Latest news with #publicbroadcasting
Fox News
7 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
How Johnson pulled off another impossible win with just 1-vote margin on $9.4B spending cut bill
It came down to one vote last Thursday afternoon. Again. That's often the case in the House of Representatives. The GOP sports a modest eight-vote margin in the House. 220-212 with three vacancies. Republicans can only lose three votes and still pass a bill without Democratic assistance. And when the House closed the roll call, lawmakers voted 214-212 to strip USAID and public broadcasting of $9.4 billion. This was the first "rescissions" bill by the House. An effort to claw back money which lawmakers just green-lit in March. But flip one vote, and the measure would have collapsed. A 213-213 vote doesn't get it. By rule, ties fail in the House. The bill represented the first chance for the GOP to make good on proposed cuts from DOGE. From a constitutional standpoint, DOGE can only recommend cuts. Congress has authority over spending. That means lawmakers must vote on every dollar. Lawmakers appropriated the money, but they must also vote to take it back. No vote, no cuts. It's that simple. Earlier in the day on Thursday, it was unclear whether congressional Republicans had the votes to approve the spending cancellation package. It's known as a "rescissions" bill because it "rescinds" money already approved by Congress. But the stakes for this bill were hard to understate for the GOP. Republicans crow a lot about cutting spending and reducing the deficit. But unless you can actually pass a bill to cut spending, talk is cheap. And government programs are expensive. All of official Washington would have trained its attention on the House floor late Thursday afternoon to see how Republicans fared with the spending cancellation request. But the shocking video of the feds tangling with Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and handcuffing him quickly consumed every cubic centimeter of news oxygen. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and California Democrats planned to march to the office of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. A cavalcade of angry Democratic senators seized the Senate floor, excoriating the Trump Administration's tactics and demanding action from Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. A wild scene erupted in the House Oversight Committee. Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., demanded that Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., commit to subpoenaing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after the Padilla fracas. "Will you just shut up!" implored Comer of Frost. "Just shut up! Shut up!" "You're not going to tell me to shut up!" bellowed Frost. "He's been arrested as a former Antifa member," piled on Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. You see why it was hard for the press corps to concentrate on the rescissions vote. But back to the House floor. The bill was heading to defeat midway through the roll call. Six Republicans posted nay votes on the board. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y. was among them. She told reporters her constituents supported public broadcasting. And she didn't like the mechanics of the administration sending a request to Congress to rub out spending. "I think this does give too much discretion to the White House to make cuts when we are the House that has the power of the purse," said Malliotakis. "And I've seen some of the cuts, as I've said in the past, the World Trade Center Health program, the Women's Health program. These are things that we had to go fight and get restored." But there were huddles on the floor during the vote itself. Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., chatted with Johnson and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn. A few moments later, LaLota and Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who was a no, switched their ballots to yes. Republicans gaveled the vote closed at 214-212. "I ultimately voted yes after a conversation or two with the Speaker and the Whip raised my confidence level," said LaLota. "I trust those two individuals. We've dealt with each other for the last couple of years. We've gotten on the same page." Bacon had spoken glowingly in recent days about his relationship with public broadcasters in Nebraska. He also had reservations about cutting PEPFAR, the global AIDS mitigation effort. But now Bacon didn't fry his party. "I was assured that PBS would receive funding in this year's budget. And I discussed PEPFAR with the speaker," said the Nebraska Republican. A few moments later, Johnson was outside the House chamber, bragging about his colleagues for passing the bill. "We are fulfilling the promises we made to the American people," said Johnson. "Today's passage of this initial rescissions package marks a critical step towards a more responsible and transparent government that puts the interests of the American taxpayers first." Failing to pass this teardrop of spending reductions amid a deep federal sea would have been catastrophic for the GOP. Again, especially because of all the braggadocio about cutting spending. Now Republicans can focus on bigger and more controversial spending cut requests from the Trump administration. But few reporters cared much about what Johnson had to say at that moment because of the immediate mania involving Padilla. The Capitol descended into chaos. The outcome of the critical vote was relegated to a footnote on a wild news day. By nightfall, no one was talking about the rescissions package at all. Let alone Padilla. Despite the staggering news traffic, the vote notched yet another narrow victory for Johnson and House Republicans. Like it or not, Johnson has piloted the fractious House Republican Conference to a series of slim victories on tough bills all year long. In February, the House narrowly approved its initial framework for the Big, Beautiful Bill. The outline was essential to help ease eventual passage in the Senate. At one point, it looked like Republicans lacked the votes. In fact, House leaders began sending Members home for the night. Then, they suddenly reversed themselves. Johnson and the GOP eked out a 217-215 victory, approving the framework and sending it to the Senate. Switch one vote, and the gig was up. The House and Senate would not be on the same page with a budget framework for the touchstone of President Trump's agenda. That would neutralize the entire exercise. A few weeks later, the House approved an interim spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, 217-213. Again a narrow vote. Only Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., voted nay. Flip two votes and the tally is 215-215. Again, a tie vote kills the bill. The Senate okayed one framework for the Big, Beautiful Bill in February. Another one in the spring. But the House and Senate still weren't on the same page. In mid-April, the House and Senate finally aligned. The House adopted the Senate's final blueprint for the Big, Beautiful Bill, 216-214. Massie and Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., voted nay. Again, change one vote and it's a tie. Defeat would have stalled the process for the Big, Beautiful Bill. Finally, Johnson and the GOP scored perhaps their biggest win of the year in mid-May. The House voted 215-214 with one member voting "present" to pass the initial version of the Big, Beautiful Bill and send it to the Senate. Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., had problems with the bill. But missed the vote because he fell asleep as the House debated the measure in the middle of the night. House Freedom Caucus Chairman and Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., also had reservations. But he cast the "present" vote. Either of these members could have tanked the legislation had they voted nay. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was the master at lugging challenging votes across the finish line by a vote or two. She's the reason Obamacare passed. But Pelosi often had larger majorities. Her secret sauce was understanding what members needed to vote yes on controversial legislation. The speaker has Trump on his side and a GOP conference that is willing to do practically whatever he wants. That helps a lot. But Johnson's resume of pushing through tough bills by the tiniest of margins is beginning to mirror Pelosi's success. However, the level of difficulty is higher for Johnson thanks to the minuscule majority. Pelosi was a parliamentary maestro when she was Speaker. And so far during his speakership, Johnson has defied political gravity. But whether you like Johnson's politics or not, keen political observers are noticing that he has a knack for pulling off the seemingly unachievable. That was long the calling card of Pelosi. And it may eventually prove to be the calling card of Johnson, too.
Globe and Mail
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, June 14: ‘American tourists … without exception they expressed sorrow and embarrassment at their President's behaviour toward Canadians'
Re 'It's time to rein in Canada's runaway Crown corporations' (Opinion, June 7): While there is a 5-per-cent share for the CBC's English television, there is also the 23.4-per-cent share for French television, 14.6 per cent for English radio and 24.8 per cent for French radio. Last year, 65 per cent of Canadians used at least one of the CBC's services in a typical month. Forty years ago, the CBC's parliamentary appropriation was about $1.09-billion. Last year, it was $1.44-billion. When adjusted for inflation, that's a 50-per-cent cut. During the same period, Canada's population has grown by 54 per cent. Not exactly a 'runaway corporation.' The CBC has lost audience share in part because of fragmentation caused by digital platforms. This is most pronounced on English television, where the CBC competes with U.S. programming. It would be naive not to expect consequences from the dramatic reductions in the CBC's grant. The CBC is not perfect. Let's make it better, not rein it in. Tony Manera Former president, CBC; Ottawa Re 'Canada's national archives need more than just a facelift' (Opinion, June 7): Contributor Charlotte Gray has done us the important service of revealing the impoverished state of our national collection of historical documents at Library and Archives Canada. At this time of national reckoning and rediscovery, Canadians need knowledge of their country more than ever, especially since Canadian history has almost vanished from school curricula. Mark Carney's ambitious plans for rebuilding Canada should include new resources for this vital institution to do its job. Roy MacSkimming Perth, Ont. Re 'The Hockey Canada trial shows how we need to be talking to young men' (Opinion, June 7): The toxic behaviours of many men is disturbing. Whether a result of cultural norms, familiar influences, online activities or patriarchy, I'm uncertain. But I'm certain that calling out noxious behaviours and using laws to enforce aggrieved acts should coincide with educated discussions about fair treatment for all. Men, including young men, should know better. Gregory Enright Hamilton Many years ago, in my late 20s, I was on a bus in Vancouver, sitting in the back half along with a group of young men. They were high-school-aged and talking loudly and performatively. I don't recall the details, but it had toxic male overtones that made me uncomfortable. I wondered how they could talk like that right in front of me. Eventually another man, probably around 40 years old, went and sat with them. He spoke quietly with them for the rest of the ride. I don't know what he said, but they quieted down and listened. I thanked him after we had gotten off the bus. It took awareness, concern, thoughtfulness, responsibility and perhaps some bravery to speak to the young men. I hope it made a lasting impression on them, as it did on me. Are there still men who would do that today? I hope so. Tuula Talvila Ottawa Re 'A river cruise with our American frenemies – what could go wrong?' (Opinion, June 7): I have had only positive encounters with American tourists. On my recent holiday to Milan and Lake Como, my identical twin sister and I met many Americans from a variety of states. Without exception they were friendly, kind and respectful. Without exception they expressed sorrow and embarrassment at their President's behaviour toward Canadians. Earlier in February, we had a similar experience on a two-week prepaid holiday to Florida. Without exception, Americans from all over approached us expressing their discomfort and regret with Donald Trump's actions. One family from Florida even invited us to join them for lunch. We reciprocated with polite gratitude, feeling proud and thankful that we live in such a wonderful country. Elaine Snider Toronto Our recent travel experience in the United States could not have been more different from this tale of woe. We have enjoyed an annual trip to a beach in North Carolina for more than 20 years. We did think twice about going this May, but had prepaid for our condo so off we went. Clearing U.S. customs at Toronto Pearson International Airport was efficient and ended with the agent saying, with a smile, 'Enjoy your trip.' When it came up naturally during interactions with North Carolinians, we did not disguise our citizenship. A typical, fairly illustrative interaction was with a woman in the grocery checkout line. When she heard our accents and we answered her question about where we were from, she said, 'Well, welcome, y'all. We are so glad you're here.' Martin Birt Uxbridge, Ont. We recently returned from a two-week cruise around the British Isles and along the Norwegian coast with about 900 other passengers, most of whom were American. The many U.S. travellers who we met over meals and other activities were uniformly gracious and apologetic regarding the actions of their President and his administration. We met none of the 'ugly Americans' as depicted. While we won't travel to the United States while the Trump crowd is in control, personal contacts with Americans abroad or here should not be discouraged. Richard Mosley Ottawa I had a similar experience on a transatlantic crossing during Donald Trump's first term. At dinner on the first night, an American next to me, on learning I was Canadian, started berating me on the evils of Canada's system of socialist health care. I replied with the usual statistics most Canadians know: health care per capita is much less costly in Canada than in the United States; health outcomes are significantly better on our side of the border; essentially every Canadian has coverage while millions of Americans are still uninsured. My neighbour pointedly ignored me for the rest of the meal. The following evening, he moved to another table. We met many sympathetic Americans on this and other trips. I guess we had bad luck in encountering a prototypical 'ugly American' this once. Sadly, there seem to be many more of them as we suffer through Mr. Trump's second term. Charles Magill Ottawa Re 'Bruce Flatt has some advice for investors: One day this will all be forgotten' (Report on Business, June 7): 'In the long run, we are all dead.' –John Maynard Keynes, 1923. Capitalism: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Paul Childs Edmonton Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@
New York Times
13-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump's $1.1 Billion Public Broadcasting Clawback Faces Pushback in the Senate
Dakota Talk Radio in the tiny town of Lake Andes, S.D., is one of dozens of rural radio stations across the United States that could see more than half of its budget vanish. The station in Unalakleet, Alaska, a remote village in the western Arctic, could lose more than 90 percent of its funding. And the sole station broadcasting to the Aaniiih and Nakoda Native nations in Harlem, Mont., stands to have its entire budget obliterated. President Trump's plan to claw back $9 billion in spending already approved by Congress, which Republicans pushed through the House this week and is pending in the Senate, would slash $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The organization funds more than 1,500 public television and radio stations across the country, including NPR and PBS stations. Many of those stations are in red districts and states, and the cuts have prompted substantial pushback from Republicans, imperiling the bill and highlighting a broader fight between an administration bent on slashing federal funding and the lawmakers confronting the impact of those cuts. G.O.P. opposition to the public broadcasting cuts helped to nearly sink the bill in the House on Thursday, when Speaker Mike Johnson had to wrangle two Republicans on the floor to change their 'no' votes. Now, as the Senate prepares to take it up, Republicans in that chamber are raising the same concerns. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
South China Morning Post
12-06-2025
- Business
- South China Morning Post
House approves Trump request to cut US$9.4 billion funding for foreign aid, broadcasting
The US House of Representatives narrowly voted on Thursday to cut about US$9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as US President Donald Trump's administration looks to follow through on work done by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) when it was overseen by Elon Musk. The package targets foreign aid programmes and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. The vote was 214-212. Republicans are characterising the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States' standing in the world and will lead to needless deaths. 'Cruelty is the point,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts. Massachusetts congressman Jim McGovern said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability, but the measure before the House takes that tool away. 'These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,' McGovern said.
Associated Press
12-06-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
House approves Trump's request to cut funding for NPR, PBS and foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House narrowly voted Thursday to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Donald Trump's administration looks to follow through on work done by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk. The package targets foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. The vote was 214-212. Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States' standing in the world and will lead to needless deaths. 'Cruelty is the point,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts. The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands. 'This rescissions package sends $9.4 billion back to the U.S. Treasury,' said Rep. Lisa McClain, House Republican Conference chair. 'That's $9.4 billion of savings that taxpayers won't see wasted. It's their money.' The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the Senate would likely not take the bill up until July and after it has dealt with Trump's big tax and immigration bill. He also said it's possible the Senate could tweak the bill. The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along. Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump's sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits, are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump's 'America first' ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias. In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic. The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries. Democratic leadership, in urging their caucus to vote no, said that package would eliminate access to clean water for more than 3.6 million people and lead to millions more not having access to a school. 'Those Democrats saying that these rescissions will harm people in other countries are missing the point,' McClain said. 'It's about people in our country being put first.' The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country. The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage and highlight hometown heroes. Advocacy groups that serve the world's poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no. 'We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,' said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability, but the measure before the House takes that tool away. 'These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,' McGovern said. 'This bill is good for Russia and China and undertakers,' added Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed. 'Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn't even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,' Roy said. 'Well, let's just reject this now.'
