Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Congressional Republicans don’t want the blame for DOGE’s mayhem

Published

on

Congressional Republicans don’t want the blame for DOGE’s mayhem

The chaotic efforts of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut federal spending without congressional approval have already led to widespread harms. Now, for the first time, the White House is reportedly planning to ask congressional Republicans to formally enact a share of DOGE’s damaging agenda into law. But though the first proposal is just a fraction of DOGE’s attempted cuts, Republicans in Congress are already having trouble taking responsibility.

Ironically, the administration would deliver the proposal under authorities and procedures outlined in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 — the same law the administration has flouted for months while illegally withholding, or impounding, funds appropriated by Congress. Under that law, the Senate can approve a rescission package with only a majority vote — no filibuster allowed. But even with that lowered hurdle, the Trump administration is struggling to find much among its unlawful freezing of funds that at least 50 Republican senators are willing to publicly support.

As Elon Musk walks back his original inflated promises of savings, the Trump administration has dragged its feet on getting Congress to affirm its cuts.

The White House is in a bind of its own creation. The executive branch cannot legally cancel funding on its own: Congress decides how much money is made available and how it can be used. The administration can only lawfully delay the spending of that funding after it sends a “special message” formally proposing that Congress rescind — in essence, take back — those funds. And the delay can only last for a short time while Congress considers the proposal.

Of course, in the roughly 100 days since the Trump administration started illegally impounding funds, it has sent no such messages. The White House continues to trumpet DOGE’s deeply unpopular efforts, but as Elon Musk walks back his original inflated promises of savings, the Trump administration has dragged its feet on getting Congress to affirm its cuts.

Part of the White House’s problem is that any rescission proposal transmitted to Congress highlights that the administration has been illegally impounding funds — both those included in that package and, perhaps more crucially, those not included. Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee recently estimated that the Trump administration is actively holding up or fighting in court to block over $400 billion in federal funds. Already, the Government Accountability Office has opened nearly 40 impoundment investigations into different administration actions.

The other part of the problem is finding the votes. The first rumored rescission package was a supposed $9.3 billion in cuts from PBS, NPR, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, with roughly $8 billion coming from foreign aid. The dollars at stake are relatively small in the context of DOGE’s (inflated and error-ridden) claims of savings. Yet it “has run into a buzzsaw of opposition from House and Senate Republicans,” Punchbowl News reported earlier this week.

It’s reminiscent of the old joke about a restaurant where the food is poison and portions are too small. Even congressional Republicans seem to blanch at the juxtaposition of focusing on cutting — rather than proposing improvements to — foreign aid and public broadcasting while extending trillions of dollars in tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy.

Why isn’t a friendly majority Republican Congress clamoring to share in the credit by voting these attempted cuts into law?

The rescission package may hamstring or eliminate programs that, for example, aim to help feed starving children with the help of American farmers and manufacturers and longtime bipartisan initiatives to help those suffering from HIV/AIDS around the world — not to mention local PBS programming — while the proposed savings from such cuts would offset a tiny 0.2% of the cost of merely extending the expiring individual tax provisions from the 2017 tax law.

Remember, DOGE has already taken myriad harmful and capricious actions: from making it harder for people to get their Social Security benefits and ending programs that provide food assistance to schools and food banks by letting them buy goods directly from farmers, to dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and canceling or freezing billions of dollars for medical research.

So then why are only foreign aid and public broadcasting budgets allegedly being brought forward to Congress for rescission? If the Trump administration has more savings it can proudly recommend to at least 50 Republican senators, why is it so slow to bring those forward? While DOGE continues to pursue unlawful impoundments, why isn’t a friendly majority-Republican Congress clamoring to share in the credit by voting these attempted cuts into law?

The answer is clear: More than 100 days since the White House began illegally impounding funds, it seems that no one wants to publicly own DOGE’s actions that continue to hurt people across the country. But try as Republicans might to hide the results, the Trump administration has shown that even without producing a lot of budgetary savings, it is possible to do a lot of harm.

Devin O’Connor

Devin O’Connor is a senior fellow on the federal fiscal policy team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

The Latest: Justice Department will allow lawmakers to see unredacted Epstein files

Published

on

The Latest: Justice Department will allow lawmakers to see unredacted Epstein files

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

‘Melania’ falls steeply at the box office

Published

on

‘Melania’ falls steeply at the box office

NEW YORK (AP) — Hollywood largely ceded attention to football over a slow box-office weekend, with the survival thriller “Send Help” repeating as No. 1 in ticket sales and the Melania Trump documentary “Melania” falling sharply in its second weekend.

Super Bowl weekend is typically one of the lowest attended moviegoing times of the year. It was the second slowest weekend last year and in 2024 it ranked dead last for moviegoing.

Studios instead put their focus on advertising movies for the massive television audience. Among the trailers expected to hit the NFL broadcast Sunday were The Walt Disney Co.’s “Mandalorian and Grogu,” Lionsgate’s Michael Jackson biopic, “Michael” and Universal Pictures’ “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.”

In North American theaters, the Disney.-20th Century Studios release “Send Help,” directed by Sam Raimi, lead all films with $10 million in its second weekend, according to studio estimates Sunday. With $53.7 million globally thus far, the R-rated survival thriller has proved a solid midbudget success. Disney meanwhile watched its remarkably long-lasting “Zootopia 2″ cross $1.8 billion worldwide in its 11th week of release.

“Melania,” from Amazon MGM, added 300 theaters in its second weekend but dropped steeply with to $2.4 million in ticket sales, down 67% from its much-discussed debut. The rapid downturn means the Brett Ratner-directed documentary is likely heading toward flop territory given its high price tag. Amazon MGM paid $40 million for film rights, plus some $35 million to market it.

The North American total for “Melania” stands at $13.4 million. Amazon MGM has not released international figures, though they’re expected to be paltry.

Kevin Wilson, head of domestic distribution for the studio, said the movie’s box-office performance “is a critical first moment that validates our wholistic distribution strategy, building awareness, engagement, and provides momentum ahead of the film’s eventual debut on Prime Video.”

The film’s ticket sales — which would be very good for a less expensive documentary — were a talking point throughout the week. Late-night hosts Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel hammered the movie’s sales. Kimmel called them a “rigged outcome.” Elsewhere in theaters, the Italy-set Kevin James romantic comedy “Solo Mio” debuted with a robust $7.2 million, a major win for Angel Studios, best known for its faith-based releases. “Stray Kids: The Dominate Experience,” a K-pop concert film released by Bleecker Street, launched with $5.6 million, and an additional $13.2 million overseas. The Luc Besson-directed Bram Stoker adaptation “Dracula” opened with $4.5 million, a studio-best debut for the indie distributor Vertical.

One of the most unusual releases in theaters, however, remains the low-budget indie “Iron Lung.” The YouTube filmmaker Markiplier, whose real name is Mark Fischbach, self-financed and self-distributed the R-rated video game adaptation, along with writing, directing and starring in it. In its second weekend, “Iron Lung” collected $6.2 million, bringing its two-week total to $31.2 million. It cost $3 million to make.

Top 10 movies by domestic box office

With final domestic figures being released Monday, this list factors in the estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Comscore:

1. “Send Help,” $10 million.

2. “Solo Mio,” $7.2 million.

3. “Iron Lung,” $6 million.

4. “Stray Kids: The Dominate Experience,” $5.6 million.

5. “Dracula,” $4.5 million.

6. “Zootopia 2,” $4 million.

7. “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” $3.5 million.

8. “The Strangers: Chapter 3,” $3.5 million.

9. “Shelter,” $2.4 million.

10. “Melania,” $2.4 million.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Why Trump doesn’t want home prices to fall

Published

on

Why Trump doesn’t want home prices to fall

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump wants to keep home prices highbypassing calls to ramp up construction so people can afford what has been a ticket to the middle class.

Trump has instead argued for protecting existing owners who have watched the values of their homes climb. It’s a position that flies in the face of what many economists, the real estate industry, local officials and apartment dwellers say is needed to fix a big chunk of America’s affordability problem.

“I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes, and they can be assured that’s what’s going to happen,” Trump told his Cabinet on Jan. 29.

That approach could bolster the Republican president’s standing with older voters, a group that over time has been more likely to vote in midterm elections. Those races in November will determine whether Trump’s party can retain control of the House and Senate.

“You have a lot of people that have become wealthy in the last year because their house value has gone up,” Trump said. “And you know, when you get the housing — when you make it too easy and too cheap to buy houses — those values come down.”

But by catering to older baby boomers on housing, Trump risks alienating the younger voters who expanded his coalition in 2024 and helped him win a second term, and he could wade into a “generational war” in the midterms, said Brent Buchanan, whose polling firm Cygnal advises Republicans.

“The under-40 group is the most important right now — they are the ones who put Trump in the White House,” Buchanan said. “Their desire to show up in an election or not is going to make the difference in this election. If they feel that Donald Trump is taking care of the boomers at their expense, that is going to hurt Republicans.”

The logic in appealing to older voters

In the 2024 presidential election, 81% of Trump’s voters were homeowners, according to AP VoteCast data. This means many of his supporters already have mortgages with low rates or own their homes outright, possibly blunting the importance of housing as an issue.

Older voters tend to show up to vote more than do younger people, said Oscar Pocasangre, a senior data analyst at liberal think tank New America who has studied the age divide in U.S. politics. “However, appealing to older voters may prove to be a misguided policy if what’s needed to win is to expand the voting base,” Pocasangre said.

Before the 2026 elections, voters have consistently rated affordability as a top concern, and that is especially true for younger voters with regard to housing.

Booker Lightman, 30, a software engineer in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, who identifies politically as a libertarian Republican, said the shortage of housing has been a leading problem in his state.

Lightman just closed on a home last month, and while he and his wife, Alice, were able to manage the cost, he said that the lack of construction is pushing people out of Colorado. “There’s just not enough housing supply,” he said.

Shay Hata, a real estate agent in the Chicago and Denver areas, said she handles about 100 to 150 transactions a year. But she sees the potential for a lot more. “We have a lack of inventory to the point where most properties, particularly in the suburbs, are getting between five and 20 offers,” she said, describing what she sees in the Chicago area.

New construction could help more people afford homes because in some cases, buyers qualify for discounted mortgage rates from the builders’ preferred lenders, Hata said. She called the current situation “very discouraging for buyers because they’re getting priced out of the market.”

But pending construction has fallen under Trump. Permits to build single-family homes have plunged 9.4% over the past 12 months in October, the most recent month available, to an annual rate of 876,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Trump’s other ideas to help people buy houses

Trump has not always been against increasing housing supply.

During the 2024 campaignTrump’s team said he would create tax breaks for homebuyers, trim regulations on construction, open up federal land for housing developments and make monthly payments more manageable by cutting mortgage rates. Advisers also claimed that housing stock would open up because of Trump’s push for mass deportations of people who were in the United States illegally.

As recently as October, Trump urged builders to ramp up construction. “They’re sitting on 2 Million empty lots, A RECORD. I’m asking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get Big Homebuilders going and, by so doing, help restore the American Dream!” Trump posted on social media, referring to the government-backed lenders.

But more recently, he has been unequivocal on not wanting to pursue policies that would boost supply and lower prices.

In office, Trump has so far focused his housing policy on lobbying the Federal Reserve to cut its benchmark interest rates. He believes that would make mortgages more affordable, although critics say it could spur higher inflation. Trump announced that the two mortgage companies, which are under government conservatorship, would buy at least $200 billion in home loan securities in a bid to reduce rates.

Trump also wants Congress to ban large financial institutions from buying homes. But he has rejected suggestions for expanding rules to let buyers use 401(k) retirement accounts for down payments, telling reporters that he did not want people to take their money out of the stock market because it was doing so well.

There are signs that lawmakers in both parties see the benefits of taking steps to add houses before this year’s elections. There are efforts in the Senate and House to jump-start construction through the use of incentives to change zoning restrictions, among other policies.

One of the underlying challenges on affordability is that home prices have been generally rising faster than incomes for several years.

This makes it harder to save for down payments or upgrade to a nicer home. It also means that the places where people live increasingly double as their key financial asset, one that leaves many families looking moneyed on paper even if they are struggling with monthly bills.

There is another risk for Trump. If the economy grows this year, as he has promised, that could push up demand for houses — as well as their prices — making the affordability problem more pronounced, said Edward Pinto, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank.

Pinto said construction of single-family homes would have to rise by 50% to 100% during the next three years for average home price gains to be flat — a sign, he said, that Trump’s fears about falling home prices were probably unwarranted.

“It’s very hard to crater home prices,” Pinto said.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending