The week in whoppers: McIver's ICE blame, Abrams' egotistical fantasy and more
Diary of disturbing disinformation and dangerous delusions
This assertion:
'ICE agents created an unnecessary and unsafe confrontation when they chose to arrest Mayor Baraka.' — Rep. LaMonica McIver, Monday
We say: BZZZZZ. Wrong: ICE agents did their jobs.
Advertisement
It was Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Rep. McIver who created 'an unnecessary and unsafe confrontation' when they tried to storm the Delaney Hall detention center with a horde of protesters, leaving federal law-enforcement officers with no choice but to detain them.
And then McIver shoved and elbowed agents, which is why she's now facing felony charges for assaulting, resisting, and impeding federal officers. She has no one to blame but herself.
This boast:
Advertisement
'[Republicans] are mad at me for proving that democracy can deliver.' — Stacey Abrams, Saturday
We say: Deliver what, exactly? Abrams' pathetic political career has included two failed runs for Georgia's governorship and . . . not much else.
She parlayed her baseless claims that the 2018 election was stolen from her into quasi-celeb status on the left; 'Star Trek: Discovery' eye-rollingly cast her as the far-future 'president of Earth.'
Greenie nonprofit Power Forward Communities apparently used its ties to her to win a $2 billion grant from the Biden administration.
Advertisement
That Abrams has done zilch worth bragging about doesn't stop her from jumping in front of the camera to play up her empty record every chance she gets.
This statement:
'Our city was attacked by the governor of Texas.' — Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Friday
We say: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott didn't force Chicago to become a sanctuary city.
Advertisement
That decision was made by Chi-town's Democratic leaders, who only started acknowledging the border crisis once it came to their own backyard.
If anyone 'attacked' Mayor Johnson's city, it was President Biden, who allowed millions of illegal immigrants to overwhelm blue cities across the country, then ignored local pols' pleas for help.
Border states were drowning long before Abbott started shipping migrants elsewhere.
Johnson is just angry he had to experience some of the pain from his own party's toxic policies.
This advertisement:
'If Donald Trump doesn't want Andrew Cuomo as mayor, you do.' — Andrew Cuomo campaign ad, Wednesday
Advertisement
We say: The spin of the century! The Justice Department launched an investigation into the former governor for allegedly lying to Congress about nursing-home deaths during COVID, and Cuo is trying to use it as campaign fodder.
He might as well say: Yes, my decisions killed a few grandmas, but have you thought about the fact that Trump doesn't like me? It's beyond ghoulish.
Cuomo's record — the toxic climate law, crime-exploding bail reform and horrific mismanagement of the pandemic — is so bad he's resorted to the most popular (and lazy) Democratic fallback: being the 'anti-Trump' candidate.
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
33 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democratic mayoral race didn't even TOUCH on fixing the public schools
If there's one thing the Democratic candidates for mayor don't want to talk about, it's getting better results out of the city's public schools. Even though the Department of Education, now burning more than $40 billion a year and over $33,000 per student, is easily the biggest item in the city budget and still growing even though enrollment is declining. To be fair, one candidate did want to talk about the schools, but hedge-fund exec and philanthropist Whitney Tilson never got traction, perhaps because he alone refused to kow-tow to the United Federation of Teachers. Otherwise, 'I give the mayoral candidates a D or an F grade across the board,' said Ray Domanico, co-author of a damning Manhattan Institute report on education in the mayoral race. Of course, most of the field are die-hard progressives who'll never question the anti-excellence 'equity' agenda, nor cross the self-serving UFT. The worst of them, Zohran Mamdani, actually calls for ending mayoral control of the DOE and so guaranteeing that voters can't hold anyone accountable for failing schools. This, when just 33% of the city's fourth graders scored proficient in math last year and 28% in reading, numbers that don't get any better in the higher grades. Supposedly less-radical Andrew Cuomo did try to stand up to the teachers unions as governor, but got his hat handed to him. He's since publicly denounced his own past positions and even embraced a core priority of the mayor he once held in utter contempt, calling to ramp up Bill de Blasio's 'community schools' initiative. In all, Cuomo's education platform panders shamelessly to the UFT and its hatred of charter schools — the only part of the public-school system that offers real educational opportunity in most of the city. No one in the race dares call for a return to Bloomberg-era policies: expanding charters while opening more good regular public schools and doing top-down reorganization of failed ones. Nor will they breathe a word about chronic absenteeism, a huge post-COVID problem. More than a third, 34.8%, of Gotham students — about 300,000 public school kids —missed at least 10% of the 180-day school year in 2024, up from 26.5% in 2019. That's a disaster, but the candidates won't even talk about it Maybe the fall campaign will see candidates talking about doing better for New York's kids, but it's beyond damning that the topic is taboo in today's Democratic Party.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate releases major changes to Trump's tax bill as negotiations heat up
WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee released the long-awaited tax portion of its reconciliation bill on Monday, setting the stage for drawn-out negotiations with their House colleagues after changing several key provisions in the 549-page bill. The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match. That could be easier said than done as there are several provisions in the Senate version that have already angered House Republicans who spent weeks negotiating with GOP leaders to include their priorities. Here are some of the changes that could be the biggest sticking points for House Republicans: As expected, the Senate text aims to eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars previously approved under former President Joe Biden and criticized by some conservatives as 'Green New Deal subsidies.' However, the Senate text appears to shift the timeline for when many of those clean energy tax credits could be phased out, giving business owners who benefit from the credits more time to adjust. 'The legislation also achieves significant savings by slashing Green New Deal spending and targeting waste, fraud and abuse in spending programs while preserving and protecting them for the most vulnerable,' Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said in a statement. Under the House resolution, the credits are each given specific expiration dates whereas in the Senate version they are given a certain number of days after enactment. For example, the elimination of tax credits for residential clean energy could be eased under the Senate bill, softening the blow for the repeal of renewable energy sources such as solar panels, solar water heaters, geothermal heat pumps, and more. While the House bill would eliminate those credits by the end of 2025, the Senate version would expire the credit six months after the bill is signed — giving the credits a moving deadline and a slower phaseout. The Senate text also appears to change the timeline for several tax credits incentivizing the usage of clean vehicles, including credits for purchasing used clean energy vehicles; new clean vehicles; commercial vehicles; and more. Many of those provisions were set to expire by the end of the year under the House proposal, but now would also expire between 90-180 days after the bill is signed. The bill would ease the expiration of tax credits on fueling equipment for alternative vehicles such as electric cars. Similar to other language, the Senate text would implement a more flexible phaseout to eliminate the tax credit one year after the bill is signed rather than at the end of this year, which is the date currently proposed in the House version. Those eased timelines, along with others tucked in the bill, were likely included to win over Republicans in the Senate such as Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, who pushed for relaxed phaseouts. If the tax credits were eliminated immediately, Curtis and others argued, it could cause a surge in utility prices. However, it's not clear how that will go over with fiscal conservatives in the House, who have called for the immediate elimination of clean energy credits. The Senate Finance Committee summary does tout provisions to boost nuclear energy and support 'consistent energy sources' to reduce market distortions. It also includes language that 'stops penalizing fossil fuels in favor of intermittent green energy.' The Senate tax portion made a number of significant changes to the House language on Medicaid, including one controversial proposal to help pay for Republicans' proposed tax cuts. In the newly released text, Republicans are proposing to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That could raise concerns among some lawmakers who have already voiced concerns about reduced funding for Medicaid in some states. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. The bill would also implement stricter requirements for eligibility screening and verification as part of an effort to ensure undocumented immigrantss cannot be approved for benefits. For the most part, Senate Republicans left much of the language in the House surrounding Medicaid untouched. For example, the language maintains provisions establishing new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, requiring at least 80 hours a month or some other activity, such as community service. The bill would also maintain restrictions introduced by the House to ban Medicaid funds going toward abortion procedures or gender transitions. One of the most politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. The Senate version includes language to extend the current deduction cap, which sits at $10,000 per household. That proposal has already set off a firestorm among blue-state Republicans in the House who have demanded a much higher limit — even going so far as to threaten voting against the full package if a higher deduction is not included. House Republican leaders offered to increase the current deduction cap to $40,000 for individuals who make $500,000 or less a year. The cap would then increase by 1% every year over the next decade and remain permanent after that period. That proposal was met with skepticism in the Senate, prompting many fiscal conservatives to push for a lower number to reduce costs. The $10,000 proposal is meant to be a starting point for negotiations, Senate aides say, but it has already been met with anger from SALT proponents in the House. 'That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less,' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said of the House-negotiated deal. 'If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO, and the bill will fail in the House.' Other New York Republicans called the deal 'insulting,' arguing it is a 'slap in the face' to the blue-state Republicans who handed the GOP a majority in the House. 'If we want to be the big tent party, we need to recognize that we have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country with constituents who benefit from refundable tax credits despite paying zero in taxes,' Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said in a statement. House Republican leaders have warned for months not to make drastic changes to SALT policy, warning it could be tough to sell anything less than what was already negotiated — especially with only a three-vote margin in the House. 'I'm very concerned about what they might do on the SALT number and any number of other provisions in the bill,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told the Deseret News last week. 'I've been very consistent publicly and privately. They need to hopefully modify it as little as possible, but I also understand that, you know, it's a separate chamber, and they're going to do their thing.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans balk at changes to Trump tax bill as deadline nears
WASHINGTON — Senate Republican leaders are in crunch time as they attempt to get all corners of their party to agree on key provisions of President Donald Trump's signature tax bill. The Senate Finance Committee released its long-awaited tax portion of the reconciliation bill on Monday, making a number of changes to the version passed by their House colleagues last month. However, those changes have not been met with open arms by several in the GOP conference — which could threaten its passage if Senate leaders bring it to the floor for a vote next week. One of the thorniest issues tucked into the latest iteration is a proposal to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That has raised concerns among some lawmakers from states they say rely on that tax to provide health coverage. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has been a vocal opponent to paring back the tax, although she declined to elaborate on her current stance. However, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., expressed his frustration with the proposal, arguing it would disadvantage rural hospitals. 'I've talked to our leadership constantly about this. And I was told, we've got a fix on the provider tax issue, we're gonna help rural hospitals,' Hawley told reporters on Tuesday. 'There's nothing in here for rural hospitals. In fact, what they're doing is lowering the provider tax to make it even worse.' It's not clear if that language will be amended before it's voted on. Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said on Tuesday they are 'vetting' the text. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, met with Senate Republicans during their weekly lunch on Tuesday to assuage any concerns on proposed cuts. When asked if there is any chance Republicans will change language related to the provider tax, Oz brushed off those concerns. 'Well, the details of the language are up to the leadership, but the specifics, the framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill,' Oz said. 'It should be in this bill.' Vice President JD Vance also attended the lunch, telling reporters they would 'work through' any concerns with the current language related to Medicaid. 'If we can't address that concern in your preferred way, is there another way that we can fix it,' Vance told reporters. 'That's just part of the legislative process' Meanwhile, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, predicted: 'I don't think it's going to stay in this form.' One of the other politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. While House Republicans proposed increasing the cap to $40,000 — with some income limits — the Senate lowered that number to just $10,000, which is the cap currently in place. That provision has already been rejected by the SALT Caucus in the House, which has enough lawmakers to tank the bill if they don't get their requested amount. Crapo said those provisions would continue to be worked out in the Senate and the House, acknowledging 'that's a very big piece, obviously.' 'We will work it out,' Crapo said. Republican leaders must also deal with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has said he would vote against the package so long as it contains language raising the debt ceiling. The Senate version includes language to raise the debt limit to $5 trillion, even higher than the $4 trillion ceiling proposed by the House. 'We roll around to 2026 elections, what are they going to say? 'Oh Democrats, you know, they're for borrow and spend,'' Paul said on Tuesday. 'But now the Republicans will have joined the Democrats in being for borrow and spend.' The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match.
