Senate Agriculture cuts billions for climate in megabill
The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's piece of the Republican megabill would steer billions of dollars away from climate-related programs that shaped much of farm policy during the Biden administration.
Legislative text released Wednesday would draw as much as $16 billion away from the Inflation Reduction Act's conservation provisions and redirect those unobligated funds toward long-standing programs, shedding the IRA's focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through farmland conservation.
Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said the measure — which will be wrapped into Republican's big tax cut and spending bill being considered through budget reconciliation — would cut waste and update farm programs that were last revised in the 2018 farm bill.
Advertisement
'Our farmers and ranchers are facing real challenges, which have been unaddressed for too long,' Boozman said in a news release. 'This legislation delivers the risk management tools and updated farm bill safety net they need to keep producing the safest, most abundant and affordable food, fuel, and fiber in the world.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The First Thing Retirees Should Do With Funds From the Social Security Fairness Act
The Social Security Fairness Act, passed at the end of President Joe Biden's term in 2024, removed the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) and made it possible for many public servants to earn Social Security income on top of their other retirement plans. As a result, many retirees are now receiving, or will soon receive, an influx of Social Security funds. Additional income for retirees is typically very welcome, but it can also lead to a temptation to overspend. Here, three different financial experts suggest the first thing you should do with your additional income. Check Out: Read Next: The first thing you should do with any influx of funds you receive from the Social Security Fairness Act is create or contribute to an emergency fund, according to Eric Steffy, founder and CEO of Federal Solutions Support. 'Life happens and having an emergency fund for a time when you'll face unexpected costs can keep you from racking up high-interest charges on a credit card, taking high-interest loans or dipping into accounts budgeted for daily expenses,' he said. Ideally, your emergency fund should have at least $10,000 in it, though some people are able to ensure they have an even larger cushion. 'Having an emergency fund is a critical step for ensuring financial stability and providing a safety net during unexpected events,' Steffy said. For seniors, the No. 1 big-ticket expense is, perhaps surprisingly, unexpected dental bills, because most costly dental procedures aren't covered by Medicare. The second-largest unexpected financial event is changes in housing costs or property assessments. Watch Out: Jason LaBarge, president at LaBarge Financial, suggested your first move be to review your high-interest debt and make a plan to pay it off as soon as possible. 'Credit card interest rates are usually over 20%, and that can cripple your finances over time. Use this opportunity to get yourself out of debt and back on track to achieving your retirement goals,' LaBarge said. Debt payoff was another suggestion by Steffy. 'Receiving an unbudgeted windfall may tempt you to make a few things on your wish list come true: that dream trip, new car or home improvement project. It's fun to go for that wish list but it may be even more satisfying to erase stress by reducing debt,' he said. He pointed out that for most retirees, carrying a mortgage, car loan or credit card debt while also paying for food, healthcare and often contributing to the support of others 'can create a sense of vulnerability.' Paying off debt first means you can indulge in leisure activities or make your life more comfortable after. If you receive extra Social Security payments, the first thing you should do is put that money into something that will benefit you for the rest of your life, according to Melanie Musson, a finance expert with 'What that looks like will depend on the individual and their investment portfolio,' she said. LaBarge added, 'This would give your money the chance to grow with the market and be available for when you're ready to do something fun.' If you have properly saved for retirement, you will more comfortable treating yourself with the extra cash. A final tip from Musson is that you should 'keep your monthly budget exactly the same as it was before.' Then, you can take your extra income and save it, invest it and build extra financial security or a legacy to leave to your heirs. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 The 10 Most Reliable SUVs of 2025 Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on The First Thing Retirees Should Do With Funds From the Social Security Fairness Act
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump's gamble on Iran: Nuclear threat ended? Or the start of 'endless war'?
It's Donald Trump's war now. The decision to bomb Iran revealed the conflict between some of the president's fundamental impulses. The highest hope of President Trump's bomb attack on Iran: A rogue nuclear program that had defied a half-dozen of his predecessors has finally been destroyed. The deepest fear: Just four years after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan ended America's longest war, the United States is now enmeshed in another war in a volatile region, with perilous and uncertain consequences. "Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror," Trump said in a late-night announcement in the East Room on June 21, interrupting Americans' Saturday night plans with news that B-2 bombers had dropped the world's most powerful conventional bombs on three sites seen as crucial to Tehran's nuclear program. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace." That's the calculation behind "Operation Midnight Hammer," anyway − that despite its initial bluster Tehran will be forced to abandon its nuclear program. But Trump acknowledged there were other possibilities. "Remember, there are many targets left," he said, surrounded by a solemn-looking trio of advisers − Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speech and skill." A war between Trump's fundamental impulses The White House debate whether to launch the bombers put at odds some of Trump's most fundamental impulses. One is his fervent opposition in all three of his presidential campaigns against "forever wars," including the costly and controversial conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His "America First" agenda reflects a determination to focus less on places like Ukraine and more on challenges close to home. While most Republican congressional leaders praised the president for the bombing, some prominent in the MAGA movement did not. "This is not our fight," Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene complained on social media. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war." On the other hand, Trump is also famously impatient with problems that have frustrated standard solutions. Witness, for instance, his willingness to press the limits of the law in identifying and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. The lengthy efforts at negotiation with Iran, like much of diplomacy, seemed unlikely to reach the sort of dramatic and decisive conclusion he favors. The bombing of Iran also reflects his alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who argues that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to his country. For the prime minister, achieving his decades-old dream of destroying that program is the stuff of legacy. For Trump's legacy, too − a powerful message for a president who cannot run for the Oval Office again. Netanyahu struck that chord. "Congratulations, President Trump," he said in Tel Aviv. "His leadership today has created a pivot in history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace." Congressional leaders notified as planes headed home For better or worse, this will be Trump's war. For one thing, he didn't seek the approval of Congress, which under the Constitution has the right to declare war though the president has broad authority to order the use of military force. The War Powers Act, passed after President Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, requires presidents to notify Congress and limits the length of deployments. After the U.S. bombers had left Iranian air space, the administration immediately notified congressional leaders, Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Sunday. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had risked dragging the United States into a long war "without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community, and without explaining to the American people what's at stake." Those will be the elements of the debate ahead, in echoes of the Iraq war. How serious was the Iranian nuclear threat? And how will voters weigh the stakes and the cost? In Istanbul, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, accused Trump of having "deceived his own voters" by launching the strike. The U.S. administration holds "sole and full responsibility for the consequences of its actions," he said. But he didn't specify whether Iran would retaliate against U.S. forces in the region. Hours after the bunker-buster bombs were dropped, Iran launched a new round of missiles toward Israel. On Monday, the foreign minister plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an ally but one who has his own war to fight.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
