More stories

  • in

    Independent senator Kyrsten Sinema will not seek re-election in Arizona

    Kyrsten Sinema, the former Democrat from Arizona who is an independent in the US Senate, said on Tuesday she would not run for re-election this year.“I love Arizona and I am so proud of what we’ve delivered,” Sinema said in a video posted to social media. “Because I choose civility, understanding, listening, working together to get stuff done, I will leave the Senate at the end of this year.”The news is a boost for Sinema’s old party, as it faces a tough task in seeking to maintain control of the Senate in the November elections.Ruben Gallego, a US Marine Corps veteran and congressman, is the clear leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in Arizona but has lagged in polling behind the extremist, election-denying, pro-Trump Republican nominee, Kari Lake.Both parties will now court Sinema’s remaining supporters.Sinema’s ideological journey from the Green party to the Democratic left and on to sitting as a centrist independent has been a source of incessant speculation and reporting, not least as to what she might do next. She said last year she would not become a Republican but otherwise kept her plans to herself.Sinema also stoked tremendous frustration among progressives.Wielding significant power in a closely divided Senate, she and Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat from West Virginia, exerted great influence over policy priorities for the Biden administration.The two senators were on board for Covid relief and infrastructure legislation but also acted to block an attempt to weaken the filibuster, the Senate rule that requires 60-vote supermajorities for most legislation, a near-impossible target in so partisan and closely divided a chamber.Activists and Democratic party officials knew filibuster reform was necessary for passing voting-rights protections meant to counteract Republican-led voter suppression in key states. Sinema’s own state Democratic party formally censured her on the issue.In a western sun belt state shifting from Republican red to Democratic blue – or perhaps to swing-state purple – Sinema first sat in the US House, then won her Senate seat in 2018, becoming the first non-Republican to represent Arizona in the upper chamber since 1994.To win that seat she beat Martha McSally, the Republican successor to John McCain, a giant of US politics who held the seat for 31 years and was the GOP presidential nominee in 2008.In March 2021, Sinema courted controversy – and progressive fury – with a gesture apparently learned from or used in tribute to McCain, a senator widely known as a political maverick, willing to buck his own party.In 2017, McCain’s famous “thumbs down” gesture on the Senate floor defeated a Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.Three years later, Sinema used the same gesture to express her opposition to raising the minimum wage.In December 2022, Sinema announced her switch to become an independent, enraging the left again.On Tuesday, Nina Turner, a former campaign chair for the Vermont senator and former presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, said: “Kyrsten Sinema’s legacy as a senator will be that she upheld the filibuster, tanking legislation enshrining voting rights, reproductive rights, doubling child poverty by not expanding the Child Tax Credit, and killing raising the minimum wage increase.”In her own statement, Sinema heralded her work across the aisle in the Senate, naming Republican allies including Mitt Romney of Utah and Rob Portman, a former senator from Ohio, but lamented that “Americans still choose to retreat farther to their partisan corners”.“It’s all or nothing,” she said, “the outcome less important than beating the other guy. The only political victories that matter these days are symbolic, attacking your opponents on cable news or social media. Compromise is a dirty word. We’ve arrived in that crossroads and we chose anger and division. I believe in my approach, but it’s not what America wants right now.”What America has right now is a bitter partisan divide, as jaggedly expressed in Arizona, a focal point for Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.Replace Sinema Pac, a group established to oppose Sinema, said the senator “obstructed President Biden’s agenda, got in the way of fundamental rights … and did the bidding of her wealthy donors”. Claiming credit for her departure, it said: “Arizonans deserve better.”Steve Daines of Montana, the Senate Republican campaign chair, told CNN he was not surprised by Sinema’s announcement and claimed that polling showed Lake would benefit more than Gallego from Sinema’s exit.“It gives us another great opportunity, another open seat on the Senate map,” Daines said.In a statement, Lake said Sinema “shares my love for Arizona”, wished her “the best in her next chapter” and attacked Gallego as “far left” and a “radical”.In his own statement, Gallego thanked Sinema “for her nearly two decades of service to our state” and said: “Arizona, we are at a crossroads.“Protecting abortion access, tackling housing affordability, securing our water supply, defending our democracy – all of this and more is on the line. It’s time Democrats, independents and Republicans come together and reject Kari Lake and her dangerous positions.” More

  • in

    US lawmakers present bill to fund government and avert shutdown

    US congressional negotiators on Sunday revealed a bill to fund key parts of the government through the rest of the fiscal year that began in October, as lawmakers faced yet another threat of a partial shutdown if they fail to act by Friday.The legislation sets a discretionary spending level of $1.66tn for fiscal 2024, a spokesperson for Democratic Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said. It fills in the details of an agreement that Schumer and Republican House of Representatives speaker Mike Johnson set in early January.Lawmakers last week passed the fourth stopgap measure since 1 October to keep the government funded, and set themselves two quick deadlines to act, with funding for a part of the government including the Department of Transportation and the Food and Drug Administration running out on 8 March and most other federal agencies partially shutting down on 22 March.The 1,050-page bill lays out in detail funding for six of the dozen segments of the government that Congress is charged with allocating money for, with the next six due by later in the month.The bill “maintains the aggressive investments Democrats secured for American families, American workers, and America’s national defense”, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.Johnson in a statement said “House Republicans secured key conservative policy victories, rejected left-wing proposals, and imposed sharp cuts to agencies and programs critical to the President Biden’s agenda.”While the top leaders of Congress have agreed on the deal, it still faces some challenges, notably opposition by hardline Republicans in the House, who have repeatedly called for sharp spending cuts and typically do not vote for spending bills.That hardline energy, which led to the ouster of Johnson’s predecessor Kevin McCarthy, has also gained steam in the traditionally more staid Senate, leading to top Republican Mitch McConnell’s decision last week to step down from his leadership role at the end of this year.House Republicans were touting the bill as a win, although with a deeply divided caucus they had little negotiating power. The bill includes a 10% cut in funding to the Environmental Protection Agency, 7% to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and 6% to the FBI.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSchumer meanwhile emphasized that the bill fully funds a health program for low-income families, “makes critical investments in our infrastructure, and strengthens programs that benefit services for our veterans”.The ongoing brinkmanship and the nation’s $34tn debt has unnerved credit agencies. Moody’s downgraded its financial outlook on the United States from “stable” to “negative” in November, citing large fiscal deficits and increasing political polarization, though Fitch on Friday affirmed a “stable” outlook.The House will have to vote on the bill first before the Senate can take up the package before Friday, Schumer said. The House is due to return to Washington on Tuesday. More

  • in

    Barbara Lee’s idealism inspires loyalty in her district. Can it carry her to the Senate?

    Barbara Lee has never lost an election.That is quite a feat, given that she has built a career championing unpopular, even radical causes.Two decades ago, she was famously the only member of Congress to vote against giving the president broad, open-ended war powers following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. She received hate mail and death threats from all over the country in response. Before joining Congress, she was one of the only members of the state legislature to challenge California’s “three strikes” law, which escalated sentences for people with prior felonies. She got death threats then, too.Through it all, her congressional district in Oakland and Berkeley, which Lee calls “the wokest district in the country”, has remained loyal to her, repeatedly re-electing her with more than 80% of the vote. In more than two decades in the House, Lee, 77, has become the highest-ranking Black woman in the chamber. As her aspirations turn to the US Senate, however, she may be poised to lose an election for the first time.Lee’s campaign has consistently lagged behind those of two House Democratic colleagues – Katie Porter of Orange county, and Adam Schiff of Los Angeles. More recent polls have also found her trailing the Republican Steve Garvey, a former baseball star of the LA Dodgers. Schiff entered 2024 with $35m in campaign funds and Porter had $13m – Lee has lagged, with just $816,000 in the bank as of January. In the state’s no-partisan primary system, only the top two candidates will advance to the general election in November.As millions of Californians start filling out their primary ballots, Lee said she has given “no thought at all” to the possibility that she might lose.“I have a record of being on the right side of issues – and fighting for that,” she said. And that, she said, “resonates with the majority of Californians”.While Schiff and Porter both made a name for themselves during the Trump presidency – the former is famous for leading the first impeachment effort against Donald Trump, while the latter became nationally known for wielding a whiteboard against hapless conservative appointees – Lee has spent her decades in the House assiduously forwarding progressive policies.View image in fullscreen“She didn’t come on MSNBC every other day,” Ro Khanna, the Silicon Valley congressman who is co-chairing Lee’s campaign, told the Guardian soon after she launched her campaign last year. Lee doesn’t have the same name recognition, or the funds her opponents have, he said. “But she has a record of being an iconic progressive champion.”In an election where the leading Democratic candidates have nearly identical voting records, Lee’s political idealism could be what distinguishes her campaign, or what dooms it.Notably, she was the first to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. On 8 October – as Israel’s military prepared to lay siege to the Gaza Strip following the 7 October attack by Hamas – she called on the world to come together to “try to stop the escalation”.Porter initially declined to take the stance, before eventually coming out in favour of a “bilateral ceasefire”; Schiff still opposes one.“I don’t think you have to temper your message,” Lee said. “Because authenticity is extremely important for voters.”Her thought process now, she added, is very similar to what it was post-9/11, when she opposed the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that gave George W Bush sweeping anti-terrorism war powers, warning that military retaliation could spiral out of control.Back then, her views alienated her from members of her own party. Decades later, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed regret over the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “She was right. I was wrong,” Bernie Sanders said at a debate during his presidential run in 2019. “So was everybody else in the House.”Often, her ideas on domestic policy have been equally audacious – and prescient. She was an early proponent of Medicare for all in 2003, a position that has since gained momentum among Democrats and progressives. Last month, she made headlines discussing a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $50 per hour – seven times the current federal minimum wage of $7.25. She defended the idea, citing a United Way report funding that a yearly income of $127,000 was, as she said, “just barely enough” for a family in the Bay Area. Her fellow Democrats have backed a more modest (but perhaps equally improbable in Congress) proposal to increase the minimum to $20 0r $25.“I don’t think candidates should moderate their positions, because authenticity is extremely important for voters,” she said. “I’ve been consistent over the years even if I have to stand alone.”As much as her ideals may have isolated her on Capitol Hill, they have been embraced in Oakland and Berkeley. After her 2001 stand against the AUMF, she was re-elected to her office with 81% of the vote.“Here in the Bay Area, we have deep anti-war roots, spanning back to the Vietnam era,” said Aimee Allison, president and founder of the advocacy group She the People. A former combat medic, Allison left the military with an honourable discharge as a conscientious objector, during the Gulf War. “Barbara Lee is coming out of that grand tradition.”View image in fullscreenLee was born in El Paso, Texas, and raised in southern California. But it was in Oakland the the Bay Area, in the birthplace of the Black Panthers and the centre of the peace movement, that she came of political age. “We’re the heart and soul of the peace and justice movement,” Lee said. “And a lot of my understanding and clarity on issues around national security and the defence budget come directly from the Bay Area.”Lee landed there after leaving an abusive relationship, two young children in tow, and was for a stint unhoused, floating between motels. “I understand the housing crisis in a way that probably a lot of senators don’t,” she said.Eventually, she enrolled as a student at Oakland’s Mills college, and began volunteering at the Black Panthers’ Community Learning Center. Back then, she didn’t believe in the national political system, which had repeatedly harmed and failed Black and minority Americans.” I was an activist. I was a revolutionary,” she said in an interview with the Kennedy presidential library. “I was not going to register to vote; there was no way I was going to get involved in politics.”Then Lee met Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman to be elected to Congress – and in 1972, the first woman of colour to run for president. And she found a politician who spoke to her. Lee signed on to work for Chisholm’s presidential campaign, and then started working for the congressman Ron Dellums – the firebrand anti-war activist and anti-apartheid campaigner.In 1990, she ran for office herself. “She was asking about the seat through the 12 years I was in it,” said Elihu Harris, a former California representative who has been friends with Lee since college. “Like ‘move over, move over.’ It was a joke but she wanted to be in elected office.” When Harris stepped down as a representative to serve as Oakland mayor, Lee took his place. “It wasn’t even a close election,” Harris chuckled.View image in fullscreenShe was elected to the state senate, and then succeeded her mentor Dellums as a US congresswoman – serving 25 years. Now the activist and revolutionary who once refused to register to vote said she’s seeking a “larger megaphone” in the Senate.If elected, she would be the third Black woman to serve in the chamber. Only nine Black people have ever served in the Senate, and only two – Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and now vice-president, Kamala Harris – were women. “I made the decision to run because I think my voice as an African American woman, and my perspective, is needed there,” Lee said. “We’re really at a crossroads. And Black women really understand these crossroads – and how to fight and how to lift up those voices that haven’t been heard.”Leftist and progressive groups have generally backed Lee over Porter, both of whom are members of the Congressional Progressive caucus, in large part due to her depth of experience.Lee, at 77, has brushed off concerns that she is too old to seek office. Indeed, even in an election cycle where the advanced years of the leading candidates for president – and their mental fitness to serve – has been at top of mind for voters, Lee’s experience has especially appealed to younger voters and progressives.“Even if she comes in third, or she comes in fourth, then I’m very happy to have voted for the only candidate who is actually working to stop a genocide,” said Jonah Gottlieb, a Democratic party delegate based in Berkeley. In early October, after Lee had called for a ceasefire, but before she had signed onto a ceasefire resolution put forth by other congressional progressives, Gottlieb joined more than two dozen Jewish constituents outside her Oakland office asking her to add her name to the bill.A few days later, her staff met with them as well as Palestinian activists. On 18 October, she signed on to the resolution.“I know that she has really good relationships with progressive organisations in California, and she will work really effectively with these grassroots movements, in a way that I haven’t seen from Katie Porter and certainly haven’t seen from Adam Schiff,” said Gottlieb.View image in fullscreenLee is also known to keep things copacetic in Congress – perhaps paradoxically, given tendency to take tough stands.“Everybody is okay with her,” said Julie Diaz Waters, a former intern and board member at Emerge California, a non-profit that recruits and trains Democratic women in politics. “Something I learned from her in terms of navigating relationships – is that you don’t try to make enemies in this game.” Lee has a habit of phoning her colleagues before a vote – to let them know that she won’t be supporting their legislation. “I call it stabbing in the front, not the back,” Waters said. “It’s a commitment to transparency. It’s a respectful way to operate.”Though Lee doesn’t hold the centrist fidelity for bipartisanship, she does have a record of working with Republicans. “She’s pragmatic and she understands the legislative process, the political process,” said Harris. “So Barbara is always someone who’s willing to seek and find common ground.”Less than two years after she dramatically rejected George W Bush’s request for legal authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of 9/11, Lee worked with him on the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) – the largest commitment by any nation to address a single disease in the world.Bush has since made the multi-billion dollar program one of his defining legacies.Lee kept working to improve the program, including to eliminate provisions pushing ineffective abstinence-only education and restricting outreach to sex workers. In the Senate, Lee said, she remains dedicated to fighting for reproductive rights and freedoms, against a tide of restrictive policies across the US.“I’ve lived this, so I know,” said Lee, who has been open about her own back-alley abortion in Mexico. She was 16 at the time, and the Roe v Wade case establishing a right to abortions had yet to be ruled.“As someone who comes from a community that has been discriminated against – historically we had to fight for all of our freedoms,” she said. “This is in my DNA.” More

  • in

    US Congress averts shutdown but the deadlock remains over Ukraine aid

    Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress managed to ward off a damaging federal government shutdown with a last-minute compromise reached this week – but remain deadlocked over approving further military assistance for Ukraine and Israel, and tightening immigration laws.Congress was up against a Friday midnight deadline to reauthorize government spending or see a chunk of the federal departments cease much of their operations.On Wednesday, top lawmakers including Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, and Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, announced they “are in agreement that Congress must work in a bipartisan manner to fund our government”, and the following day lawmakers passed a short-term spending measure that Joe Biden signed on Friday.But similar agreement has proven elusive when it comes to funding both the continuation of Ukraine’s grinding defense against Russia’s invasion and Israel’s assault on Gaza.Last month, a bipartisan Senate agreement that would have paired the latest tranche of military aid with measures to limit the number of undocumented people and asylum seekers crossing into the country from Mexico was killed by Republicans – reportedly so Donald Trump, who is on the cusp of winning the Republican presidential nomination, could campaign on his own hardline approach to immigration reform.The Senate then approved a $95bn bill that would authorize aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan without changing policy at the border, but Johnson has refused to put it to a vote in the House. Meanwhile, the government funding saga isn’t quite over. This week’s agreement pushed the funding deadlines for the two bills authorizing spending to 8 and 22 March. In their joint statement, the House and Senate leaders said lawmakers would vote on the 12 separate appropriations bills funding federal departments before these dates.As Russia’s invasion enters its third year, enthusiasm for Kyiv’s cause has cooled among the American right. While it still has high-profile champions among the GOP, including the party’s top senator, Mitch McConnell, it is Democrats who have been loudest in sounding the alarm over the holdup of aid as Russia advances in the country.“Every day that House Republicans refuse to hold a vote on the bipartisan National Security Supplemental, the consequences for Ukraine grow more severe,” Biden said on Thursday.And though Biden’s administration faces intense criticism from some of his allies for his support for Israel – on Tuesday, a write-in campaign to protest his Middle East policy picked up 100,000 votes in vital swing state Michigan’s Democratic primary – the president insisted the aid would help both Israel’s fight against Hamas and the needs of Gaza’s civilians.“This bill will help ensure that Israel can defend itself against Hamas and other threats. And it will provide critical humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people and those impacted by conflicts around the world. Because the truth is, the aid flowing into Gaza is nowhere near enough, and nowhere fast enough. Innocent lives are on the line,” he said.The biggest obstacle at this point appears to be Johnson, a rightwing lawmaker and Trump ally elevated to the speaker’s job in October after an unusual intraparty revolt cast Kevin McCarthy from the post. On Wednesday, a coalition of parliamentary leaders from European countries including France, Spain, Finland and Ukraine sent an open letter to Johnson asking him to allow a vote on Ukraine aid.“While Speaker Johnson believes we must confront Putin, and is exploring steps to effectively do so, as he said at the White House, his immediate priority is funding America’s government and avoiding a shutdown,” the speaker’s office replied.Centrist lawmakers in Congress’s lower chamber, which the GOP controls by a meager two seats, are reportedly planning to circulate a discharge petition, which, if signed by a majority of members, could force Johnson to put Ukraine aid up for a floor vote. Asked about that at a press conference, the Democratic House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, was not ready to endorse the idea.“The most effective way to secure aid for our democratic allies, including, but not limited to, Ukraine, is to take the bipartisan bill that is pending before the House right now and put it on the floor,” Jeffries said, adding: “All legislative options remain on the table.” More

  • in

    New Jersey man pleads guilty to trying to bribe Bob Menendez with Mercedes

    A New Jersey businessman pleaded guilty Friday to trying to bribe the US senator Bob Menendez.Jose Uribe, who signed a deal to cooperate with prosecutors building a case against Menendez, entered the plea in Manhattan federal court in connection with seven charges, including conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services wire fraud, obstruction of justice and tax evasion. Prosecutors allege that he gave Menendez’s wife a Mercedes-Benz.According to Uribe’s plea agreement, he could face up to 95 years in prison, though he could win leniency by cooperating and testifying against the other defendants, which he has agreed to do.Uribe was among three businessmen charged in the corruption case against the New Jersey Democrat and his wife, Nadine Menendez, which was revealed early last fall. Authorities say Menendez and his wife accepted bribes of cash, gold bars and the luxury car in exchange for his help and influence over foreign affairs.The defendants have pleaded not guilty.Uribe had been charged with providing Menendez’s wife with the Mercedes-Benz convertible after the senator called a government official about another case involving an associate of Uribe.Uribe’s attorney, Daniel Fetterman, declined to comment.Menendez, his wife and the two other New Jersey businessmen are scheduled to go on trial in May.Federal prosecutors allege that Menendez, the former chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, used his position to take actions that benefited foreign governments in exchange for bribes paid by associates in New Jersey.An indictment contends that Menendez and his wife took gold bars and cash from a real estate developer – and that the senator used his clout to get that businessman a multimillion-dollar deal with a Qatari investment fund.Menendez is also accused of helping another New Jersey business associate get a lucrative deal with the government of Egypt. Prosecutors allege that in exchange for bribes, Menendez did things that benefited Egypt, including ghostwriting a letter to fellow senators encouraging them to lift a hold on $300m in aid.Uribe was accused of buying the luxury car after Nadine Menendez’s previous car was destroyed when she struck and killed a man crossing the street. She did not face criminal charges in connection with that crash.The indictment says the senator helped Uribe by trying to persuade prosecutors to go easy on one of his business associates, who was the subject of a criminal investigation. More

  • in

    ‘Huge tax breaks’: private equity prepares for a boon from Congress

    Some of largest and most profitable companies in the US are primed to save billions of dollars from a congressional tax deal that critics say gives “billions in tax credits to the biggest corporations while giving pennies to middle-class children and families”. And private equity funds could be among the deal’s biggest beneficiaries, a Guardian analysis suggests.The tax cuts passed the House of Representatives at the end of January as part of an agreement that pairs handouts for businesses with a moderate expansion of the child tax credit. The Senate could vote on the bill over the coming weeks, and the White House has indicated that Joe Biden would sign it into law.The deal, led by Democratic senator Ron Wyden and Republican congressman Jason Smith – the chairs of Congress’s tax-writing committees – would roll back a series of tax measures that were designed to partially offset the cost of the 2017 Trump tax cuts.Weakening these provisions would allow companies to claim bigger tax deductions for certain expenses, including buying new equipment, spending money on research and development, and paying interest on their debt, as the Guardian previously reported.Last year the American Investment Council (AIC), private equity’s main trade group, spent more than $3m lobbying the federal government, according to OpenSecrets – more than any single year since 2009. Including their subsidiaries, five of the country’s largest private equity funds – Blackstone Group, KKR & Company, Carlyle Group, Cerberus Capital Management and Apollo Global Management – together spent an additional $21m lobbying over the same period.“Increasing the interest deductions, which private equity firms have been the worst abusers of, is just another example of how the Wyden-Smith tax deal hands out billions in tax credits to the biggest corporations while giving pennies to middle-class children and families,” the Democratic congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, one of two dozen House Democrats who voted against the bill, told the Guardian.“While private equity is cheering on the huge tax breaks they will get if this deal passes the Senate, American families are living paycheck to paycheck and struggling with rising costs.”‘Debt can supercharge the returns of private equity’Tax policy experts told the Guardian that raising the cap on interest deductibility could provide an especially generous subsidy for private equity funds, which rely heavily on debt.“The model of the private equity industry is often to … buy public corporations, take them private and load them up with debt,” said Steve Wamhoff of the non-profit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. These heavy debt burdens help explain why companies bought by private equity funds are about 10 times more likely than other firms to go bankrupt.“The deductions that are allowed for interest expenses really make that a more viable business model,” Wamhoff said.Debt is cheaper when companies get a tax break for deducting the interest they pay on that debt, and “cheaper money, which has to be repaid by their takeover targets, is what makes private equity go,” said Carter Dougherty of Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), an advocacy coalition.“The magic of the private equity business model, and the way that it’s able to generate outsized returns, is its reliance on debt for the acquisition,” said Brendan Ballou, author of Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America.If you invest $20m in a business and get 10% returns, you only get $2m back,” Ballou explained. “But if, of that $20m, you actually only put up $2m yourself, you actually make 100% return. So debt, or leverage, allows you to get bigger returns than you normally would if you actually had to put up your own cash.”That’s how “debt can supercharge the returns of private equity”, Ballou said.Asked for comment, the AIC referred the Guardian to two letters previously signed by the group, one of which states that “debt financing plays an important role in supporting job-creating investments”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“There’s already a strong bias in the tax code for debt, and this bill doubles down on that bias to boost private equity’s predatory practices, which will only drive more American companies into bankruptcy and decrease market competition,” said the Texas congressman Lloyd Doggett, one of three Democrats who voted against the bill in the House ways and means committee, in a statement.“There’s nothing fair about private equity companies lining their pockets while shifting the tax burden to American families already dealing with high costs.”‘A complete wasteful giveaway’The Trump tax law established new limitations on how much interest companies could deduct from their tax bills in a single year. That annual cap on interest deductions was tightened further in 2022.Higher interest rates have made debt more expensive, so private equity funds have found themselves having to invest more of their own money, rather than relying as extensively on borrowed money.That shift, in turn, has lowered potential returns, adding to the industry’s sense of urgency to loosen the cap on interest deductions, AFR’s Carter Dougherty said.Not only would the Wyden-Smith deal undo the tighter limit created by the Trump law, but it would do so retroactively, meaning corporations could amend their 2022 and 2023 tax returns to take advantage of the newly generous subsidies.Making these tax cuts retroactive “would be just a complete wasteful giveaway”, Chye-Ching Huang, the executive director of the Tax Law Center at the New York University School of Law, told the Senate finance committee last November. “You can’t change past investments or wages by giving away tax cuts.”Loosening the interest deduction threshold would cost $64bn over the next 10 years if it were made permanent, according to an estimate provided to members of the House ways and means committee by the US Congress’s non-partisan joint committee on taxation.While the Wyden-Smith deal only rolls back the provision through 2025, tax policy experts told the Guardian that corporations and their trade groups would probably work to extend it further.In a statement to the Guardian, a Wyden spokesperson said: “The provision dealing with business interest was a Republican priority in negotiations, and it’s clear that it would become law in a Republican Congress without any matching benefit for working families. With the support of finance committee Democrats, Senator Wyden set a standard for this divided Congress that any tax cuts for corporations must be matched with an investment in children and families that the Joint Committee on Taxation scores as equal, and that’s why the bill includes a child tax credit expansion that helps 16 million children from low-income families get ahead.”Smith’s office did not respond to a request for comment. More

  • in

    Biden calls for compromise while Trump goes full red meat at US-Mexico border

    It might be seen as the first US presidential debate of 2024. Two candidates and two lecterns but 300 miles – and a political universe – apart.Joe Biden and Donald Trump spent Thursday at the US-Mexico border, a vivid display of how central the immigration issue has become to the election campaign. Since it is far from certain whether official presidential debates will happen this year, the duelling visits might be as close as it gets.And it was as clarifying about the choice facing voters as any verbal clash on the debate stage. Biden came to push legislation and appeal to the head. Trump came to push fear and appeal to the gut. It is sure to be a close-run thing.That they were at the border at all represented a win for Republicans, who have forced Democrats to play on their territory as the debate over immigration in Washington shifts further to the right.Border crossings have been at or close to record highs since Biden took office in January 2021, though they have dropped so far this year, a trend that officials attribute to increased Mexican enforcement and seasonal trends. Democrats have become increasingly eager to embrace restrictions as they are confronted by migrants sleeping in police stations and airplane hangars.Where the presidents went on Thursday, and who went with them, told its own story. Biden headed to the Rio Grande Valley city of Brownsville which, for nine years, was the busiest corridor for illegal crossings. He was accompanied by the homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, whom Republicans earlier this month narrowly voted to impeach over his handling of the border.Trump, who has echoed Adolf Hitler by arguing that immigrants entering the US illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country”, travelled to Eagle Pass in the corridor currently witnessing the highest number of crossings – though they have fallen in recent months.The former president was joined by Texas governor Greg Abbott, a Republican who deployed thousands of national guard troops and laid concertina wire and river buoys to deter illegal immigration through a programme called Operation Lone Star – sparking legal and political standoffs with the White House.It was also Abbott who vowed to “take the border to President Biden” by busing thousands of migrants to Democratic-led cities, a move of diabolical genius that nationalised an issue which has, polls show, overtaken inflation as voters’ number one concern.In public remarks, Trump went full red meat, appealing to racist instincts in ways that offered a sobering reminder of the stakes of the election. “This is a Joe Biden invasion,” he said, insisting that “men of a certain age” were coming from countries including China, Iran, Yemen, DR Congo and Syria. “They look like warriors to me.”The former president – who favours travel bans and “ideological screening” for migrants – plucked assertions out of the air: “It could be 15 million, it could be 18 million by the time he gets out of office … A very big population coming in from jails in the Congo … We have languages coming into our country that nobody even speaks those languages. They’re truly foreign languages.”View image in fullscreenTrump went on to describe the alleged crimes of illegal immigrants and claimed that Biden has “the blood of countless innocent victims” on his hands. It is safe to assume that, at this summer’s Republican national convention, a series of gratuitous and lurid stories will be told along with a parade of victims’ families.Biden, who has been on the defensive on the issue in recent months, had a very different objective. He wanted to shame congressional Republicans for rejecting a bipartisan effort to toughen immigration policies after Trump told them not to pass it and give Biden a policy victory.“Join me – or I’ll join you – in telling the Congress to pass this bipartisan border security bill,” he said, attempting to turn the tables on Trump. “We can do it together. It’s the toughest most efficient, most effective border security bill the country has ever seen. So instead of playing politics with the issue, why don’t we just get together and get it done?”That’ll be the day. But in truth any president would have struggled with this escalating crisis. Congress has been paralysed on the issue for decades. Trump left vital agencies in disarray. Climate change, war and unrest in other nations, along with cartels that see migration as a cash cow, have conjured a perfect storm for Trump’s nativist-populist message to frame the conversation.Clarissa Martinez De Castro, vice-president of the Latino Vote Initiative at UnidosUS, says: “It seems most people are hearing about the issue of immigration from Republicans rather than from Democrats. That means you are allowing your opponents to define what your position is and that would be political malpractice for any candidate or elected leader.”Last week a Marquette Law School Poll national survey found 53% of voters say Trump is better on immigration and border security, while only 25% favour Biden on the issue. And for the first time a majority (53%) said they support building a wall along the entire southern border – a promise that Trump has been making since he rode down the escalator at Trump Tower in June 2015.The dynamic leaves Biden caught between trying to please the right while not alienating the left. Republicans and Maga media are demanding draconian measures and pushing emotional buttons by highlighting cases such as the arrest of Jose Antonio Ibarra, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, over the murder of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley.Biden duly embraced immigration policies that he ran against as a candidate in 2020 such as restricting asylum laws and promising to “shut down the border” if given new authority. But such measures were condemned by progressives and could put his own coalition at risk in a crucial election year.De Castro adds: “If you go back to the early 2000s, there was similarly a lack of alignment on this issue. It took work to get there, but then, for many years, Democrats were seen as aligned as the party that believed in legal immigration and a path to legality for immigrants here and smart enforcement. In some ways they have lost their voice on this, and they need to recoup that.”If Biden and Trump do share a debate stage later this year, America can only hope for a substantial debate on immigration policy. But the four-year electoral cycle and soundbite age are the enemy of the long-term reform that is sorely needed. This knottiest of political problems goes way beyond America’s borders.Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez, president of NextGen America, a group focused on young voters, says: “Any immigration plan actually has to address the root causes. People are coming out of deep economic need and also fleeing very violent situations. Until you address that it doesn’t matter what kind of barriers they try and create physically at the border to make it more difficult. If they want real solutions, they have to address that.” More

  • in

    House and Senate negotiators reach agreement to prevent shutdown – report

    With government funding set to partially expire on Friday, House and Senate negotiators have reached an agreement to prevent a shutdown, Politico reported.Funding for some federal departments was previously set to expire after Friday, while the rest faced an 8 March deadline. Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress met with Joe Biden yesterday at the White House, where all sides expressed their desire to avoid a shutdown that the president warned would damage the economy.More details soon … More