quarta-feira, 31 de maio de 2023

US House passes bill to raise debt ceiling just days before default

 



US House passes bill to raise debt ceiling just days before default

 

With 149 Republicans and 165 Democrats supporting the measure, Biden has called on the Senate to quickly take up the legislation

 

Joan E Greve in Washington

@joanegreve

Thu 1 Jun 2023 00.00 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/31/debt-ceiling-final-vote-house-congress

 

The House passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling on Wednesday, clearing a major legislative hurdle with just days left before the US is expected to default.

 

The final House vote was 314 to 117, with 149 Republicans and 165 Democrats supporting the measure. In a potentially worrisome sign for the House Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy, 71 members of his conference opposed the deal that he brokered with President Joe Biden.

 

Taking a victory lap after the bill’s passage, McCarthy downplayed concerns over divisions within the House Republican conference and celebrated the policy concessions he secured in his negotiations with Biden.

 

“I have been thinking about this day before my vote for speaker because I knew the debt ceiling was coming. And I wanted to make history. I wanted to do something no other Congress has done,” McCarthy told reporters after the vote. “Tonight, we all made history.”

 

Biden applauded the House passage of the legislation, calling on the Senate to quickly take up the legislation to avoid a default. The treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, has warned that the federal government will be unable to pay its bills starting 5 June unless the debt ceiling is raised.

 

“This budget agreement is a bipartisan compromise. Neither side got everything it wanted,” Biden said in a statement. “I have been clear that the only path forward is a bipartisan compromise that can earn the support of both parties. This agreement meets that test.”

 

The debt ceiling bill passed by the House would raise the government’s borrowing limit until January 2025, ensuring the issue will not resurface before the next presidential election. As part of his negotiations with Biden, McCarthy successfully pushed for government spending cuts and changes to the work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

 

However, the concessions that McCarthy won fell far short for members of the freedom caucus, who had pushed for steeper spending cuts and much stricter work requirements for benefits programs. They belittled the debt ceiling compromise as a paltry effort to tackle the nation’s debt, which stands at more than $31tn.

 

Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, chair of the freedom caucus, said on Twitter before the vote, “President Biden is happily sending Americans over yet another fiscal cliff, with far too many swampy Republicans behind the wheel of a ‘deal’ that fails miserably to address the real reason for our debt crisis: SPENDING.”

 

House freedom caucus members staged one last attempt to block the debt ceiling bill from advancing on Wednesday afternoon, when they opposed a procedural motion prior to the final vote. With 29 Republicans voting against the motion, McCarthy had to rely on Democratic assistance to advance the debt ceiling proposal. In the end, 52 Democrats voted for the motion, setting up the final vote and virtually ensuring the bill’s passage.

 

The House Democratic leader, representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, mocked McCarthy’s failure to unify his party, arguing the procedural vote proved the speaker has “lost control of the floor”.

 

“It’s an extraordinary act that indicates just the nature of the extremism that is out of control on the other side of the aisle,” Jeffries said during the floor debate before the final vote. “Extreme Maga Republicans attempted to take control of the House floor. Democrats took it back for the American people.”

 

Despite his sharp criticism of McCarthy and his Republican colleagues, Jeffries and the majority of the House Democratic caucus supported the debt ceiling bill. Although they lamented the spending cuts included in the bill, those Democrats argued the crucial importance of avoiding a default outweighed their personal concerns about the legislation.

 

“Our constitution makes perfectly clear the validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned,” said California representative Nancy Pelosi, the former Democratic House speaker. “While I find this legislation objectionable, it will avert an unprecedented default, which would bring devastation to America’s families.”

 

But dozens of progressive lawmakers opposed the bill, attacking the spending cuts and new work requirements procured by McCarthy as an affront to the voters who elected them.

 

“Republicans never cared about reducing the deficit, only about forcing through their anti-working family policy priorities under the threat of a catastrophic default,” said Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “The deal they passed tonight proves that point, and I could not be part of their extortion scheme.”

 

Progressives in the Senate, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have echoed that criticism and indicated they plan to oppose the debt ceiling proposal, but the bill still appears likely to become law. The Senate Democratic majority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, has pledged to act swiftly to take up the bill once it has passed the House. The Senate Republican minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has already indicated he plans to support the proposal as well.

 

“Any needless delay, any last-minute brinksmanship at this point would be an unacceptable risk,” Schumer said in a floor speech Wednesday morning. “Moving quickly, working together to avoid default is the responsible and necessary thing to do.”

What El Niño Will do to Earth in 2024

How El Niño and La Niña cause extreme weather

Heatwaves: how hot can it get?

Russia's offensive in Ukraine has 'failed', says former US general - BBC...

Putin is ‘losing the faith of the Russian public’ as Ukraine’s counterof...

Russia is 'on the brink of revolution' as their border is deemed 'weak'

US debt ceiling LIVE

 


US debt ceiling: Hakeem Jeffries urges Democrats to help pass bill as Congress set to vote – live

House Democratic leader defends achievements of compromise ahead of Wednesday vote; AOC announces plan to vote against

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/may/31/debt-ceiling-vote-house-republicans-mccarthy-biden-live-updates?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-647797838f08403f1d17dfdc#block-647797838f08403f1d17dfdc

House Set to Vote on Debt Limit Bill Amid Republican Resistance

 


House Set to Vote on Debt Limit Bill Amid Republican Resistance

 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy was working to cobble together the votes to push through the compromise he struck with President Biden, as lawmakers in both parties signaled their displeasure with the plan.

 


Catie Edmondson

By Catie Edmondson

Reporting from Capitol Hill

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/us/politics/debt-ceiling-house-vote.html

May 31, 2023

Updated 8:52 a.m. ET

 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy toiled on Wednesday to lock down the votes to pass his deal with President Biden to suspend the debt ceiling and set federal spending limits, as a stream of defections from hard-right lawmakers raised the stakes for a climactic set of votes on the package.

 

With the nation’s first-ever default looming in days, the House was on track to begin consideration on Wednesday afternoon of a plan to defer the nation’s borrowing limit for two years — allowing the government to borrow unlimited sums as necessary to pay its obligations — in exchange for two years of spending caps and a string of policy concessions that Republicans demanded.

 

To muster a 218-vote majority to push the bill through the closely divided House, congressional leaders must cobble together a coalition of Republicans willing to back it and enough Democrats to make up for what was shaping up to be a substantial number of G.O.P. defections. Mr. McCarthy and his lieutenants predicted they would be able to do so and scheduled a final vote for Wednesday night, well after markets have closed.

 

Hard-right lawmakers are in open revolt over the compromise and have vowed to try to derail it, with some warning of dire consequences for Mr. McCarthy for shepherding it. Multiple right-wing lawmakers have savaged the bill, publicly using a profanity-laced description to compare it to a foul-tasting sandwich and arguing that it does nothing to secure the kind of deep spending cuts and rollbacks of Biden administration policies for which they have agitated.

 

“Completely unacceptable,” said Representative Dan Bishop, Republican of North Carolina. “Trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, for crumbs. For a pittance.”

 

Lifting the debt ceiling. The deal reached by President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy would suspend the nation’s debt limit until January 2025. This would allow the government to keep borrowing money so it can pay its bills on time.

 

Spending caps and cuts. In exchange for suspending the debt ceiling, Republicans demanded a range of concessions. Chief among them are caps on some spending over the next two years. The deal also claws back $10 billion in I.R.S. funding.

 

Food stamps. The bill would place additional work requirements on older Americans who receive assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but it also would expand food stamp access for veterans and homeless people.

 

Student loans. The legislation would officially end Biden’s freeze on student loan repayments by the end of summer. It would also prevent the president from issuing another last-minute extension, as he has done several times.

 

Environmental impact. Both sides agreed to new measures to get energy projects approved more quickly. The deal includes a win for Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat who strongly supports fossil fuels, by fast-tracking the construction of a contentious pipeline.

 

While Republican leaders have expressed confidence that they will have the votes to pass the legislation, it was not clear whether they would have to rely on support from Democrats in procedural votes to clear its way for passage — a remarkably rare occurrence that would be seen as a defeat. Mr. McCarthy, a California Republican, has repeatedly said that he would secure the support of a majority of his conference for the bill itself — an unwritten but virtually inviolable rule long adhered to by speakers of both parties for bringing up legislation.

 

“I’m confident we’ll pass the bill,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday. Ticking off what he described as critical savings in the compromise, he added, “If people are against saving all that money, or work reforms in welfare reform — I can’t do anything about that.”

 

In a closed-door conference meeting on Tuesday night that lasted more than an hour, Mr. McCarthy and his negotiators sought to sell their conference on the compromise, saying that Democrats had not scored any victories in the bipartisan talks and that his team had fought strenuously against the White House to prevent tax increases and secure new work requirements for social safety net programs, according to lawmakers who attended.

 

“In a progressive-left administration and Democratic Senate, we will now have new work requirements,” Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, one of the Republican negotiators, said at a news conference following the meeting. “We have conservative reforms that are included in this debt ceiling, and these things should help Republicans rally to the cause.”

 

But even as the meeting unfolded, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the changes in work requirements for food stamp eligibility — tightening them for some adults but loosening them for others, including veterans — would actually increase federal spending on the program by $2 billion. Overall, the budget office estimated the deal would make an additional 78,000 people eligible for nutrition assistance.

 

As Republicans met in the basement of the Capitol, the Rules Committee voted to advance the bill to the House floor on a narrow vote, with two ultraconservative members of the panel bucking their party to oppose allowing the plan to be considered.

 

With defections from House Republicans stacking up, it remained unclear how many votes Democrats would need to provide to pass the bill and send it to the Senate, where conservative opponents were threatening to slow its consideration. Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader, said on Tuesday that Mr. McCarthy had not told him how many Democrats would need to vote for the bill to ensure its passage, but that Republicans had pledged to produce at least 150 votes for the measure. That would mean several dozen Democrats would have to vote yes to secure passage.

 

Only one hard-right Republican so far — Mr. Bishop — has publicly said that he considered the debt and spending deal grounds for ousting Mr. McCarthy from his post.

 

Under the rules House Republicans adopted at the beginning of the year that helped Mr. McCarthy become speaker, any single lawmaker could call for a snap vote to remove him from the speakership, a move that would take a majority of the House. But other hard-right conservatives were holding their fire, saying it was too early to consider the move.

 

Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press Now” that he had discussed the issue with the chairman of Freedom Caucus, Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania. “Let’s get through this battle and decide if we want another battle,” Mr. Buck said was the response.

 

Still, asked if there would be consequences for Mr. McCarthy if the bill passed with more Democratic votes than Republican ones, Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina replied: “It’s going to be a problem.”

 

Catie Edmondson

Catie Edmondson is a reporter in the Washington bureau, covering Congress. More about Catie Edmondson

What Elizabeth Holmes' life will look like in prison as she reports to T...

Disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes begins 11-year prison sentence

AI and the future of humanity | Yuval Noah Harari at the Frontiers Forum

AI intelligence could cause human extinction say tech leaders

Tory Covid 'cover-up'

Can we Trust Russia's Economic Data?

Why the U.S. Debt-Ceiling Deal Could Have Trouble in Congress | WSJ

Fmr. FBI Director Comey: Trump ‘represents a serious threat to the rule ...

US debt ceiling: Republican hard-right vows to sink deal hours before vote expected

 



US debt ceiling: Republican hard-right vows to sink deal hours before vote expected

 

Freedom caucus has attacked House leader Kevin McCarthy’s deal with Joe Biden to raise the debt ceiling before the default deadline of 5 June

 

Joan E Greve in Washington

@joanegreve

Wed 31 May 2023 11.00 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/31/us-debt-ceiling-republican-hard-right-vows-to-sink-deal-hours-before-vote-expected

 

Members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus have attacked the proposed spending cuts in the debt ceiling bill as woefully inadequate, and vowed to oppose the legislation when it hits the floor.

 

“We had the time to act, and this deal fails – fails completely,” Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, chair of the Freedom Caucus, said on Tuesday. “We will do everything in our power to stop it and end it now.”

 

The House is expected to hold a final vote on the bill on Wednesday, while other members of the Freedom Caucus continue to denounce the compromise brokered by the Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy, and President Joe Biden over the weekend.

 

The compromise bill, formally named the Fiscal Responsibility Act, would suspend the debt ceiling until 2025, allowing the US to avoid a default that could reap devastating consequences on the American economy. The treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, has warned that the federal government will be unable to pay its bills starting on 5 June unless Congress takes action.

 

In addition to the debt ceiling suspension, the bill includes government spending cuts and expanded work requirements demanded by McCarthy.

 

“There has been a lot of hard work and a lot of late nights that have gone into changing the spending trajectory in this town,” Steve Scalise, the House majority leader, told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday night. “For once in a long, long time, Washington is actually going to spend less money next year than it is this year, and that’s a reform that all of us can support.”

 

 

During that hearing, two Freedom Caucus members who sit on the panel, Chip Roy of Texas and Ralph Norman of South Carolina, attempted to block the legislation from advancing, but they were outnumbered by their colleagues. The final vote in the rules committee was 7-6 to advance the bill, with four Democrats joining Roy and Norman in opposing the measure.

 

“The Republican conference right now has been torn asunder,” Roy said ahead of the hearing. “Not one Republican should vote for this deal. It is a bad deal.”

 

But the Republican chair of the rules committee, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, defended the bill as the party’s best possible option with Democrats in control of the White House and the Senate.

 

“Today’s bill is a product of compromise that reflects the realities of a divided government,” Cole said at the hearing. “In a true negotiation, you always get less than you want and give up more than you’d like.”

 

Despite reassurances from McCarthy and his allies, it remains unclear how many House Republicans will support the proposal. In addition to the Freedom Caucus, some of the more centrist members of the House Republican conference like representatives Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Wesley Hunt of Texas said they would vote against the bill.

 

Dan Bishop of North Carolina, a member of the Freedom Caucus, predicted that most of the House Republican conference would oppose the legislation, forcing McCarthy to rely on Democrats to pass the bill.

 

“This is a career-defining vote for every Republican,” Bishop said Tuesday. “This bill, if it passes, must pass with less than half of the Republican conference.”

 

The House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, underscored the reality that Republicans must provide most of the 218 votes needed to get the bill approved.

 

“This is an agreement that, at their insistence, they negotiated with the administration,” Jeffries said. “It’s our full and complete expectation that they are going to produce at least 150 votes.”

 

Some House Democrats also appeared conflicted over the compromise measure on Tuesday, bemoaning the proposed spending cuts while emphasizing the crucial need to increase the government’s borrowing limit before 5 June.

 

“There are some pros to the bill. The chief one is that it raises the debt limit to 2025 and ensures that we avoid a Republican-led catastrophic default,” Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said on Tuesday.

 

“I don’t want to minimize the challenges with the bill. There will be real harmful impacts for poor people and working people,” she added.

 

Jayapal said her team was in the process of conducting a whip count to assess where progressive members stand on the debt ceiling bill, but it appears certain that the legislation will win bipartisan support in the House, as the center-left New Democrat Coalition has endorsed the proposal.

 

If the bill passes the House, it will move on to the Senate, where lawmakers will have only a few days to approve the proposal before the 5 June default deadline. Even if McCarthy’s compromise can become law, the speaker’s troubles may be just beginning.

 

Members of the Freedom Caucus, some of whom initially resisted McCarthy’s speakership bid in January, toyed with the idea of ousting him depending on the outcome of Wednesday’s vote.

 

Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida told Newsmax on Tuesday, “If a majority of Republicans are against a piece of legislation, and you use Democrats to pass it, that would immediately be a black-letter violation of the deal we had with McCarthy to allow his ascent to the speakership, and it would likely trigger an immediate motion to vacate.”

Trump's lawyers reportedly beginning to turn on each other

Trump reportedly building revenge list against feds investigating him

Trump legal snitch? Trump lawyers fight as insider was reportedly ‘waved...

BREAKING: Chris Christie set to enter the 2024 presidential race

Ukraine War: 'Worse than Chernobyl': The nuclear power plant where workers fear disaster

Drone attacks on Moscow and Kyiv: What role do drones play in the war? ...

Summary of the day so far …

 



1h ago

11.01 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/may/31/russia-ukraine-war-live-russian-oil-refinery-in-krasnodar-on-fire-belgorod-shelled-says-governor

Summary of the day so far …

Drones attacked two oil refineries just 40-50 miles (65-80 km) east of Russia’s biggest oil export terminals on Wednesday, sparking a fire at one and causing no damage to the other, according to Russian officials. At around 2am BST a drone struck the Afipsky oil refinery in Russia’s Krasnodar region, causing a fire which was later extinguished, Governor Veniamin Kondratyev said. Another drone crashed into the Ilsky refinery, which lies around 40 miles east of Novorossiisk.

Five people have been killed and 19 injured in the shelling of a village in Russian-occupied Luhansk region, according to the Telegram channel of Russian-installed officials there.

Serhiy Lysak, governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast, has reported on Telegram that an eight-year-old child has been injured in the shelling of the village of Mezhyrich near Pavlohrad in his region.

The governor of Belgorod, a Russian region that borders Ukraine, has claimed that four people were injured in Ukrainian shelling on a town close to the border. Two people were hospitalised as a result of the artillery strike on Shebekino, Vyacheslav Gladkov said, adding that it was the third time in a week the town had been hit.

Russian security council deputy chair Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday that Britain was Moscow’s “eternal enemy” and that any British officials who facilitated the war in Ukraine could be considered legitimate military targets. Medvedev, the hawkish long-term ally of Vladimir Putin, was responding to British foreign secretary James Cleverly’s remark that Ukraine had a right to project force beyond its own borders, said Britain’s “goofy officials” should remember that Britain could be “qualified as being at war”.

Emmanuel Macron will make a diplomatic push to reassure central and eastern European countries that France understands that the continent’s security environment has been permanently changed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In a speech to a security forum in the Slovakian capital, Bratislava, on Wednesday, Macron will call for a “strategic awakening” and highlight the work France has done to protect Nato’s eastern flank, including posting 1,250 French troops in Romania and 300 in Estonia. He will also stress the French role in unlocking the supply of battle tanks to Ukraine.

Russian president, Vladimir Putin, accused Ukraine on Tuesday of seeking to “frighten” Russians after Moscow was targeted with a large-scale drone attack for the first time in the 15-month war. He said that Ukraine had chosen the path of attempting “to intimidate Russia, Russian citizens [with] attacks on residential buildings” and added that the drone attacks were “clearly a sign of terrorist activity”. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine order by Putin in February 2022, the UN reports that almost 24,000 Ukrainian civilians have died.

Putin's 'playbook' is 'working for his own population but it doesn't wor...

Tensions continue to flare up as Serbs clash with NATO peacekeeping troo...

More NATO troops headed to Kosovo as ethnic clashes surge

Violent clashes erupt with NATO forces in eastern Europe

Watch live: Tensions continue to flare as Serbs clash with NATO peacekee...

Pass the Debt Limit Deal. Then Figure Out How to End the Drama.

 



OPINION

THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Pass the Debt Limit Deal. Then Figure Out How to End the Drama.

May 30, 2023

By The Editorial Board

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/opinion/editorials/debt-limit-deal-crisis.html

 


The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

 

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

No one walked away satisfied by the agreement reached late Saturday to raise the debt ceiling: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy did not win the most destructive cuts sought by the right, and the Democratic proposals to raise revenue never seriously entered the conversation. Yet with the risk of ruinous economic default less than a week away, Congress should pass this agreement as quickly as possible.

 

The agreement reached by Mr. McCarthy and President Biden would suspend the debt ceiling until Jan. 1, 2025. Mr. Biden can, as the nation should, feel relief over this outcome. He also should feel a sense of urgency to make sure such a partisan impasse never repeats itself.

 

Mr. Biden had said he would not negotiate over the debt ceiling, which limits federal borrowing after money has been appropriated, and he had demanded that Congress raise it without conditions. The House responded by approving a bill to raise the ceiling for a year in exchange for stringent cutbacks on nondefense spending. That bill would have rolled back many of the president’s signature achievements and ended benefits for millions of people who get their health insurance through Medicaid, as well as those who rely on food and cash assistance.

 

As the deadline for the nation’s first credit default grew closer — the Treasury Department now says it will run out of money on June 5 — Mr. Biden set aside his earlier position and began closed-door negotiations with Mr. McCarthy over those demands.

 

The final agreement reflects this one-sided bargaining, with Mr. McCarthy refusing to truly entertain any of the Democrats’ proposals to raise revenue: None of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which added $1.8 trillion to the deficit through 2029 for the benefit of corporations and the wealthy, would be rolled back. Republicans rejected the elimination of the carried-interest loophole, which benefits hedge-fund managers and private equity funds, and the end to fossil fuel tax subsidies that Mr. Biden proposed in his 2024 budget.

 

In fact, no measures to raise revenues were included; the deal is entirely about cutting spending. Reducing the national debt is an important long-term goal. A much more responsible form of fiscal discipline is to collect the taxes that are owed, to make considered spending cuts where appropriate and to reverse tax cuts that solely benefit the wealthy.

 

The details of the agreement, released on Sunday, show that it is a watered-down version of the Republican wish list. Spending on most domestic programs in the 2024 fiscal year would stay at about the same level as 2023 and grow by 1 percent in 2025. That is effectively a cut over both years, given the pace of inflation and the potential for an economic downturn hovering. (Medicare and Social Security would not be affected.)

 

Under the deal, the Pentagon would be allowed to grow, as well as veterans’ programs. The two-year cap would shortchange many important investments in education, housing, infrastructure and disease prevention. It is a significant improvement, however, from the drastic cuts proposed in Mr. McCarthy’s bill — $860 billion compared with $3.2 trillion over a decade — and is roughly in line with what might have been expected in regular budget negotiations with the House.

 

That price was likely inevitable when Democrats lost the chamber last year and failed to raise or eliminate the debt ceiling during the lame duck session.

 

The White House should have insisted that military and domestic spending be held at the same rate of change, following a pattern set during the Obama administration. At least the military budget in this agreement would be at roughly the same level that Mr. Biden proposed in his 2024 budget. The deal also includes a helpful mechanism that would make it difficult for Republicans to spend less on domestic programs or more on the military when the time comes to write appropriation bills this year.

 

The most unfortunate aspect of the agreement is the change to eligibility for nutrition assistance, popularly known as food stamps, and the cash welfare program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Though virtually every study has shown that work requirements for these benefits are not effective inducements to employment, Republicans were willing to let the government default on its debt if they didn’t get them. During the talks, Mr. Biden rejected the strict new work requirements for people on Medicaid, but he agreed to changes in the other two programs.

 

Under this concession, people 50 to 54 years old without dependents would be limited to three months of food stamps every three years unless they meet new work requirements, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said would affect hundreds of thousands of older adults. State requirements for people who receive cash assistance from the TANF program would also be tightened. The only good news here is that, for the first time, the food stamp program would not subject homeless people, veterans or young adults formerly in foster care to time limits, under an agreement won by Mr. Biden.

 

One of the most nonsensical Republican demands was to cut $80 billion in new funding for the Internal Revenue Service to hire investigators to reduce tax cheating. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the I.R.S. expansion would reduce the budget deficit because it would bring in new tax revenue. Republicans refused to reduce the deficits by any means other than cutting spending. Mr. Biden agreed to reduce the new I.R.S. spending by about $21 billion over two years, though the money may be moved to the general fund to reduce the impact of the new spending caps.

 

The blunt instrument of the debt ceiling allowed this standoff and its concessions. With the Republicans in control of the House, Democrats in Congress have given up their path to change this for now. The president seemed to acknowledge that this month when he told reporters that he’d consider declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s debt clause and letting the courts decide whether he is right. “When we get by this, I’m thinking about taking a look at — months down the road — to see whether, what the court would say about whether or not the — it does work,” he said.

 

If Congress approves this agreement, the threat of default will be over for the next two years. At that point, Mr. Biden and his legal experts need to follow through on his interest in testing a constitutional solution and try to stop the debt crisis from returning in 2025 or thereafter.

 

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

Devastating new details emerge in alleged Pittsburgh synagogue shooter’s...

Anti-Vaxxers haven’t ‘learnt their lesson’ when it comes to surviving the pandemics | Simon Schama

Turkey’s Election Is a Warning About Trump

 


OPINION

BRET STEPHENS

Turkey’s Election Is a Warning About Trump

May 30, 2023

A close-up of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan with two red banners with white stars and crescents partly obscuring his face.

 


Bret Stephens

By Bret Stephens

Opinion Columnist

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/opinion/turkey-election-erdogan-trump.html

 

“The totalitarian phenomenon,” the French philosopher Jean-François Revel once noted, “is not to be understood without making an allowance for the thesis that some important part of every society consists of people who actively want tyranny: either to exercise it themselves or — much more mysteriously — to submit to it.”

 

It’s an observation that should help guide our thinking about the re-election this week of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. And it should serve as a warning about other places — including the Republican Party — where autocratic leaders, seemingly incompetent in many respects, are returning to power through democratic means.

 

That’s not quite the way Erdogan’s close-but-comfortable victory in Sunday’s runoff over the former civil servant Kemal Kilicdaroglu is being described in many analyses. The president, they say, has spent 20 years in power tilting every conceivable scale in his favor.

 

Erdogan has used regulatory means and abused the criminal-justice system to effectively control the news media. He has exercised his presidential power to deliver subsidies, tax cuts, cheap loans and other handouts to favored constituencies. He has sought to criminalize an opposition party on specious grounds of links to terrorist groups. In December, a Turkish court effectively barred Erdogan’s most serious prospective rival, Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu of Istanbul, from politics by sentencing him to prison on charges of insulting public officials.

 

Then, too, Kilicdaroglu was widely seen as a colorless and inept politician, promising a return to a status quo ante that many Turks remember, with no fondness, as a time of regular economic crises and a kind of repressive secularism.

 

All of this is true, as far as it goes, and it helps underscore the worldwide phenomenon of what Fareed Zakaria aptly calls “free and unfair elections.” But it doesn’t go far enough.

 

Turkey under Erdogan is in a dreadful state and has been for a long time. Inflation last year hit 85 percent and is still running north of 40 percent, thanks to Erdogan’s insistence on cutting interest rates in the teeth of rising prices. He has used a series of show trials — some based in fact, others pure fantasy — to eviscerate civil freedoms. February’s earthquakes, which took an estimated 50,000 lives and injured twice as many, were badly handled by the government and exposed the corruption of a system that cared more for patronage networks than for well-built buildings.

 

Under normal political expectations, Erdogan should have paid the political price with a crushing electoral defeat. Not only did he survive, he increased his vote share in some of the towns worst hit by, and most neglected after, the earthquakes. “We love him,” explained a resident quoted in The Economist. “For the call to prayer, for our homes, for our headscarves.”

 

That last line is telling, and not just because it gets to the importance of Erdogan’s Islamism as the secret of his success. It’s a rebuke to James Carville’s parochially American slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Actually, no: It’s also God, tradition, values, identity, culture and the resentments that go with each. Only a denuded secular imagination fails to notice that there are things people care about more than their paychecks.

 

There is also the matter of power. The classically liberal political tradition is based on the suspicion of power. The illiberal tradition is based on the exaltation of it. Erdogan, as the tribune of the Turkish Everyman, built himself an aesthetically grotesque, 1,100-room presidential palace for $615 million. Far from scandalizing his supporters, it seems to have delighted them. In it, they see not a sign of extravagance or waste, but the importance of the man and the movement to which they attach themselves and submit.

 

All this is a reminder that political signals are often transmitted at frequencies that liberal ears have trouble hearing, much less decoding. To wonder how Erdogan could possibly be re-elected after so thoroughly wrecking his country’s economy and its institutions is akin to wondering how Vladimir Putin appears to retain considerable domestic support in the wake of his Ukraine debacle. Maybe what some critical mass of ordinary Russians want, at least at some subconscious level, isn’t an easy victory. It’s a unifying ordeal.

 

Which brings us to another would-be strongman in his palace in Palm Beach. In November, I was sure that Donald Trump was, as I wrote, “finally finished.” How could any but his most slavish followers continue to support him after he had once again cost Republicans the Senate? Wouldn’t this latest proof of losing be the last straw for devotees who had been promised “so much winning”?

 

Silly me. The Trump movement isn’t built on the prospect of winning. It’s built on a sense of belonging: of being heard and seen; of being a thorn in the side to those you sense despise you and whom you despise in turn; of submission for the sake of representation. All the rest — victory or defeat, prosperity or misery — is details.

 

Erdogan defied expectation because he understood this. He won’t be the last populist leader to do so.

 

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

 

Bret Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. Facebook

Turkey under president Erdogan to act as a bridge between NATO and Putin

Serbs gather again in northern Kosovo after clashes • FRANCE 24 English

Why do Kosovo-Serbia tensions persist? • FRANCE 24 English

What is the standoff between Covid inquiry and Cabinet Office about?

 


Explainer

What is the standoff between Covid inquiry and Cabinet Office about?

 

As dispute over Boris Johnson’s notebooks and WhatsApp messages continues, we look at the key points

 

Aubrey Allegretti

@breeallegretti

Tue 30 May 2023 12.45 BST

 

Wrangling over Boris Johnson’s notebooks and WhatsApp messages continues in earnest, with the government and the official Covid inquiry locked in a standoff over what should be shared.

 

What has the inquiry asked for?

A vast trove of documents was requested by Heather Hallett, the chair of the public inquiry into the government’s handling of Covid.

 

On 28 April, she ordered the Cabinet Office to hand over all messages on the phones of Johnson and a No 10 aide, Henry Cook, concerning the pandemic. These included WhatsApp messages sent from and to other senior figures in government – stretching from ministers, such as the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, to special advisers, such as Dominic Cummings, and officials all the way up to cabinet secretary level. A bundle of about 24 notebooks kept by Johnson was also requested.

 

Lady Hallett originally set a deadline of 12 May, but the Cabinet Office pushed back and asked her to reconsider. A new deadline of 4pm on 30 May was set, but that too has been pushed back, to 1 June.

 

Why did the government object?

Though Hallett specifically said she wanted the “entire contents” of the documents, the Cabinet Office disagreed with what information was relevant to her inquiry.

 

Normally, communications between ministers – which in previous generations would have been committed to a letter or fax – stay secret. The “30-year rule” ensures that no such messages would see the light of day until long after several administrations have come and gone. It is argued that this ensures ministers and officials have the privacy to discuss and debate policies.

 

A public inquiry has rights to request more contemporaneous information, but it must be judged to be “potentially relevant”. The Cabinet Office disagreed with Hallett that information it redacted was relevant. It is also nervous about sharing such an extensive set of messages with a non-government body, potentially losing control of its ability to guarantee the confidentiality of the contents.

 

The Covid inquiry will not necessarily publish every piece of evidence it receives, however.

 

How could the impasse be broken?

The Cabinet Office admitted at the last minute before the latest deadline that it did not have Johnson’s notebooks or his WhatsApp messages.

 

Hallett has given it two more days to comply, setting a new deadline of 4pm on Thursday. She has also demanded a senior civil servant give a statement setting out further facts. Hallett wants the Cabinet Office to produce any correspondence with Johnson and his office about the notebooks and WhatsApps, and say whether it has been in possession of the notebooks at any time over the past three months. She also wants answers over whether the messages by Johnson were on a personal or government device.

 

Downing Street said the Cabinet Office did not currently have the material but admitted it had previously been given to government lawyers. Johnson’s spokesperson said they had not been asked by the government to hand over the documents again and he had “no objection” to them being passed to Hallett’s inquiry.

 

If the Cabinet Office resists doing so, it could take legal action to challenge the inquiry chair’s ruling. Jonathan Jones, a former head of the government legal department, said that if Hallett does not cave, she and Whitehall mandarins could reach a compromise so that some information is handed over while other parts remain redacted.

 

If it fails to comply with her demands then the inquiry could start criminal proceedings against the government or seek an enforcement order from the high court.

 

What role is the Cabinet Office minister playing?

Relations have broken down between Johnson and the Cabinet Office after lawyers supporting him during the Covid inquiry felt obliged to refer some details in the former prime minister’s diaries to police.

 

Oliver Dowden is the deputy prime minister and the most senior minister in the Cabinet Office. Given Hallett has specifically requested Johnson’s messages with other ministers, he is likely to be nervous about irking colleagues by agreeing to hand over their WhatsApp messages, too.


Sunak accused of trying to cover up ministers’ actions during pandemic

 


Sunak accused of trying to cover up ministers’ actions during pandemic

 

PM challenged as Cabinet Office battles to withhold Boris Johnson’s WhatsApp messages from Covid inquiry

 

Rowena Mason, Ian Sample and Aubrey Allegretti

Tue 30 May 2023 21.30 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/30/sunak-accused-of-trying-to-cover-up-ministers-actions-during-pandemic

 

Rishi Sunak has been accused of attempting to cover up the actions of ministers during the pandemic as the Cabinet Office intensified its battle to withhold Boris Johnson’s WhatsApp messages from the Covid inquiry.

 

The prime minister insisted his government has been cooperating with the investigation but is facing increasing calls from experts and MPs – with some coming from within his own party – to hand over evidence without redactions.

 

Both Labour and the Lib Dems accused the government of a potential cover-up, while relatives of those who died in the Covid pandemic questioned what ministers have to hide.

 

The inquiry, led by retired judge Heather Hallett, has used its sweeping powers to request unredacted notebooks, diaries and WhatApp correspondence between Johnson and 40 senior government figures.

 

But the government is opposing the request on grounds that it wants to protect the privacy of ministers and officials, and is considering legal action to prevent disclosure.

 

Two sources with knowledge of the inquiry’s requests said the Cabinet Office was resisting handing over the material from Johnson and his aide because they fear giving in will mean all other evidence from ministers, including Sunak himself, will have to be submitted in an unredacted form.

 

Hallett has given the government another two days to hand over the unredacted information in relation to Johnson and one of his senior aides, Henry Cook, with the material now due by 4pm on Thursday. Refusing to comply with the inquiry’s order is a potential criminal offence.

 

A spokesperson for Johnson said he had “no objection” to his 24 notebooks and WhatsApps being given to the inquiry, and claimed government lawyers had already been given access to them.

 

But the Cabinet Office released a new statement on Tuesday holding firm against giving the Covid inquiry uncensored material, with the government still considering the possibility of a legal challenge.

 

A spokesperson said: “We are firmly of the view that the inquiry does not have the power to request unambiguously irrelevant information that is beyond the scope of this investigation. This includes the WhatsApp messages of government employees which are not about work but instead are entirely personal and relate to their private lives.”

 

However, Bloomberg reported it had seen leaked legal advice from the government’s most senior lawyer, Sir James Eadie, which suggested officials have been withholding evidence for the inquiry based on political sensitivity, rather than just personal details.

 

It reported that the advice said: “We would be concerned by any approach which appeared to concede the principle that Cabinet Collective Responsibility material should be disclosed as a matter of course.” The advice added: “That material will concern a number of ministers still in office, and potentially in the same office. On any view, it will be extremely recent and of the greatest political sensitivity.”

 

The government does not routinely retain WhatsApp messages between ministers and officials unless they contain government decisions.

 

No 10 refused to comment on whether Sunak and current members of the government have yet been asked to hand over their correspondence and documentation in full to the inquiry.

 

John Bell, a leading government adviser during the pandemic, said Hallett should be able to see communications between senior government figures.

 

He added: “First of all, give her access. These are people who are working for the public. If there’s something deeply private and personal they shouldn’t have been using their official context for that. This should all be accessible to the inquiry. But then the inquiry should be a bit careful that they don’t get sucked into a load of sideshows which are not really central to what they are trying to do, but they’ll be able to work that out.”

 

Others to question the government’s actions include Conservative MP Caroline Nokes, who said the apparent “reluctance” by the government to hand over what was requested “seems a nonsense”.

 

Speaking to TalkTV, she added that as much contemporary evidence as possible was vital to ensuring the inquiry could look into serious issues about the handling of the pandemic.

 

She said Hallett “doesn’t look like a woman who’s about to roll over … probably rightly so” and added there would be “less pain for the government if they hand [the files] over quickly”.

 

Labour said the situation had the “whiff of a cover-up” while the Lib Dems said this “dog ate my homework-type excuse from the government simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny”.

 

Susie Flintham, a spokesperson for the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign group, said the lengths the Cabinet Office is going to in order to prevent Johnson’s material being shared “should alarm everyone”.

 

“This inquiry needs to get to the facts if it is to learn lessons to help save lives in the next pandemic. So why are the Cabinet Office standing in their way? Our members are wondering what they are hiding?” she added.

 

Bob Kerslake, a former head of the civil service, told the BBC there was “some cover-up going on here to save embarrassment of ministers”, as well as the Cabinet Office in his view wrongly “fighting for a principle of confidentiality”.

 

Jonathan Jones, a former government lawyer, suggested the government’s actions were ultimately not likely to work because Hallett’s inquiry has wide powers. “It might be viewed as an attempt to avoid handing over material which the government would prefer not to, but it’s not likely to work because ultimately it will be for the courts to decide. So if it’s a cover-up, it’s not likely to be successful,” he said.

 

The controversy appears to have done nothing to smooth tensions between Sunak’s government and Johnson, after the former prime minister was reported to police last week by Cabinet Office officials after the government-appointed lawyers found potential evidence of more lockdown-breaking parties in his diaries. Johnson has denied this.

 

The prime minister and his predecessor were meant to have peace talks this week over issues such as the Covid inquiry and Johnson’s long-awaited peerages list but this phone call has been cancelled.

 

Sunak said on Tuesday the government was cooperating fully with the Covid inquiry and No 10 denied the suggestion of a cover-up, with the Cabinet Office highlighting 55,000 documents, 24 personal witness statements and eight corporate statements given to the Covid inquiry. The government argues that handing over unredacted notebooks and WhatsApp messages would be an affront to the privacy of officials and ministers, as well as hindering policy discussion.

 

However, the inquiry has also requested proof in the form of testimony from a senior official that the government does not hold any WhatsApp messages or notebooks from the former prime minister. It asked for records of searches conducted and correspondence with Johnson to be provided.

 

It is now two weeks before the first public evidence sessions and a new schedule released by the inquiry shows some matters such as vaccines, procurement and care homes will not be concluded until 2026 – after the next election.