi State Governor, Yahaya Bello, wanted over alleged money laundering amounting to N80.2 billion.

In a first-of-its-kind action, the EFCC announced Bello’s wanted status in connection with the alleged embezzlement of funds during his tenure as governor.

The commission, armed with a 19-count criminal charge, accused Bello and his cohorts of conspiring to launder the hefty sum, which was purportedly diverted from state coffers for personal gain.

The declaration of Bello as a wanted fugitive came after a series of failed attempts by the EFCC to effect his arrest.

Despite an ex-parte order from Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, mandating the EFCC to apprehend and produce Bello in court for arraignment, the former governor managed to evade capture with the reported assistance of his successor, Governor Usman Ododo.

This latest development shows the challenges faced by law enforcement agencies in holding powerful individuals accountable for their actions.

However, it also demonstrates the unwavering commitment of the EFCC to uphold the rule of law and ensure that justice is served, irrespective of the status or influence of the accused.

In response to the EFCC’s declaration, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, issued a stern warning to Bello, stating that fleeing from the law would not resolve the allegations against him.

Fagbemi urged Bello to honor the EFCC’s invitation and cooperate with the investigation process, saying it is important to uphold the rule of law and respect the authority of law enforcement agencies.

The EFCC’s pursuit of Bello underscores the agency’s mandate to combat corruption and financial crimes, sending a strong message that individuals implicated in corrupt practices will be held accountable for their actions.

Continue Reading

Government

Concerns Mount Over Security as National Identity Card Issuance Shifts to Banks

Published

on

NIMC enrolment

Amidst the National Identity Management Commission’s (NIMC) recent announcement that the issuance of the proposed new national identity card will be facilitated through applicants’ respective banks, concerns are escalating regarding the security implications of involving financial institutions in the distribution process.

The federal government, in collaboration with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Inter-bank Settlement System (NIBSS), introduced a new identity card with payment functionality, aimed at streamlining access to social and financial services.

However, the decision to utilize banks as distribution channels has sparked apprehension among industry stakeholders.

Mr. Kayode Adegoke, Head of Corporate Communications at NIMC, clarified that applicants would request the card by providing their National Identification Number (NIN) through various channels, including online portals, NIMC offices, or their respective banks.

Adegoke emphasized that the new National ID Card would serve as a single, multipurpose card, encompassing payment functionality, government services, and travel documentation.

Despite NIMC’s assurances, concerns have been raised regarding the necessity and security implications of introducing a new identity card system when an operational one already exists.

Chief Deolu Ogunbanjo, President of the National Association of Telecoms Subscribers, questioned the rationale behind the new General Multipurpose Card (GMPC), citing NIMC’s existing mandate to issue such cards under Act No. 23 of 2007.

Ogunbanjo highlighted the successful implementation of MobileID by NIMC, which has provided identity verification for over 15 million individuals.

He expressed apprehension about integrating the new ID card with existing MobileID systems and raised concerns about data privacy and unauthorized duplication of ID cards.

Moreover, stakeholders are seeking clarification on the responsibilities for card blocking, replacement, and delivery in case of loss or theft, given the involvement of multiple parties, including banks, in the issuance process.

The shift towards utilizing banks for identity card issuance raises fundamental questions about data security, privacy, and the integrity of the identification process.

With financial institutions playing a pivotal role in distributing sensitive government documents, there are valid concerns about potential vulnerabilities and risks associated with this approach.

As the debate surrounding the security implications of the new national identity card continues to intensify, stakeholders are calling for greater transparency, accountability, and collaboration between government agencies and financial institutions to address these concerns effectively.

The paramount importance of safeguarding citizens’ personal information and ensuring the integrity of the identity verification process cannot be overstated, especially in an era of increasing digital interconnectedness and heightened cybersecurity threats.

Continue Reading
Advertisement




Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending