Republican Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Pledge to Not Tax Overtime Could Become Federal Law

      by

      When President Trump first floated the idea of “no tax on overtime” at a campaign rally last year, he did not elaborate on how it would work. Could anyone who works more than 40 hours a week claim a tax break? Would overtime pay really be completely tax-free?The answer to both questions, as it turns out, is no.Under the sprawling domestic policy bill that Republicans pushed through the House and are preparing to steer through the Senate, the tax break would be limited. It would be available only to Americans who, under federal law, must be paid at a time-and-a-half rate for working any time exceeding 40 hours in a week. That’s a broad group that includes almost all Americans who are paid an hourly wage, but many salaried workers would not be eligible.And the tax relief would not be total. Americans would still owe payroll taxes, and potentially state income taxes, on their overtime pay. Federal income taxes would be eliminated on those wages, but only on the earnings attributable to the 50-percent bump in pay — only a third of the money made while working overtime.Even with those limitations, both critics and supporters of the idea believe the tax break could reshape the American labor market. The White House Council of Economic Advisers expects that the policy will motivate Americans to work more and help strengthen the economy.Skeptics think the change would primarily drive people to reclassify their earnings or even change jobs in order to file for overtime. They worry that if enough people sought jobs that offer overtime, wages in those positions could eventually fall.“Ultimately, it’s going to create unintended consequences that incentivize certain behaviors in the labor market and thus create winners and losers from that,” said Emmet Bowling, a labor policy analyst at the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. “Hourly jobs might become more desirable because of this tax deduction.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Some House Republicans Have Regrets After Passing Trump’s Domestic Policy Bill

      by

      The sprawling legislation carrying President Trump’s domestic agenda squeaked through the House with one vote to spare, but some Republicans now say they didn’t realize what they voted for.When Republicans muscled their sweeping domestic policy bill through the House by a single vote after an overnight debate, they breathed a sigh of relief, enjoyed a celebratory moment at sunrise and then retreated to their districts for a weeklong recess.Not even two weeks later, the victory has, for some, given way to regret.It turns out that the sprawling legislation to advance tax and spending cuts and to cement much of President Trump’s domestic agenda included a raft of provisions that drew little notice or debate on the House floor. And now, Republicans who rallied behind the bill are claiming buyer’s remorse about measures they swear they did not know were included.Last week, Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska admitted during a town hall meeting in his district that he did not know that the bill would limit judges’ power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. He would not have voted for the measure, he said, if he had realized.And as lawmakers returned to Washington on Tuesday after their weeklong break, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said that she had been unaware that the mega-bill she voted for would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade.“Full transparency, I did not know about this section,” Ms. Greene posted on social media, calling it a violation of states’ rights and adding that she “would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.”The remorseful statements highlighted the realities of legislating in the modern age. Members of Congress, divided bitterly along partisan lines and often working against self-imposed political deadlines, have become accustomed to having their leaders throw together huge pieces of legislation at the very last moment — and often do not read the entirety of the bill they are voting on, if they read any of it at all. At the same time, the polarization of Congress means that few pieces of legislation make it to the floor or to enactment — and the few “must pass” bills that do are almost always stuffed full of unrelated policy measures that would otherwise have little hope of passing on their own.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      In N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race, Mamdani Responds to a Call for His Deportation

      by

      Vickie Paladino, a councilwoman from Queens, called Zohran Mamdani a “radical leftist” who hates America, and warned against “future Zohrans.”In his surprising rise to New York City’s top tier of mayoral hopefuls, Zohran Mamdani has battled opponents’ attacks on his inexperience, his leftward politics and his criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza.But this week, Mr. Mamdani found himself facing a new attack that was both pointed and illogical, when a Republican city councilwoman from Queens called for him to be deported. (Mr. Mamdani is a U.S. citizen.)The remark by the councilwoman, Vickie Paladino, who is known for her incendiary social media posts, quickly became a talking point in the Democratic mayoral primary race, just a day before the candidates were to face off in their first debate.Ms. Paladino recirculated a 2019 social media post from Mr. Mamdani in which he said he couldn’t vote for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont for president in 2016 because he was not a citizen at the time. She was incredulous that Mr. Mamdani was being treated seriously as a mayoral candidate.“Let’s just talk about how insane it is to elect someone to any major office who hasn’t even been a U.S. citizen for 10 years — much less a radical leftist who actually hates everything about the country and is here specifically to undermine everything we’ve ever been about,” Ms. Paladino wrote on X late Monday evening. “Deport.”Mr. Mamdani, who is polling second behind former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in the June 24 primary, soon responded.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Times Confirms More Names on Trump’s Crypto Dinner Guest List

      by

      Some were identified through photos as they entered the event. Others posted about their evening on social media.They came from faraway spots, including Estonia and China, and closer locations, such as San Francisco and even Maryland, but one thing almost all of them had in common was some tie to the cryptocurrency industry.That is the common thread that emerges among the two dozen additional guests The New York Times has added to its list of those invited to President Trump’s dinner last Thursday at his golf club in Virginia.The Times obtained a partial list of all 220 invitees, along with email addresses and phone numbers for many of them. But in some cases the names were common enough or the contact information was so incomplete that The Times could not immediately confirm the attendees’ identities.Work toward confirming these details has continued since last week and The Times has now added another two dozen individuals invited to the dinner and in some cases also for a White House tour. Those additional names have been added to the more than 30 names that The Times published in the past week. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Vote Against E.V. Mandate Felt Like an Attack on California, Democrats Say

      by

      For decades, California has been able to adopt its own emissions regulations, effectively setting the bar for carmakers nationally. And for just as long, Republicans have resented the state’s outsize influence.There is little question that California leaders already see fossil fuels as a relic of the past.At the Southern California headquarters of the state’s powerful clean-air regulator, the centerpiece art installation depicts in limestone a petrified gas station. Fuel nozzles lie on the ground in decay, evoking an imagined extinction of gas pumps.For more than half a century, the federal government has allowed California to set its own stringent pollution limits, a practice that has resulted in more efficient vehicles and the nation’s most aggressive push toward electric cars. Many Democratic-led states have adopted California’s standards, prompting automakers to move their national fleets in the same direction.With that unusual power, however, has come resentment from Republican states where the fossil fuel industry still undergirds their present and future. When Republicans in Congress last week revoked the state’s authority to set three of its mandates on electric vehicles and trucks, they saw it not just as a policy reversal but also as a statement that liberal California should be put in its place.“We’ve created a superstate system where California has more rights than other states,” Representative Morgan Griffith, who represents rural southwestern Virginia, said in an interview. “My constituents think most folks in California are out of touch with reality. You see this stuff coming out of California and say, ‘What?’”Federal law typically pre-empts state law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. But in 1967, the federal government allowed smoggy California to receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact its own clean-air standards that were tougher than federal limits, because the state historically had some of the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards as their own under certain circumstances.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said last week that the state would fight in court to preserve its autonomy in setting emissions rules.Rich Pedroncelli/Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Republicans Kill California’s Ban on Gas-Powered Cars

      by

      In 50 years, California’s authority to set environmental rules that are tougher than national standards had never been challenged by Congress. Until now.The Senate on Thursday blocked California’s landmark plan to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles, setting up a legal battle that could shape the electric car market in the United States.The 51-44 vote was a victory for the oil and gas industry and for Republicans who muscled through the vote by deploying an unusual legislative tactic that Democrats denounced as a “nuclear” option that would affect the way the Senate operates way beyond climate policy.The repeal deals a blow to California’s ambition of accelerating the nation’s transition to electric vehicles. But the consequences will ripple across the country. That’s because 11 other states intended to follow California’s plan and stop selling new gas-powered cars by 2035. Together, they account for about 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.The resolution, which had already been approved by the House, now goes to President Trump’s desk. Mr. Trump, who opposes clean energy and has taken particular umbrage at California’s efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels, is expected to sign it into law.California leaders have promised to challenge the Senate vote and try to restore the ban.“This Senate vote is illegal,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California. “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China.“California’s auto policy was allowed under permission granted by the Biden administration. The 1970 Clean Air Act specifies that California can receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact clean air standards that are tougher than federal limits because the state has historically had the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards under certain circumstances.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Sleep-Deprived Lawmakers Stay Up All Night to Pass the ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill

      by

      Some napped, others pulled all-nighters, and most were bleary-eyed as they slogged to the end of a marathon House debate over President Trump’s signature domestic policy legislation.As they arrived at the Capitol not long after dawn on Thursday to vote on a sweeping domestic policy bill to deliver President Trump’s agenda, members of the House of Representatives were divided by more than just partisan lines.The far more visible split was among those who had managed to get some sleep and those who hadn’t.“Here come the troops,” Representative Glenn Thompson, Republican of Pennsylvania, said cheerfully as he welcomed a bleary-eyed procession of lawmakers to the marble corridors just after 6 a.m.“Clock in on your left,” he added with a smile, gesturing toward the House chamber, where members would soon cast their votes on the wide-ranging bill overhauling key government programs.Many arrived clutching coffee cups or cans of energy drinks, struggling to stay alert after a week’s worth of all-night committee sessions capped off by an overnight floor debate that unfolded as House Republican leaders raced to deliver Mr. Trump a major victory on what he calls the “big, beautiful bill” before a self-imposed Memorial Day deadline.As party leaders delivered their final remarks, some lawmakers stood at attention, clapping and cheering the concluding arguments for and against the bill. Others slumped in peripheral seats or disappeared into the far corners of the chamber, barely awake and struggling to stay that way until the final vote.In a room near the floor, Republican leaders had laid out provisions — not the legislative kind — that would have to suffice for breakfast: dozens of boxes of pizza and a polished silver bowl of fruit snacks, pretzels and chips.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk Suggests He Will Spend ‘a Lot Less’ on Political Donations

      by

      The world’s richest person, who spent more money than anyone else last year as he helped elect President Trump, has indicated lately that he wants to turn back toward his business empire.Elon Musk was the country’s biggest political donor in 2024. But he might be ready to give up the title.Mr. Musk, the world’s richest person, said on Tuesday that he was planning to spend “a lot less” in future elections, the latest sign that he is fading into the background of American politics — at least for now.“In terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Mr. Musk said as he appeared virtually for a combative interview with Bloomberg News at the Qatar Economic Forum. “I think I’ve done enough.”He did keep the door open, however. Asked if his decision stemmed from any blowback he had faced for helping to guide the Trump administration, he said: “If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. But I don’t currently see a reason.”Mr. Musk disclosed over $290 million in federal spending on the 2024 election cycle, most of which went toward backing Donald J. Trump through a super PAC that he started. He has told Mr. Trump’s advisers that he planned to donate about $100 million to pro-Trump groups before the 2026 midterm elections.In the months after Mr. Trump took office in January, Mr. Musk became a frequent presence in Washington as he steered an ambitious, controversial effort to sharply cut government spending. He has also remained a powerful player in Republican campaign finance. Along with an allied group, he spent roughly $25 million on a major Wisconsin Supreme Court race to back a conservative candidate who lost badly.Lately, Mr. Musk has indicated a desire to turn back to his business empire. After a sharp drop in profit at his electric-car company, Tesla, he told Wall Street analysts last month that he planned to spend less time in Washington and more on his companies.He did say on Tuesday, however, that he planned to be in Washington on Wednesday and Thursday, including for a dinner with Mr. Trump. More