Politics
How to Enforce a Debt Deal: Through ‘Meat-Ax’ Cuts Nobody Wants
The bipartisan legislation Congress passed this week to suspend the debt ceiling and impose spending caps contains an arcane but important provision aimed at forcing both sides to follow through on the deal struck by President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
The 99-page measure suspends the $31.4 trillion borrowing limit until January 2025. It cuts federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by effectively freezing some funding that had been projected to increase next year and then limiting spending to 1 percent growth in 2025.
But it also contains a number of side deals that never appear in its text but that were crucial to forging the bipartisan compromise, and that allowed both sides to claim they had gotten what they wanted out of it. To try to ensure that Congress abides by the agreement, negotiators used a time-tested technique that lawmakers have turned to for decades to enforce efforts to reduce the deficit: the threat of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts if they do not finish their work.
Here’s how it works.
A 1 percent cut unless spending bills are passed.
Congress is supposed to pass 12 individual spending bills each year to keep the government funded. But for decades, lawmakers, unable to agree on those measures, have lumped them together into one enormous piece of legislation referred to as an “omnibus” spending bill and pushed them through against the threat of a shutdown.
The debt-limit agreement imposes an automatic 1 percent cut on all spending — including on military and veterans programs, which were exempted from the caps in the compromise bill — unless all dozen bills are passed and signed into law by the end of the calendar year. Mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare and Social Security would be exempt.
A wrinkle is that, because the fiscal year that drives Congress’s spending cycle ends before the calendar year does — on Sept. 30 — Congress would still need to pass a short-term bill to fund the government from October through December to avoid a shutdown.
Republicans and Democrats both dread the cuts.
The measure is a version of a plan offered by Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, a key vote to advancing the bill through the Rules Committee, who said he believed it would help avoid the Democratic-controlled Senate using the specter of a shutdown to force the House to swallow a bloated spending bill at the end of the year.
“You get threatened and ransomed with a shutdown,” Mr. Massie said in an interview in late April describing the plan. “They’ll tell you, ‘If you don’t pass the Senate bill, there’s going to be a shutdown.’ I think we need to take that leverage away from anybody who would risk a shutdown to get more spending. Just take that off the table.”
Some Republicans, including defense hawks, are livid about the measure, arguing that it would subject the Pentagon to irresponsible cuts. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee and its defense subcommittee, called it a “harmful” provision that would leave a “threat hanging over” the Defense Department.
“It would trigger an automatic, meat-ax, indiscriminate, across-the-board cut in our already inadequate defense budget and in the domestic, discretionary nondefense funding,” Ms. Collins said.
Democrats, too, have a major incentive to avoid the cuts, since they have resisted reducing funding for federal programs all along.
Without spending bills, major parts of the debt deal will die.
Both parties stand to lose victories gained through handshake agreements during negotiations if Congress cannot pass its appropriations bills. Neither the White House nor House Republicans have published a full accounting of the agreements that do not appear in legislative text, but some have become clear.
The deals allow Republicans to claim they are making deep cuts to certain spending categories while letting Democrats mitigate the pain of those cuts in the funding bills.
One unwritten but agreed-upon compromise allows appropriators to repurpose $10 billion a year in 2024 and 2025 from the I.R.S. — a key priority of Republicans, who had opposed the additional enforcement funding championed by Mr. Biden and Democrats.
Another side agreement, sought by Democrats, that would evaporate if the spending bills were not written designated $23 billion a year in domestic spending outside military funding as “emergency” spending, basically exempting that money from the caps in the deal.
Jim Tankersley contributed reporting.
Politics
Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment
A federal judge in Illinois has found that the Constitution protects the gun rights of noncitizens who enter the United States illegally.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday ruled that a federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning firearms is unconstitutional as applied to defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. The court found that while the federal ban is “facially constitutional,” there is no historical tradition of firearm regulation that permits the government to deprive a noncitizen who has never been convicted of a violent crime from exercising his Second Amendment rights.
“The noncitizen possession statute … violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”
Coleman, a President Obama appointee, cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established a new standard to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, a multitude of federal and state gun control measures have been challenged in courts with mixed results.
DELAWARE BILL REQUIRING GUN BUYERS TO BE FINGERPRINTED, TRAINED, SET TO BECOME LAW
In this case, U.S. v. Carbajal-Flores, the court considered whether people who enter the country illegally can be banned from owning firearms.
Carbajal-Flores is an illegal immigrant who, on June 1, 2020, was found to be in possession of a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. He was subsequently charged with violating a federal law that prohibits any noncitizen who is not legally authorized to be in the U.S. from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
In an April 2022 decision, Coleman denied Carbajal-Flores’ first motion to dismiss his indictment, finding that the ban was constitutional. However, Carbajal-Flores asked the court to reconsider that ruling following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and appellate decisions in the Third and Seventh Circuit that considered whether people convicted of non-violent crimes can be prohibited from possessing firearms.
CONGRESS POISED TO ROLL BACK ‘VETERAN GUN BAN,’ WITH RELUCTANT BIDEN BACKING
Upon review, Coleman concluded that Carbajal-Flores’ illegally present status was not sufficient to deny him Second Amendment rights. The judge said the “plain text” of the Constitution “presumptively protects firearms possession by undocumented persons.”
“Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” the judge wrote. “Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants.”
The court determined that because there is insufficient evidence to suggest Carbajal-Flores is a danger to society, there is no historical analogue that would permit the federal government to deny him his gun rights.
NRA SLAMS BIDEN’S SOTU SPEECH AS ATTACK ON ‘THE VERY FABRIC OF AMERICAN FREEDOM’
“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.”
The ruling has divided gun rights activists, with some arguing that noncitizens should not have rights protected by the Constitution.
Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Fox News Digital his group “has historically recognized the dangers unchecked illegal immigration presents, chiefly of which is a serious potential to swing the balance of power into the hands of anti-gun politicians.”
Pratt reiterated GOA does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants.
“In this underlying ruling, the Second Amendment community undoubtedly has mixed feelings, because while illegal aliens are most certainly not part of ‘the People,’ everyone has a God-given right to defend themselves against violent acts like rape and murder,” he said.
“Of course, the courts wouldn’t have to decide this question if Joe Biden and the Democratic Party would simply secure our borders.”
Politics
Trump sues ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation
Former President Trump is suing TV journalist George Stephanopoulos and ABC News for defamation for saying he raped advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.
On a March 10 edition of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the anchor said Trump was “liable for rape” during his interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). Stephanopoulos was pressing Mace, a rape victim herself, on how she could rationalize supporting Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy.
Trump’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Miami, said the jury in the Carroll case found him liable for sexual abuse — not rape — and that Stephanopoulos defamed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by using the term.
A jury ruled in January that Trump must pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages after finding Trump liable for defamation, the second case related to a 1996 incident that occurred when the two met in a New York department store.
In May, jurors rejected Carroll’s allegation that she was raped but found Trump responsible for the lesser charge of sexual abuse, along with defamation, and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump, who denied that the incident occurred, repeatedly mocked Carroll over her claims.
Trump’s suit cites how Stephanopoulos himself reported that Trump was not liable for rape when he reported on the verdict of the previous Carroll case on May 10.
The suit also noted that the headline on an ABC News online story on the Mace interview first used the word “rape” and was later changed to “sexual abuse.”
Trump’s suit is asking for unspecified damages.
ABC News has not issued a comment on the matter.
The tense “This Week” interview was widely shared on social media. Mace took umbrage at Stephanopoulos’ question, claiming he was “rape-shaming” her by bringing up her own experience as a victim, which she has publicly discussed.
Trump has previously sued media outlets, including the New York Times and CNN, with no success.
Trump sued the Times over its investigation of his finances, which led to the recent New York civil court ruling that has him on the hook for $454 million. The suit was dismissed in March and Trump had to reimburse the Times legal cost.
In 2022, Trump sued CNN for $475 million claiming the news network was waging a campaign against him by booking guests critical of his policies and speeches. The case was dismissed in 2023.
Politics
Mark Milley and former CENTCOM commander to face grilling in Congress over Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday for the first time since retiring, potentially freeing him to offer new details about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Joining Milley will be retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, who served as United States Central Command (CENTCOM) commander during the 2021 withdrawal. The pair have appeared before Congress to discuss failings in the operation before, but Republicans say they may have been more tight-lipped then because they were still serving under President Biden.
Both Milley and McKenzie testified in 2021 that they had advised Biden to maintain a small U.S. force in Afghanistan, rather than committing to a full U.S. withdrawal. Milley himself has described the operation as a “strategic failure,” saying he has “lots of regrets.”
“It didn’t end the way I wanted it. That didn’t end the way any of us wanted it,” he told ABC News in September. “In the broader sense, the war was lost.”
OBAMA LIED TO AMERICANS ABOUT WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN: BOOK
The Tuesday afternoon hearing comes after months of Republican investigations into Biden’s handling of the withdrawal. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas., has repeatedly demanded the State Department turn over documents relating to the operation.
BIDEN’S BOTCHED AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL HAUNTS 2024 ELECTION AS BOOK CLAIMS ‘13 AMERICANS NEVER HAD TO DIE’
Secretary of State Antony Blinken has so far refused to offer interview notes relating to the Afghanistan after action report, which blamed senior officials for failing to prepare for all outcomes in the operation.
Despite the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers and the abandoning of tens of thousands of Afghan allies to Taliban rule, Biden strongly believes behind closed doors that he made the right decisions during the operation, according to an upcoming book.
THINK THE US EXIT FROM AFGHANISTAN WAS BAD? LOOK WHAT’S BREWING IN THE PACIFIC
Following the withdrawal, “no one offered to resign, in large part because the president didn’t believe anyone had made a mistake. Ending the war was always going to be messy,” author Alexander Ward writes in the book, “The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore Foreign Policy After Trump.”
Biden allegedly told his top aides, including White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, that they had done their best given the situation and vowed to stand by them.
Fox News’ Nikolas Lanum contributed to this report.
-
Politics1 week ago
Legal experts weigh in on Trump’s options after failure to secure $464M appeal bond: ‘uncharted territory’
-
Crypto1 week ago
Grab users can now pay using cryptocurrency
-
Technology1 week ago
We’re one step closer to a global cybersecurity standard for smart home devices
-
Politics1 week ago
Decoding Trump: How he engaged, deflected or ducked my questions at Mar-a-Lago
-
Culture1 week ago
Forest handed four-point deduction for breaching Premier League's financial rules
-
Lifestyle1 week ago
Romantic Comedy Guide: Irish Wish, Anyone But You, Upgraded : Pop Culture Happy Hour
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
The Idea of You first reviews: Anne Hathaway-Nicholas Galitzine’s rom-com debuts with 100% Rotten Tomatoes score
-
World1 week ago
EU reaches 'political agreement' to sanction Israeli settlers: Borrell