As the clock ticks toward a possible default on the national debt, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (RCalif.) and top Democrats in Washingtonas well as media allies on both sidesare locked in a staring contest over who can take the matter less seriously.
The latest development in this slow-motion train wreck was a speech McCarthy delivered Monday from the New York Stock Exchange. “Debt limit negotiations are an opportunity to examine our nation’s finances,” he said, stressing that a bill to raise the nation’s debt limit would only get through the House if it was pared with spending cuts. The House will vote on such a bill within “the coming weeks,” McCarthy promised.
So far, so good. A debt default would be an economic catastrophe for the country and should be averted at all costsbut McCarthy is right that this is a good opportunity to examine America’s out-of-control borrowing habit. Raising the debt ceiling doesn’t authorize more borrowing. It merely gives the Treasury permission to borrow funds to pay for what Congress has previously agreed to spend. But it is the moment when past congressional budgeting decisions come home to roostthe equivalent of seeing your credit card statement after a blowout vacation that you couldn’t afford. You still have to pay the bills, but it should be a wake-up call.
But while McCarthy is saying some of the right things about this situation, he still doesn’t seem to have much of a plan for what to do. Monday’s speech was devoid of specifics beyond a promise to cut spending back to last year’s levelssomething he’s been proposing since January, just weeks after the passage of a year-end omnibus bill that hiked spending across the boardand some rather vague promises about tightening work requirements for welfare programs.
Notably absent from Monday’s speech was any promise about balancing the budget in 10 years, something that had been part of the House GOP’s earlier list of demands for the debt ceiling negotiations. AsReason has previously noted, it’s pretty much impossible to make the budget balance in a decade without making serious alternations to entitlement programs including Social Security and Medicare, and McCarthy has promised not to touch those as part of the debt ceiling package.
Importantly, it remains unclear whether even this narrower list of prospective ideas can pass the GOP-controlled House. Asked in an interview on CNBC just moments after his New York speech ended, McCarthy refused to give a straight answer about whether he had enough votes for this still-murky debt ceiling package.
As Democrats were quick to point out, McCarthy’s “plan” is little more than a series of starting points for negotiations. “What we got today was not a plan,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (DN.Y.) told NBC News after McCarthy’s speech. “It was a recycled pile of the same things he’s been saying for months.”
But, well, Democrats are just recycling the same things they’ve been saying for months too. The White House has been steadfast in refusing to negotiate with House Republicans until McCarthy presents a full-fledged budget proposal like the one President Joe Biden presented on March 9. “I don’t know what we’re negotiating if I don’t know what they want, what they’re going to do,” Biden reiterated to reporters over the weekend.
This is an unserious approach too. Both McCarthy and Biden (and everyone else involved) are well aware of why Democrats want to see a full Republican budget plan before they start negotiatingand it has very little to do with the debt ceiling. Instead, Democrats will pick apart the proposal to score political points by criticizing whatever spending cuts the House GOP outlines.
Indeed, Democrats and their allies are already eager to demagogue the bare bones of what McCarthy has outlined. Liberal Substacker Matt Yglesias says it is “irresponsible for Kevin McCarthy to run around threatening to blow up the global economy in order to snatch poor people’s health care away.” At Talking Points Memo,David Kurtz is already decrying the “draconian spending cuts” that McCarthy has proposed. That’s insane, because McCarthy’s so-called plan merely calls for rolling back federal spending to the level it was at in 2022a whole four months ago.
Here’s the really crazy thing: Even if Congress did somehow manage to hold the discretionary spending level next year, overall spending would still increase. That’s because the $1.7 trillion discretionary budget is only a fraction of federal spending. Other itemslike the so-called mandatory spending on entitlements like Social Security and Medicare as well as the rapidlyincreasinginterest costsconnected to the $31 trillion national debtwill continue to grow and drive federal deficits higher.
The crux of this problem is two-fold. First, Republicans have spent the better part of the past decade completely ignoring fiscal policywhile in many cases actively chasing out members who did care about this stuff. As a result, the GOP has very little institutional sense of what a solidly conservative federal budget would actually look like. Is there any spending plan that would get the support of all 222 Republican members right now? McCarthy doesn’t seem to know.
Second, Democrats have demonstrated an utter unwillingness to acknowledge that America has a serious borrowing problem, which must be the starting point for any negotiation about the debt ceiling regardless of what other policies may or may not end up being part of the final package. They don’t need to see a full budget proposal to acknowledge things like the Congressional Budget Office’s forecast that says the federal government is on track to spend $10.5 trillion on interest payments in the next decadeand more if interest rates remain higher than expected.
Why should Republicans put forth a budget plan when they know in advance that Democrats only want to use it to paint the GOP as a party of benefit-cutting skinflints? Why should Democrats negotiate in good faith when they know quite well that Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when a Dem is in the White House? Neither side has much to gain from doing what the other wants, so no one moves.
But the impasse created by years of poor, myopic decision making in Washington is pushing the federal government ever closer to a dangerous cliff. McCarthy and Biden need to get serious about this, and soon.
CCTV and police bodycam footage allegedly showing three police officers being assaulted at Manchester Airport has been played to jurors.
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and his brother, Muhammad Amaad, 26, are said to have struck out after police were called to the airport on 23 July last year, following Amaaz allegedly headbutting a customer at a Starbucks in Terminal 2.
Minutes later, three police officers approached the defendants at the paystation in the terminal’s car park.
A jury at Liverpool Crown Court today watched CCTV footage from opposite angles, which captured what the prosecution says was a “high level of violence” being used by the siblings.
The prosecution says Amaaz resisted as officers tried to move him to arrest him, and Amaad then intervened.
Junior counsel Adam Birkby suggested Amaaz threw 10 punches, including one to the face of PC Lydia Ward, which knocked her to the floor.
His brother Amaad is then said to have aimed six punches at firearms officer PC Zachary Marsden.
Amaaz also allegedly kicked PC Marsden and struck firearms officer PC Ellie Cook twice with his elbow.
He is said to have punched PC Marsden from behind and had a hold of him, before PC Cook discharged her Taser.
Image: Mohammed Fahir Amaaz (left) and Muhammed Amaad (right) arrive at the court with their lawyer. Pic: PA
The bodycam and CCTV footage, submitted as evidence by the prosecution, allegedly shows the officers’ arrival in the Terminal 2 car park and their attempts to arrest the siblings, as well as their exchanges with them.
PC Ward can be heard saying “Oi, you b*****d” in footage from her bodycam, the prosecution evidence appears to show.
She then appears to fall to the floor and screams.
PC Cook, who is pointing her Taser at one of the defendants, then allegedly says: “Stay on the floor, stay on the floor whatever you do.”
“Get back, get back,” PC Ward appears to say.
The bodycam footage, shown to the jury by the prosecution, shows PC Marsden, who is also pointing his Taser, appear to approach the defendant who is lying on the ground and kick out at him.
Mr Birkby said: “Mr Amaaz, while prone, lifts his head towards the officers. PC Marsden kicks Mr Amaaz around the head area.
“PC Marsden stamps his foot towards the crown of Mr Amaaz’s head area but doesn’t appear to connect with Mr Amaaz.”
Amaaz denies three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the three police officers and one count of assault to Abdulkareem Ismaeil, the customer at Starbucks.
Amaad denies one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to PC Marsden.
A paramedic who secretly gave a pregnant woman an abortion drug during sex has been jailed for more than 10 years.
Stephen Doohan, 33, was married when he met the woman on holiday in Spain in 2021 and began a long-distance relationship.
The High Court in Glasgow heard how the victim travelled to Edinburgh in March 2023 to visit Doohan after learning she was pregnant.
During consensual sex, Doohan twice secretly administered the tablets which led to the woman suffering a miscarriage.
In May, Doohan pleaded guilty to sexual assault and causing the woman to have an abortion. He returned to the dock on Monday where he was jailed for 10 years and six months.
Lord Colbeck said Doohan caused “long-term psychological injury” to his victim.
The judge said: “You put her through considerable pain over a number of days and left her facing a lifetime of pain and loss.”
More on Edinburgh
Related Topics:
The court heard how the woman found tablets hidden under the mattress after she became suspicious over Doohan’s behaviour in bed.
Lord Colbeck said: “The complainer then carried out an internet search for abortion tablets and confronted you over your actions.”
After the woman fell ill, Doohan convinced her to lie to medics at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh amid fears he would be arrested if she told the truth.
The victim later attended another hospital with her sister and was told she was having a miscarriage.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said Doohan sent the woman gifts including perfume, socks, facial cleansing oil, money to get her hair done and bought tickets for them to attend a football match.
The woman complained to the Scottish Ambulance Service in May 2023, sparking an investigation.
The court heard that on 14 March 2023, the day the woman told Doohan she was pregnant, the paramedic used a work intranet to search for abortion drugs.
Lord Colbeck said: “You planned out what you did to your victim using resources available to you as a paramedic.”
In addition to his prison sentence, Doohan was also added to the sex offenders’ register and banned from contacting his victim.
Fiona Kirkby, procurator fiscal for high court sexual offences, said: “Stephen Doohan’s calculated and heinous actions caused the loss of the victim’s pregnancy, robbing her of plans she had for the future.
“He has now been held accountable for this fundamental breach of trust.
“While offences like this are thankfully rare, I hope this prosecution sends a clear message to all those who seek to inflict sexual harm towards women.
“Our thoughts remain with the victim, who must be commended for reporting her experience and seeking justice.
“We recognise that reporting sexual offending can be difficult but would urge anyone affected to come forward and seek support when they feel ready to do so.”
The Scottish Ambulance Service branded it an “appalling case”.
A spokesperson added: “We recognise the courage it must have taken for the victim to come forward and speak out.
“As soon as we learned of these very serious allegations and charges, we immediately took action, providing ongoing support to her whilst liaising with Police Scotland throughout the investigation.
“We know nothing will change what has happened to the victim and all we can hope is this sentence provides some comfort to them.”
UK farmers have “nothing more to give” as they fear the government will use agriculture to further reduce US tariffs in a trade deal with the White House.
The UK is trying to reduce steel tariffs to zero, from a current reduced rate of 25%, but Downing Street refused to confirm if it was confident ahead of Donald Trump’s deadline of 9 July.
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), said UK agriculture had already been used to reduce Trump-imposed tariffs on cars but any other concessions would have serious repercussions for farmers, food security and the UK’s high animal welfare standards.
He told Sky News: “It just feels like we, as the agricultural sector, had to shoulder the responsibility to reduce the tariffs on cars from 25%.
“We can’t do it anymore, we have nothing more to give.
“It’s clear the steel quotas and tariffs aren’t sorted yet, so we just want to be very clear with the government: if they’re sitting around the negotiating table – which we understand they are – they can’t expect agriculture to give any more.”
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Image: Tom Bradshaw, the head of the NFU, said farmers cannot give any more
‘Massively undermine our standards’
Since 30 June, the US has been able to import 13,000 tonnes of hormone-free British beef without tariffs under a deal made earlier this year, which farmers feel was to reduce the car import levy Mr Trump imposed.
The UK was also given tariff-free access to 1.4bn litres of US ethanol, which farmers say will put the UK’s bioethanol and associated sectors under pressure.
Allowing lower US food standards would “massively undermine our standards” and would mean fewer sales to the European Union where food standards are also high, Mr Bradshaw said.
It would leave British farmers competing on a playing field that is “anything but fair”, he said, because US food can be produced – and sold – much cheaper due to low welfare which could see a big reduction in investment in UK farms, food security and the environment.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:08
Can the UK avoid steel tariffs?
‘The US will push hard for more access’
He said the US narrative has always suggested they want access to British agriculture products “as a start and they’ll negotiate for more”.
“The narrative from the White House on 8 May, when a US-UK trade deal was announced, was all about further access to our agriculture products – it was very different to what our government was saying,” he added.
“So far, the UK has stood firm and upheld our higher welfare standards, but the US will push very hard to have further access.
“No country in the world has proved they can reduce the 10% tariffs further.”
Image: US poultry welfare is lower than the UK, with much more intensive farming that means the meat has to be washed with antimicrobials. Pic: AP
US ‘will target poultry and pork’
The Essex farmer said he expects the US to push “very hard” to get the UK to lower its standards on poultry and pork, specifically.
US poultry is often washed with antimicrobials, including chlorine, in an attempt to wash off high levels of bacteria caused by poor hygiene, antibiotic use and low animal welfare conditions not allowed in UK farming.
US pig rearing methods are also quite different, with intensive farming and the use of feed additive ractopamine legal, with both banned in the UK.
A government spokesperson told Sky News: “We regularly speak to businesses across the UK to understand the impact of tariffs and will only ever act in the national interest.
“Our Plan for Change has delivered a deal which will open up exclusive access for UK beef farmers to the US market for the first time ever and all agricultural imports coming to the UK will have to meet our high SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) standards.”