Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Proposed
Proposed Canada And Mexico Tariffs Paused
Topline
President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs against Canada and Mexico were both paused Monday after his decision to impose sweeping tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China initially led to retaliation from Canadian leaders and rattled global markets.
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters next to Air Force One after arriving back at Joint Base … [+]
Timeline
Trump announced the tariffs against Canada will be paused for 30 days, saying the longtime U.S. ally will implement a $1.3 billion border reinforcement plan that will bolster the U.S.-Canada border with “new choppers, technology and personnel… and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the border reinforcement plan and tariff pause in a tweet, noting the launch of a “Canada- U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering,” the second of which Trump has used as a justification for sweeping tariffs (government reports contradict Trump’s claims that the flow of fentanyl coming to the U.S. through Canada is “massive,” according to The New York Times).
China’s ambassador to the United Nations Fu Cong said China will file a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization against Trump’s tariffs, The New York Times reports, adding the country believes the move violates WTO policies and China “may be forced to take countermeasures” against Trump’s taxes on its imports.
Trump told reporters in the Oval Office his 10% tariffs against China are an “opening salvo” and could still go up further and reiterated that the tariffs against Canada and China will still take effect Tuesday though Mexico’s taxes are paused, also saying the U.S. isn’t “treated well” by Canada and he “[doesn’t] know” what the northern country could do to keep the tariffs from taking effect.
Trump said on Truth Social he had a “very friendly conversation” with Sheinbaum in which she “immediately” agreed to send 10,000 Mexican soldiers to the border, and confirmed they will pause the tariffs on the country’s imports for one month while his administration negotiates with Mexican officials.
Sheinbaum said the U.S. is pausing tariffs for a month in an announcement on X, also saying the country’s National Guard will station 10,000 members on the U.S.-Mexico border to protect against drug trafficking.
U.S. stocks slumped Monday morning as the market responded to Trump’s tariffs, with alcoholic beverage companies, cryptocurrency-focused companies, automakers and multinational tech companies like Apple and Nvidia taking the biggest hits.
Trump said on Truth Social he spoke with Trudeau and will speak with him again this afternoon—and continued to slam the country, claiming it’s responsible for a “DRUG WAR” and saying about Canadian leaders declining to do business with the U.S. because of tariffs, “What’s that all about?”
Ontario Premier Doug Ford said the province, which includes Toronto, will ban all U.S. companies from receiving government contracts with the province, saying those companies “only have President Trump to blame”—and canceled the province’s contract with Elon Musk-led satellite internet company Starlink, writing, “Ontario won’t do business with people hellbent on destroying our economy.”
With a threat of tariffs on European imports to the U.S. looming, markets in the continent were also hit with by a selloff with the Euro STOXX 50 Index sliding 1.6% while the London Stock Exchange’s FTSE 100 Index fell 1.2%
The U.S. Dollar Index—which measures the U.S. currency against a basket of six other major currencies—rose to a two-year high of 109.45 on Monday morning, up nearly 1%.
The cryptocurrency market also appears to have been rattled by the fears of a trade war with Bitcoin’s price dropping more than 3.6% in the past 24 hours to $95,509.
Ether, which is the world’s second most valuable crypto token by market cap, was hit even harder as it price has crashed more than 15% in the previous 24 hours to around $2610.
The president’s own meme crypto token $TRUMP (Official Trump) also took a hit, as its price slid more than 13.5% in the previous 24 hours to $17.80. Unlike other major crypto tokens, however, $TRUMP has been on a downward slide since its explosive launch and had shed more than 30% of its value just in the last week.
The U.S. stock futures slumped early on Monday as global markets braced for the fallout of President Donald Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico and China.
As of early Monday morning Dow Futures was down to 44,113, falling 1.3%, while the tech centric NASDAQ Futures saw an even sharper slump of 1.6% to 21,227. S&P 500 Futures were also hit by the selloff, dropping 1.4% to 5,980.
Major Asian stock indices were also hit by a selloff amid trade war concerns with Japan’s Nikkei 225 index falling 2.66%, Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 dropping 1.79%, South Korea’s KOSPI index down 2.52% and India’s BSE Sensex down 0.41%.
In China, the Shanghai Stock Exchange’s Composite Index closed relatively flat, only 0.06% in the red, while the Shenzhen-based SZSE Component Index—which focusses on tech companies and small cap private enterprises—took a bigger hit and dropped 1.33%.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum issued a video message on X announcing the country will come out with more details Monday morning on its countermeasures against the U.S. tariffs, saying the country will “act with a cool head and love for the people” and arguing Trump’s claims the Mexican government is allied with criminal drug groups is “terribly irresponsible,” according to translations by Bloomberg and The New York Times.
Trump’s border czar Tom Homan told the Times in an interview that Canada has “taken steps” to address Trump’s concerns about immigration and drug trafficking, “but they haven’t taken enough steps,” adding that while Canada is “improving” its border security, Trump “doesn’t feel like they’ve done enough, and that’ll be his call.”
The Canadian government unveiled the full list of U.S. imports that the country will levy 25% tariffs on as part of its retaliatory measures against the U.S., which will apply to $30 billion worth of goods to start out with, including numerous food items, plastics, rubber, luggage, lumber, clothing, business supplies, glassware, appliances, furniture, cosmetics and more.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acknowledged on “Meet the Press” that Trump’s tariffs could raise prices but said the blame would fall on other countries for not following Trump’s demands, rather than the president, encouraging other countries to “get on board and to make sure that they’re not pushing up prices” and claiming “if prices go up, it’s because of other people’s reactions to America’s laws.”
Canadian Ambassador Kristen Hillman told ABC News Canadians are “perplexed” and “confused” by Trump’s tariffs on the nation’s imports and argued it’s “hard to know what more we can do” to prevent the tariffs since the Canadian government has already been “leaning in hard” to appease Trump—but noted Canada does not intend to back down from its plan for retaliatory tariffs, as Canadians “are going to expect that our government stands firm and stands up for itself.”
Doug Ford, the premier of Canada’s Ontario province, said on X the region’s sole liquor wholesaler will remove American alcohol from its catalogs so that stores and restaurants in Ontario cannot stock any U.S. liquors—it follows similar moves from Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston and British Columbia Premier David Eby, who banned his province’s Liquor Distribution Branch from buying American alcohol from “red states.”
The president defended his decision, writing on Truth Social, “WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!). BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID.”
Canada and Mexico both levied retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports in response to Trump’s directive, while China said it would file a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization and take “countermeasures” in response to the move.
Trump imposed 25% tariffs on imported goods from Canada and Mexico—other than energy from Canada, which will be taxed at 10%—and an additional 10% tariff on goods from China, which he claimed was to hold the countries “accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping poisonous fentanyl and other drugs from flowing into our country.”
Crucial Quote
“MAKE YOUR PRODUCT IN THE USA AND THERE ARE NO TARIFFS!” Trump said on Truth Social in defense of his tariffs. “WE ARE A COUNTRY THAT IS NOW BEING RUN WITH COMMON SENSE — AND THE RESULTS WILL BE SPECTACULAR!!!”
When Will Trump’s Tariffs Take Effect?
Trump’s tariff order will take effect Tuesday for duties that are levied on imported goods, except for any imports that were already in transit before Trump ordered the tariffs Saturday. Hillman told ABC News on Sunday the country is “hopeful” the tariffs will not take effect and the country’s government is “ready to continue to talk to the Trump administration about that,” though it’s unclear that Trump will negotiate at all on his plans.
What Impact Will Trump’s Tariffs Have On Prices And The Economy?
Trump’s tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China would effectively could cost each U.S. household more than $830 in additional taxes in 2025, according to an analysis released by the center-right Tax Foundation. The organization also predicted Trump’s plan would reduce the U.S.’ economic output by 0.4% and increase taxes in the U.S. overall by $1.2 trillion between 2025 and 2034. Economists have long warned Trump’s tariff plan would raise prices for American consumers—as the import taxes are paid by the U.S. companies that import foreign goods, which then pass on those costs to the consumer by raising prices—and a May analysis by the nonpartisan think tank Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) concluded Trump imposing broad tariffs on imported goods would “[inflict] significant collateral damage on the US economy.” Goldman Sachs economists led by Ronnie Walker previously projected in April that prices on consumer goods would go up by 0.1% for every percentage increase in the effective tariff rate and raise inflation. In addition to imported goods, economists have predicted the price of domestic goods will also go up, as U.S. companies will “opportunistically” raise prices to take advantage of having less competition from imported products.
Will Trump Impose More Tariffs?
Trump has suggested he wants to impose universal tariffs on other countries’ goods, though it’s still unclear when that could happen or what any broader tariffs could look like. “I have it in my mind what it’s going to be but I won’t be setting it yet, but it’ll be enough to protect our country,” Trump said Monday about his plan to impose tariffs on all imported goods. The president told reporters Friday he plans on “doing something substantial” in terms of taxing European imports specifically, saying, “Am I going to impose tariffs on the European Union? Do you want the truthful answer or should I give you a political answer? Absolutely, absolutely.”
How Has The Business Community Responded To Trump’s Tariffs?
Business and manufacturing groups have criticized Trump’s tariffs, with U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president John Murphy saying the move “is unprecedented, won’t solve these problems, and will only raise prices for American families and upend supply chains.” National Association of Manufacturers CEO Jay Timmons said the “ripple effects” of the tariffs “will be severe,” particularly for smaller manufacturers, warning, “Ultimately, manufacturers will bear the brunt of these tariffs, undermining our ability to sell our products at a competitive price and putting American jobs at risk.” Leaders of major companies have previously suggested Trump’s tariffs will lead to higher prices for American consumers, with Walmart chief financial officer John David Rainey telling CNBC in November the import taxes mean “there probably will be cases where prices will go up for consumers.” Best Buy CEO Corie Barry acknowledged on the company’s earnings call in November that most of its goods are imported from China and Mexico and any tariffs would likely result in higher prices, saying, “These are goods that people need, and higher prices are not helpful.”
How Has The Chinese State Media Reacted To Trump’s Tariffs?
In China, the state-run tabloid Global Times, criticized the move in an editorial, saying “trade coercion” will not fix the U.S.’s “fentanyl crisis.” The op-ed notes that the Trump administration’s actions “violates WTO rules and disciplines” and result in countermeasures that “could lead to a global trade war.” The Chinese foreign ministry also expressed opposition to the move and said it would take “necessary countermeasures to defend its legitimate rights and interests.” The ministry said the tariffs cannot “solve the U.S.’ problems at home” and will not benefit either side.
How Has The Canadian Media Reacted To Trump’s Tariffs?
The Toronto Star published a guide for people who want to buy Canadian during the trade war, which included a list of grocery and other essential products sold by Canadian companies. The newspaper’s editorial titled: “We didn’t want this trade war. But now we must fight,” urged Canadians to “band together despite our differences” and grasp that “no one has ever won by appeasing a bully.” The Globe and Mail’s editorial page said that the trade war would reshape North America and warned, “There will be no way to satisfy all his demands. He will keep using them in a predatory manner…There will be no way to satisfy all his demands. He will keep using them in a predatory manner.” The Toronto Sun’s editorial acknowledged Canada will not be able to win an “all-out trade war” with the U.S. but added: “Still, when the bully hits you, you hit back.” The editorial called for retaliation targeting products that “Americans will notice” but “will have the least impact on Canadian consumers.”
How Much Fentanyl Comes From Canada And Mexico?
Trump has used the flow of fentanyl as one of his primary justifications for tariffs against Canada and Mexico, despite the U.S.’ northern ally not playing a large role in fentanyl smuggling when compared to Mexico. Trudeau has said fentanyl smuggling from Canada contributes to a fraction of a percent of the illegal fentanyl in the U.S., while U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration data has found only about 43 pounds of fentanyl was seized at the northern border in 2024. That same year, about 21,100 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the southern border.
Key Background
Trump has long vowed to impose tariffs on imported goods, even as economists and business leaders have decried the move. The president previously levied higher tariffs on Chinese imports during his first term, which sparked a trade war with China before the two sides reached a trade agreement in December 2019. While Trump long promised on the campaign trail to levy tariffs on imported goods, he only proposed 25% tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods in November, which marked an escalation over the 10% to 20% he proposed pre-election. The president’s order Sunday comes after Trump said on his first day in office that he planned to impose the tariffs Feb 1, and imposed the broad tariffs with few restrictions despite earlier reports suggesting his administration was considering exempting certain imports or delaying the tariffs until March.
Tangent
In his Truth Social posts Sunday, Trump also reiterated his desire for Canada to become the “51st state,” claiming the country wouldn’t be “viable” if it weren’t for U.S. subsidies. Making it a U.S. state would mean “much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada — AND NO TARIFFS!” Trump claimed. Canadian officials have strongly decried any suggestion the country should become part of the U.S., with Immigration Minister Marc Miller saying the suggestion is “beneath a president of the United States” and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Dominic LeBlanc saying the comments are “a way for [Trump], I think, to sow confusion, to agitate people, to create chaos knowing this will never happen.”
Further Reading
Good news! The proposed tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico have been paused. This decision comes after negotiations between the countries to address trade issues and avoid a potential trade war.The tariffs, which were set to go into effect in the coming weeks, would have increased the cost of goods imported from Canada and Mexico, leading to higher prices for consumers and potential retaliation from the affected countries.
This pause in tariffs is a positive step towards maintaining strong trade relationships with our neighbors and avoiding unnecessary economic strain. It is important for all parties involved to continue working towards fair and mutually beneficial trade agreements in the future.
Stay tuned for further updates on this developing situation. Let’s hope for continued progress and cooperation between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. #TradeRelations #Tariffs #Canada #Mexico
Tags:
Canada and Mexico tariffs, trade agreements, North American trade, international relations, economic impact, proposed tariffs, global trade, tariffs negotiation
#Proposed #Canada #Mexico #Tariffs #PausedChicago Cubs Land San Diego Padres Star Pitcher in Proposed Blockbuster Trade
It has been a strong offseason for the Chicago Cubs, who are actively trying to improve their team and become a contender in the National League.
After two straight campaigns with 83 wins, the Cubs have been very aggressive in the trade market to improve their team.
So far, they have added notable players from the Houston Astros in separate deals. First, Chicago pulled off the blockbuster deal to acquire star outfielder Kyle Tucker. Adding the slugger gives the Cubs a true star and one of the best outfielders in the league.
Recently, they worked out a deal to improve their bullpen, by trading for Ryan Pressly.
Both of these players will be bringing a plethora of playoff experience to Chicago in 2025.
Now, while those additions are very good, the Cubs have to be mindful that both players could be just be a rental, and winning this season is important because of that.
While the roster has certainly improved, being able to beat a team like the Los Angeles Dodgers in a playoff series might be challenging.
Zachary D. Rymer of Bleacher Report recently proposed a trade that would send San Diego Padres ace Michael King to the Cubs in exchange for Kevin Alcántara and Javier Assad.
“The prize for San Diego in this deal would be Alcántara. The 22-year-old’s hit tool is suspect, but he checks boxes for power, speed, and defensive ability. He’s also ready to play in the majors.”
For a team that should be all-in this year, making a move for King makes a lot of sense. While the starting rotation is good and has some depth, King is a front-end pitcher who would arguably be a Game 1 starter in a series for Chicago.
Pairing him at the top of the rotation with Shota Imanaga and Justin Steele would give the Cubs a trio that can go toe-to-toe with the likes of the Dodgers and the Philadelphia Phillies.
Last season, King had his breakout performance after being traded in the package that sent Juan Soto to the New York Yankees. The right-hander totaled a 13-9 record, 2.95 ERA, and 4.2 WAR.
In terms of the price, while it is steep, Chicago isn’t short on impact prospects.
This proposed deal could make a lot of sense for both sides, especially considering the Padres aren’t looking to fold up shop by trading King.
Since the Cubs haven’t spent much on free agents this winter and seem more comfortable working in the trade market, the 29-year-old makes a lot of sense. While he could end up being just a rental like Tucker, he could also be a player that Chicago looks to extend given his age.
Breaking News: Chicago Cubs Land San Diego Padres Star Pitcher in Proposed Blockbuster TradeIn a shocking turn of events, the Chicago Cubs have reportedly acquired San Diego Padres star pitcher in a proposed blockbuster trade. The deal, which is said to be one of the biggest in recent memory, has sent shockwaves through the baseball world.
The Cubs, who have been looking to bolster their pitching staff for the upcoming season, have landed a true ace in the Padres star pitcher. Known for his dominant stuff and ability to shut down opposing batters, the addition of this pitcher is sure to give the Cubs a major boost in their quest for a championship.
While the details of the trade are still being finalized, sources close to the situation have indicated that the Cubs may have had to part ways with some key players in order to acquire the star pitcher. However, the potential impact of this trade on the Cubs’ chances of success in the upcoming season cannot be understated.
Fans of both teams are eagerly awaiting official confirmation of the trade and are already speculating on how this deal will shape the upcoming season. Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story.
Tags:
- Chicago Cubs
- San Diego Padres
- Star pitcher
- Blockbuster trade
- MLB trade rumors
- Baseball trade news
- Chicago Cubs trade rumors
- San Diego Padres trade rumors
- Pitcher trade rumors
- MLB trade deadline
#Chicago #Cubs #Land #San #Diego #Padres #Star #Pitcher #Proposed #Blockbuster #Trade
Why Republicans’ proposed health care cuts could be politically risky
The Trump administration and new Republican majority in Congress have big plans to extend tax cuts and crack down on immigration. To pay for these changes, they’re in the market to cut government spending by trillions of dollars, and government-assisted health care programs are among their first targets. Earlier this month, a House Budget Committee memo and detailed list, both obtained by Politico, laid out potential budget cuts, including savings of up to $2.3 trillion from funding for Medicaid, the government program that provides health insurance for low-income adults and children; and an additional $1 trillion or so in other cuts from Medicare, the equivalent federal program for older adults, and other health care-related programs.
Other moves from the administration this week have raised alarm bells for Medicaid as well. Even though President Donald Trump’s move to freeze funding for all federal grants and loans (which has been halted by a federal judge) was not intended to impact benefits programs, a brief outage in the Medicaid payment system heightened concerns and confusion over the program’s future under his administration. Meanwhile, Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., lambasted high medical costs during his confirmation hearing, and seemed to pin the blame on government-run programs. He claimed Americans don’t like Medicaid and most would prefer to be on private insurance plans.
Health care generally wasn’t the top issue voters considered when casting their votes in November, as their concerns over the economy and immigration propelled Trump back into office. Nonetheless, voters across the political spectrum are broadly unhappy with the state of health care and health insurance. A recent poll from PerryUndem/YouGov dove into how exactly Americans felt about the U.S. health care system and some of the proposed cuts put forth by Republicans.* The results show that Americans share Kennedy’s anger at the health care system — 39 percent said they were very frustrated and 38 percent said they were somewhat frustrated with the state of the current health care system.
Unsurprisingly, high costs were a major concern for those surveyed. Seventy-eight percent said health care was currently very or somewhat unaffordable for most people, and 63 percent said it was personally important to them that “something be done soon to make health care more affordable.” Nearly half of survey respondents said they have at some point had medical debt from receiving health care services for themselves or a family member, while more than 4 in 10 said they had skipped receiving medical care or prescriptions because of cost. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans now have some kind of health insurance, whether it’s private or government-sponsored. (Fifteen percent in the PerryUndem/YouGov survey said they did not currently have coverage, a bit higher than the Census Bureau’s estimate of roughly 8 percent of the total population in 2023.)
But while Americans in the survey agreed with Kennedy that health care costs are too high and the health care system needs changes, they decidedly did not agree with where he pointed the blame; government-sponsored health care programs like Medicaid remain widely popular.
In his 2024 campaign, Trump’s promises on health care were vague, as he now-famously said in his sole debate with former Vice President Kamala Harris that he had “concepts of a plan.” As the details of that plan continue to take shape, Americans will likely be open to changes to a system they see as deeply flawed and too expensive, but Republicans’ proposed budget cuts and changes to government-run programs could rub them the wrong way.
Most Americans oppose cuts to Medicaid
To begin with, the government programs on Republicans’ chopping block don’t have the same low approval as health care in general. Eight in 10 Americans had a favorable view of Medicaid (which was additionally described in the survey as “a joint federal and state health care program that covers low-income families and children, pregnant women, older adults, and people with disabilities”). Contrary to Kennedy’s claim that Americans dislike Medicaid and would prefer to be on private insurance, approval of the program was even higher (around 90 percent) among those who were or had previously been enrolled in it. This is in line with other surveys that have found Americans generally approve of the Medicaid program.
When asked whether funding for Medicaid should increase, decrease or remain the same, Americans decisively favored continuing or increasing program funding: Forty-nine percent said funding should be increased, and 40 percent said funding should be kept at current levels, while only 12 percent said it should be decreased.
Of course, Republicans haven’t proposed across-the-board cuts to Medicaid, but instead a wide range of targeted cuts or program restrictions that would reduce overall program spending and limit who is eligible to enroll. The survey asked how Americans felt about some of those specific changes and found that most were net unpopular with Americans, though a large share also remained undecided.
One of the most high-impact options floated by House Republicans is establishing per-capita caps on the amount the federal government pays per person enrolled in Medicaid. That idea was supported by only 21 percent of Americans and opposed by 53 percent. Even among Republicans, slightly more opposed the cuts than supported them (36 percent to 35 percent). Support was lower for a potential reduction in funding to the 41 states (and Washington, D.C.) that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, which could remove eligibility for millions of those enrolled in the program: 18 percent supported and 55 percent opposed those funding cuts, and once again opposition still outweighed support among Republicans (36 percent to 31 percent). And the numbers were even less favorable for a general proposal to remove protections that guarantee Medicaid coverage to certain populations, like low-income pregnant women and disabled Americans.
One GOP proposal that could be popular, though, is requiring Medicaid recipients to prove they are employed in order to keep their benefits: 38 percent overall said they would support it, compared to 35 percent who were opposed. And it was notably more popular among Republicans, with 57 percent in favor and 18 percent opposed. Republicans have long advocated for work requirements for many public benefit programs, and Arkansas even enacted a Medicaid work requirement in 2018 — it was struck down by a federal judge shortly thereafter, though Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders plans to try again under the new administration.
The ACA has grown in popularity
Beyond expanding Medicaid eligibility to millions of lower-income Americans, the Affordable Care Act made sweeping changes to health insurance access, including by making it illegal for health insurance companies to refuse to cover preexisting conditions, requiring them to allow children to stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26 and opening state-level health care insurance marketplaces to allow people to buy plans with government subsidies.
Republicans have tried dozens of times since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 to repeal it. After the latest failed attempt during his first term, Donald Trump has distanced himself from his earlier promises to do so, as have Republicans as a whole. Rather than fully repeal the law, though, Republicans’ proposed budget cuts are among the ways they could scale it back or reduce its effectiveness, including by forcing states to trim coverage due to reduced funding, or simply by doing nothing: a Biden-era law that extended tax credits for individuals to buy insurance plans on their state ACA marketplaces is set to end in 2025.
Pivoting away from a full ACA repeal is probably politically wise for Republicans, as the law has actually gained popularity in the more than 10 years since it went into effect. Seventy-three percent of those surveyed had a favorable opinion of the law, including 52 percent of Republicans. At the start of the survey, 32 percent of respondents said they’d support repealing the law, while 44 percent opposed a repeal. After completing the full survey that described specific provisions of the ACA, though, the share of respondents who favored repealing it dropped slightly, to 28 percent. The biggest change was among Republicans, 59 percent of whom initially said they supported a repeal, compared to 49 percent later in the survey.
Even fewer Americans supported repealing popular aspects of the law that Republicans have previously tried to target, with only 25 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed to a proposal to let health care plans that offer reduced benefits into the marketplace, a change previously made by the first Trump administration but repealed by President Joe Biden — and potentially something in line with Kennedy’s calls to expand affordable private options. Other changes that were included in the GOP’s last attempt to kill the ACA were even less popular: around 7 in 10 Americans opposed changes that would allow insurance companies to “charge sicker people more for their health insurance or deny them coverage” or to “charge women more than men for their health insurance.” Meanwhile, half of Americans said Congress should extend the expiring individual tax credits toward health insurance, while only 16 percent said Congress should end them to reduce government costs. (The question wording noted that these credits “made health coverage more affordable for more than 19 million people.”)
Perhaps most tellingly when it comes to Americans’ support for government-sponsored health care programs, a majority of Americans, 55 percent, said they would somewhat or strongly support a government-sponsored plan that could compete with commercial insurance plans — an idea that rose to prominence when it was championed by progressive Democrats and ultimately backed by President Barack Obama in the debates over what became the Affordable Care Act. Commonly referred to as “the public option” at the time, the idea was ultimately scrapped by Democrats to win over independent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose support they needed to pass the law along party lines. Since then, the idea of giving Americans access to a government-sponsored plan — whether through a new government program or by allowing all Americans to buy into Medicaid regardless of income — is still backed by many Democrats, but has mostly faded from public debate.
The idea remains very popular among Democratic voters, though, and seems to have a substantial base of support among Republicans as well: 71 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans said they would strongly or somewhat support a government-sponsored health plan. And perhaps because it wasn’t actively proposed or opposed during the 2024 campaign, very few voters were against the idea, while many were undecided: only 13 percent of respondents opposed it, while 32 neither supported nor opposed. That undecided number was particularly high among Republican and independent voters, more than one-third of whom said they would neither support nor oppose the plan.
***
That last point illustrates a common theme in this survey: Many Republicans haven’t decided how they feel about some of the health care questions that may be central to the coming debate on government spending.
While Democrats in the poll were fairly united in their opposition to proposed changes to federal health care spending and programs, Republicans often had divided opinions, and on certain questions, many had no opinion at all. For example, 38 percent said they neither supported nor opposed cutting Medicaid spending by reducing block grants to states, 33 percent neither supported nor opposed reducing funding to Medicaid expansion states and 30 percent said the same about per capita funding caps.
Similarly, around 29 percent of Republicans said they neither supported nor opposed repealing the Affordable Care Act — and the number is a bit higher among 2024 Trump voters, 32 percent.
Overall, this could signal a “wait and see” approach among Republicans and Trump supporters. The nitty-gritty debate over whether or what health care provisions Republicans may propose cuts to is only just beginning. But even if health care wasn’t a top priority for these voters in deciding their votes in 2024, their opinions are likely to solidify as the debate continues. Republicans seem to have their work cut out for them when it comes to winning over public opinion.
Footnote
*This was a national survey conducted Dec. 13 to 23, 2024, among 1,269 adults 18 and older.
The Republican Party’s proposed cuts to health care programs could prove to be politically risky for a number of reasons.First and foremost, health care is a deeply personal and important issue for many Americans. Any perceived threats to their access to affordable and quality health care could lead to backlash at the polls.
Furthermore, the proposed cuts could disproportionately affect certain demographics, such as low-income individuals, seniors, and people with pre-existing conditions. This could alienate these groups of voters who may feel abandoned by the party in power.
Additionally, health care is consistently ranked as one of the top issues that voters care about. By pushing for cuts to health care programs, Republicans may be seen as out of touch with the priorities of the American people.
Overall, the proposed health care cuts could be politically risky for the Republican Party as they may alienate key voter demographics and be perceived as prioritizing budget cuts over the well-being of the American people.
Tags:
- Republican health care cuts
- GOP health care proposals
- Political risks of health care cuts
- Republican health care policies
- Impact of health care cuts on voters
- Healthcare cuts in Republican agenda
- Potential backlash to GOP health care cuts
- Republican health care reform
- Public opinion on GOP health care proposals
- Analysis of Republican health care cuts
#Republicans #proposed #health #care #cuts #politically #risky
Duran completes medical ahead of proposed Al Nassr move from Aston Villa
On the back of all the action last night, it as good a time as any to remind you that The Athletic’s football writers, club correspondents and editors will leave no stone unturned in this transfer window to ensure you know everything that is going on at your club.
All of it will filter into our daily live coverage here.
The jewel in the crown is the DealSheet, where each Tuesday morning our team — led by the prolific David Ornstein — will take you inside the market to explain the deals being worked on this window across the Premier League and beyond.
This week David picked out Aston Villa as his ones to watch — and he has already been proven right there. But there is way more to this week’s DealSheet than just that.
We will bring you analysis you can trust about what is happening and why at Europe’s leading clubs, with the latest information we’re hearing from our sources across the market.
Settle in with a cup of tea because the article is long but detailed, giving you comprehensive knowledge of all the deals in the works— or you can search for the club and players you want to read about.
You can enjoy the latest edition of the DealSheet below.
GO FURTHER
The Transfer DealSheet: Latest on Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real Madrid and more
Aston Villa striker, Fabio Duran, has completed his medical ahead of a proposed move to Al Nassr, according to reports.The 24-year-old Brazilian has been linked with a move away from Villa Park this summer, and it looks like a deal with the Saudi Arabian club is now close to being finalized.
Duran joined Villa from Corinthians in 2019 and has since struggled to establish himself as a regular starter in the Premier League. However, his impressive performances in the recent months have caught the eye of Al Nassr, who are keen to bolster their attacking options ahead of the new season.
The completion of Duran’s medical is a significant step towards the transfer being completed, and it is expected that an official announcement will be made in the coming days.
Villa fans will be sad to see Duran leave, but they will wish him all the best in his new adventure with Al Nassr.
Tags:
- Duran medical examination
- Al Nassr transfer news
- Aston Villa player move
- Duran Al Nassr deal
- Football transfer updates
- Duran medical assessment
- Al Nassr signing
- Aston Villa player transfer
- Duran transfer latest
- Football player medical examination
#Duran #completes #medical #ahead #proposed #Nassr #move #Aston #Villa
Vermont business leaders pan President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on imports from Canada
U.S. Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, speaks about how the effects trade tariffs proposed by President Trump might affect local businesses during a roundtable in St. Albans on Monday, January 27, 2025. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger ST. ALBANS — Poulin Grain, an animal feed manufacturer with two plants in northern Vermont, relies on crops imported from Canada, such as corn and oats, to make its products. But the company’s costs would grow substantially — and, perhaps, unsustainably — if President Donald Trump’s proposed 25% tariff on products from Canada goes into effect, Poulin’s senior vice president, Mike Tetreault, said Monday.
The company could start to source some raw materials domestically, Tetreault said, but the materials would cost more, and those costs would be passed on to customers.
“We haven’t got the margins to offset that. The sellers don’t have the margins to offset that. So essentially, the farms and users of our grain products and feed products are going to pay more,” Tetreault said, speaking at a roundtable on Trump’s proposal in St. Albans Monday morning convened by U.S. Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt.
“There’s no other option,” he added.
Tetreault was one of several leaders of Vermont businesses, along with representatives from trade groups as well as state officials, who voiced concerns to Welch about the impacts the tariffs could have on the costs of local goods and services.
Trump has threatened to impose a 25% tax on goods coming into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico as early as Feb. 1. Right now, both countries have a free-trade agreement with the U.S. by which most goods traded among the three nations don’t have tariffs.
The president told reporters last week that his proposal was a response to Canada and Mexico allowing “mass numbers of people to come in and fentanyl to come in.” While it’s not clear exactly how the tariffs would be implemented, experts generally agree they could disrupt many U.S. industries and raise prices on many goods for consumers.
“The amount of disruption that is going to happen through each of your enterprises is immense,” Welch told the panel, which also included a contract manufacturer in Morrisville and a maple sugaring equipment maker in Swanton, among others.
Rock Gaulin, who leads the maple division for H2O Innovation, said tariffs could protect the company’s U.S.-based operations in the short term, but would ultimately lead to higher prices for the sugarmakers who buy its evaporators and other equipment.
Welch said he was committed to making a case against Trump’s proposed tariffs in Washington D.C. in the coming weeks, including during hearings he expects the Senate Finance Committee, which he sits on, will convene on the issue.
Several speakers said Vermont could feel disproportionate impacts from the proposed tariffs because Canada is, by far, the landlocked state’s largest international trading partner. Like Poulin Grain, many Vermont companies are “so heavily reliant” on cross-border imports of raw materials, noted Amy Spear, president of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce.
Tariffs aimed at Canada could also raise Vermonters’ energy bills, Welch noted, pointing to how the state gets about a quarter of its electricity from Canada’s Hydro-Quebec.
Mari McClure, president and CEO of Green Mountain Power, speaks about how the effects trade tariffs proposed by President Trump might affect local businesses during a roundtable organized by U.S. Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, in St. Albans on Monday, Jan. 27. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger Mari McClure, the president and CEO of Green Mountain Power — Vermont’s largest electric company — estimated that Trump’s proposed tariff on goods from Canada could result in an additional $16 million per year in power costs, which she said would, with limited exception, go “directly to ratepayers.”
Still, McClure and other speakers noted that it’s impossible to say with certainty what the impact would be because details of Trump’s proposals haven’t been clear — nor is it clear that the tariffs would even take effect on Feb. 1.
That’s made it difficult for businesses to prepare in recent weeks, some said. Sarah Mearhoff, advocacy and communications director for the trade association representing Vermont’s construction industry, pointed to how some contractors could, for instance, spend money now to stockpile timber — only to later realize that it was unnecessary.
“At one point they thought they would have tariffs on day one — and now it’s saying Feb. 1,” said state Treasurer Mike Pieciak, referring to the first day of Trump’s presidency. “I think there’s a question mark for businesses as to, will they ever come? Is this real — or is this not real?”
Disclosure: Sarah Mearhoff reported for VTDigger from October 2021 until December 2024.
Vermont business leaders are speaking out against President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on imports from Canada. The tariffs, which are aimed at protecting American industries from what the administration deems unfair competition, have sparked backlash from businesses in the Green Mountain State.According to Vermont business leaders, the proposed tariffs would have a detrimental impact on the state’s economy, particularly on industries that rely heavily on imports from Canada. These industries include manufacturing, agriculture, and tourism, all of which play a significant role in Vermont’s economy.
One business leader, who wished to remain anonymous, stated, “These tariffs would not only increase costs for businesses in Vermont, but they would also likely lead to retaliatory measures from Canada, further escalating tensions between our two countries. This is the last thing we need as we work to rebuild our economy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Other business leaders echoed these sentiments, expressing concerns about the potential for job losses, decreased competitiveness, and overall economic instability if the tariffs were to be implemented.
As discussions continue between the U.S. and Canada regarding trade policy, Vermont business leaders are urging the Trump administration to reconsider its approach and seek alternative solutions that would not harm businesses in the state. They are also calling on Vermont’s congressional delegation to advocate for the interests of the state’s businesses and push for a more thoughtful and strategic approach to trade policy.
In the meantime, Vermont business leaders are bracing for the potential impact of the proposed tariffs, while remaining hopeful that a resolution can be reached that will benefit all parties involved.
Tags:
Vermont business leaders, President Donald Trump, tariffs, imports, Canada, trade, business impact, economic policies, trade relations, international trade, Vermont economy, political decisions, trade agreements, United States, Canada-US relations
#Vermont #business #leaders #pan #President #Donald #Trumps #proposed #tariffs #imports #CanadaElton John backs Paul McCartney in criticising proposed overhaul to UK copyright system | Elton John
Elton John has backed Paul McCartney in criticising a proposed overhaul of the UK copyright system, and has called for new rules to prevent tech companies from riding “roughshod over the traditional copyright laws that protect artists’ livelihoods”.
John has backed proposed amendments to the data (use and access) bill that would extend existing copyright protections, when it goes before a vote in the House of Lords on Tuesday.
The government is also consulting on an overhaul of copyright laws that would result in artists having to opt out of letting AI companies train their models using their work, rather than an opt-in model.
McCartney told the BBC that the proposed changes could disincentivise writers and artists and result in a “loss of creativity”. The former Beatle said: “You get young guys, girls, coming up, and they write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, and they don’t have anything to do with it. And anyone who wants can just rip it off.”
“The truth is, the money’s going somewhere … Somebody’s getting paid, so why shouldn’t it be the guy who sat down and wrote Yesterday?”
John told the Sunday Times that he felt “wheels are in motion to allow AI companies to ride roughshod over the traditional copyright laws that protect artists’ livelihoods. This will allow global big tech companies to gain free and easy access to artists’ work in order to train their artificial intelligence and create competing music. This will dilute and threaten young artists’ earnings even further. The musician community rejects it wholeheartedly.”
He said that “challenging financial situations” and increased touring costs made it “harder than ever for new and emerging musicians to make the finances of the industry stack up to sustain a fledgling career”, and added that the UK’s place on the world stage as “a leader in arts and popular culture is under serious jeopardy” without robust copyright protection.
“It is the absolute bedrock of artistic prosperity, and the country’s future success in the creative industries depends on it.”
The government consultation runs until 25 February and will explore how to improve trust between the creative and AI sectors, and how creators can license and get paid for use of their material.
A government spokesperson said: “Our aim is to deliver legal certainty through a copyright regime that provides creators with real control, transparency, and helps them license their content.
“We are keen to hear the views of the music industry on these proposals, and no move will be made until we are absolutely confident that we are delivering clarity, control and transparency for artists and the sector, alongside appropriate access to data for AI innovators.”
McCartney said: “We’re the people, you’re the government. You’re supposed to protect us. That’s your job. So you know, if you’re putting through a bill, make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you’re not going to have them.”
In 2023, McCartney and Ringo Starr created the song Now And Then using AI technology to separate John Lennon’s vocals from a home demo recorded in 1977.
In December 2024, McCartney warned that AI could “just take over”, and signed a petition, alongside actors Julianne Moore, Stephen Fry and Hugh Bonneville, stating that “unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted”.
In a recent development, legendary musician Elton John has come out in support of fellow music icon Paul McCartney in criticizing the proposed overhaul to the UK copyright system. The proposed changes have been met with widespread backlash from artists and musicians who fear that they will negatively impact their ability to earn a living from their work.Elton John, known for hits such as “Rocket Man” and “Tiny Dancer,” is no stranger to the importance of protecting artists’ rights. In a statement, he expressed his concerns about the potential impact of the proposed changes on the music industry, stating that it is crucial for artists to be able to control and benefit from their own work.
McCartney, a former member of The Beatles and one of the most successful musicians of all time, has been a vocal critic of the proposed overhaul, arguing that it could lead to a “vast transfer of value” from artists to tech companies. Both he and Elton John are calling for a fairer system that ensures artists are properly compensated for their creations.
As two of the most influential figures in the music industry, Elton John and Paul McCartney’s backing adds significant weight to the campaign against the proposed changes. Their voices, along with those of other artists and musicians, are crucial in ensuring that the UK copyright system continues to protect and support creators in the digital age.
Tags:
Elton John, Paul McCartney, UK copyright system, music industry, intellectual property, music legends, copyright reform, music copyrights, UK legislation, Elton John news, Paul McCartney criticism, copyright protection, music royalties
#Elton #John #backs #Paul #McCartney #criticising #proposed #overhaul #copyright #system #Elton #JohnMississippi lawmaker proposed paying bounty hunters for helping depot illegal immigrants
Matthew Barton, a Mississippi district attorney, is proposing a bill that would pay bounty hunters for assistance in deporting illegal immigrants.
Under the terms of House Bill 1484, the state would create the Mississippi Illegal Alien Certified Bounty Hunter Program, which would pay a $1,000 reward to registered bounty hunters for each successful deportation they facilitate.
“This legislation is about keeping Mississippi communities safe,” said Republican state Rep. Justin Keen, who authored the bill.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt released this image Friday, writing on X that “deportation flights have begun.” A Mississippi lawmaker is proposing paying bounty hunters to help deport illegal immigrants. (White House)
“We’ve seen firsthand the danger posed by bad actors and violent criminals who enter this country illegally, like the innocent life of Laken Riley,” he added. “President Trump’s administration has made it clear that deporting illegal immigrants is a priority, and we are proud to do our part here in Mississippi to help support his agenda and protect our citizens.”
Funding for the proposed program would come from the general assembly and be administered by the state treasurer.
The intention, Keen said, is to encourage collaboration between law enforcement and private citizens in identifying illegal immigrants in the state. It would also alleviate financial burdens on Mississippi taxpayers, who bear the costs of illegal immigration, a press release states.
TRUMP’S ICE NABS CHILD SEX OFFENDERS AMONG 530+ ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAUGHT IN SINGLE DAY
ICE and ERO officers detaining one of 216 illegal immigrants who have been convicted of drug dealing or drug possession. Around 1.4 million illegal immigrants in the United States have deportation orders against them, a U.S. official said. (Todd Packard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) )
The bill comes as the Trump administration continues to tout tougher policies to combat illegal migration into the United States, as well as crime. Federal immigration authorities have made hundreds of arrests this week of illegal immigrants with criminal histories.
“When President Trump took office this week, he immediately recognized the emergency at our borders, rolling out executive orders to combat illegal immigration and cartels,” DeSoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton said in a statement. “This legislation builds upon that foundation, empowering local leaders and communities to support federal efforts in protecting our citizens.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“Legal immigration is a cornerstone of America, and we must ensure that our borders are secure and that the safety of Mississippians comes first,” Barton continued.
Recently, a Mississippi lawmaker has proposed a controversial new bill that would pay bounty hunters for assisting in the deportation of illegal immigrants. The bill, which has sparked heated debate among politicians and citizens alike, aims to incentivize individuals to help enforce immigration laws and crack down on undocumented individuals living in the state.Under the proposed legislation, bounty hunters would receive a monetary reward for each illegal immigrant they successfully locate and turn over to immigration authorities. Supporters of the bill argue that this would help alleviate the burden on law enforcement agencies and ensure that immigration laws are being enforced effectively.
However, critics have raised concerns about the potential for abuse and exploitation under such a system. They argue that paying individuals to hunt down and deport immigrants could lead to racial profiling and violations of civil rights.
As the debate continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether this controversial bill will gain traction and become law in Mississippi. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
Tags:
Mississippi lawmaker, bounty hunters, illegal immigrants, deportation, immigration laws, immigration policy, bounty hunter proposal, Mississippi legislation
#Mississippi #lawmaker #proposed #paying #bounty #hunters #helping #depot #illegal #immigrantsProposed legislative rule changes considered – Unicameral Update
The Rules Committee heard testimony Jan. 16 on nearly two dozen proposed changes to the Legislature’s permanent rules.
The permanent rules govern the legislative process and are adopted at the beginning of each biennium. The 22 proposals offered a variety of changes, including one to elect chairpersons of the 14 standing committees by roll-call vote. Those votes currently are cast by secret ballot.
Central City Sen. Loren Lippinicott, chairperson of the Rules Committee, offered the proposal. He said both the public and members of the Legislature have a right to know how senators vote when electing chairpersons.
“This rule change creates a culture of transparency and accountability in all we do,” he said.
Allie Bush, founder of Nebraskans Against Government Overreach, testified in support the proposed change.
“We should get to know who you guys are voting for every single step of the way,” Bush said. “There shouldn’t be secret votes.”
Speaking in opposition was Timothy Melcher. Testifying on his own behalf, Melcher said public ballots for leadership positions might put pressure on senators to vote for members of their own party even if they aren’t the most qualified candidate.
“This would compromise the nonpartisan spirit in our body,” he said.
Several of the proposals revived or expanded on attempts from the 2024 session to address how the required number of votes for cloture — a motion that ceases debate and forces a vote on a bill — is calculated.
Currently, a cloture motion requires approval by a two-thirds majority of the 49 members of the Legislature, or 33 votes.
A proposal from Omaha Sen. Kathleen Kauth would retain the two-thirds threshold but would change the requirement to two-thirds of the members present who are voting yes or no on the question of invoking cloture.
The change would mean that members who are present in the legislative chamber but do not cast a yes or no vote would not be included in the calculus for reaching the required two-thirds majority.
Kauth said she understands that there may be strategic reasons for a senator to refrain from voting, but that doing so should not be without consequences.
“It’s our responsibility as senators to make our constituents’ voices heard through us and if we choose to sit aside and not vote on something, there needs to be some understanding that there [is] a price to pay for that,” she said.
Bush testified in favor of the proposal.
“We elected you guys to come down here and vote yes or no,” she said.
Lippincott brought two proposals to alter the existing cloture rule. One option would retain the current two-thirds majority requirement, but would exclude members who are present but not voting. It also would require a minimum of 25 affirmative votes for a successful cloture motion.
The second Lippincott proposal simply would require a three-fifths majority, or 30 votes, for a successful cloture motion.
Lippincott said the Legislature needs to evolve in light of recent sessions when those in the political minority made extensive use of the current rules to try and control the pace of debate.
“Filibustering really slowed down the whole legislative process,” he said.
No one testified in favor of either Lippincott proposal. Opposed to both was Heidi Uhing, director of public policy at Civic Nebraska.
While impatience with the current process is understandable, Uhing said, the current 33 vote threshold provides for a thorough vetting of bills.
“Legislating is intended to be a deliberative process, with the goal of producing better quality legislation through debate,” she said. “Asking questions and allowing time for analysis should not necessarily be seen as counterproductive or a waste of time.”
Also considered was a Lippincott proposal to allow committee chairpersons to vote to exclude the press from executive sessions — in which the committee considers and votes on measures they have heard.
Under the current rules, media members are allowed to attend executive sessions and report on the proceedings.
“We want transparency and accountability for our voting while maintaining the freedom to brainstorm and have a protected, creative process, which often happens in executive sessions,” Lippincott said.
No one testified in favor of the proposed rule change.
Korby Gilbertson, representing Media Nebraska, spoke in opposition. Journalists are the conduit that brings information from the Capitol to the citizenry, she said.
“Important public business should be conducted in public,” Gilbertson said.
Among other rule changes offered at the hearing were proposals to:
• remove the current 20 bill maximum for individual bill introduction each session that was adopted last year, offered by Omaha Sen. Terrell McKinney;
• adopt a method of calling a member to order for engaging in speech not directly related to the bill or motion under consideration, offered by Hastings Sen. Dan Lonowski;
• remove party affiliation stipulations for membership on the legislative Redistricting Committee, offered by Lippincott;
• combine the Agriculture and Natural Resources committees and create a Technology Committee, offered by Kauth;
• eliminate the ability to offer a reconsideration motion on an amendment or motion that failed if at least four-fifths, or 40 senators, voted against the motion or amendment, offered by Bellevue Sen. Rick Holdcroft;
• require submission of a bill’s statement of intent within one calendar day after its introduction, offered by Sumner Sen. Teresa Ibach; and
• allow for collective consideration of certain gubernatorial appointees, offered by Blair Sen. Ben Hansen.The committee took no immediate action on any of the proposed rule changes. Debate on any changes forwarded to the floor by the committee is expected to begin Jan. 22.
Proposed legislative rule changes considered – Unicameral UpdateIn a recent session of the unicameral legislature, lawmakers discussed potential changes to the legislative rules that govern their proceedings. The proposed changes aim to streamline the legislative process, improve transparency, and enhance efficiency in lawmaking.
One of the key proposed rule changes is the introduction of electronic voting for all legislative actions. This would eliminate the need for time-consuming roll call votes and make the voting process more efficient. Additionally, the use of electronic voting would provide a more accurate record of lawmakers’ votes and ensure greater accountability.
Another proposed rule change is the establishment of a committee to review and streamline the legislative calendar. This committee would be responsible for scheduling legislative sessions, hearings, and other activities in a way that maximizes efficiency and allows lawmakers to prioritize important legislation.
Additionally, lawmakers discussed the possibility of implementing term limits for legislative leadership positions. This change would promote turnover and fresh perspectives in leadership roles, ensuring that a diverse range of voices are represented in the decision-making process.
Overall, the proposed rule changes are intended to modernize the legislative process and make it more responsive to the needs of the people. Lawmakers will continue to debate and refine these proposals in the coming weeks, with the goal of implementing changes that will benefit both lawmakers and the constituents they serve. Stay tuned for updates on the progress of these proposed rule changes in the unicameral legislature.
Tags:
- Legislative rule changes
- Unicameral Update
- Proposed legislation
- Rule changes in legislation
- Legislative updates
- Unicameral legislature
- Proposed rule changes
- Legislative reforms
- Legislative decision-making
- Legislative updates and changes
#Proposed #legislative #rule #considered #Unicameral #Update
Texas State’s proposed campus master plan prioritizes new and aged infrastructure, parking
Texas State University is preparing for future growth with a new proposed campus master plan for 2025-2035.The overview
The 2025-2035 Campus Master Plan—which was presented to San Marcos City Council on Dec. 3—shows Texas State’s total enrollment projected to increase by 31% between 2022-2033.
The proposed plan reimagines Spring Lake, Sewell Park, The Ponds & Chautauqua Hall, according to the presentation. It also calls for significant recapitalization of existing infrastructure—which means the university will be taking any aged, existing buildings and renovating them, said Dan Costello, Texas State’s associate vice president of facilities.
Digging deeper
Gordon Bohmfalk, Texas State’s architect and director of facilities, planning, design and construction told Community Impact that they plan to build three additional parking garages. One would be close to the events center that would serve as stadium parking and the other two would be located at Sessom and near the new STEM building.
“We have a surface lot that we’re planning on Thorpe Lane that should be under construction soon,” Bohmfalk added.
However, the number of parking spaces and parking garage stories remain uncertain.
“They’re very expensive to build, we’re definitely aware of that, but it’s a big need,” Bohmfalk said.
Notable quote
Eric Algoe, executive vice president for operations and chief financial officer, said the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s goal is to educate at least 60% of Texans in some sort of post-secondary degree, which would require every institution of higher education in the state to double in size—including community colleges.
He said the university’s primary focus is to grow its Round Rock Campus, create more partnerships with community colleges and grow online.
“We have no plans to continue to try to grow or buy land in San Marcos,” Algoe said during the Dec. 3 meeting.
Looking ahead
The proposed master plan will be going to the Texas State University System board of regents for final approval in February.
Texas State University recently unveiled its proposed campus master plan, which aims to address the needs of its growing student population while also preserving the historic charm of the campus. One of the key priorities of the plan is the improvement of both new and aged infrastructure on campus.The proposed plan includes renovations and upgrades to existing buildings, as well as the construction of new facilities to accommodate the university’s expanding academic programs. Additionally, the plan calls for improvements to the campus parking system, with a focus on increasing accessibility and convenience for students, faculty, and staff.
By prioritizing both new and aged infrastructure, as well as parking enhancements, Texas State University is taking proactive steps to ensure that its campus remains a vibrant and welcoming environment for learning and growth. The proposed master plan is set to be implemented over the next several years, with the goal of creating a more sustainable and functional campus for the entire university community.
Tags:
Texas State University, campus master plan, infrastructure development, parking solutions, university expansion, campus renovations, Texas State news, campus improvements, campus growth, campus sustainability, campus accessibility, campus modernization, higher education development, campus planning, campus upgrades, Texas State campus development
#Texas #States #proposed #campus #master #plan #prioritizes #aged #infrastructure #parking
Timberwolves swap Julius Randle for Bulls’ $80 million guard in proposed blockbuster trade
With a little over a month left until the NBA trade deadline, the Minnesota Timberwolves could be one of the most active teams on the market.
Fast forward from trading Karl-Anthony Towns to the New York Knicks prior to the regular season, and today he finds himself top three in the Eastern Conference in frontcourt All-Star votes. Meanwhile, Julius Randle and Donte DiVincenzo are still trying to find their roles with the Wolves.
Due to both players struggling in Minnesota, it has caused some wrinkles in the team’s chemistry. In addition to their chemistry woes, the team has found themselves amid regret and trade rumors for the past couple of months.
There will be plenty of other teams that will also be making a push for the playoffs. As disappointing as this season has been compared to last, a move is needed to help right the ship. A proposed trade would send Randle to the Chicago Bulls for guard Lonzo Ball and forward Jalen Smith.
This is a trade that gives Randle a fresh start on a team where he would be the top option offensively. For once in his career, he would be the star on a team. It would be interesting to see how he would perform.
In addition to that, it also gives Ball a fresh start now that he is back from injury. Because he appears healthy, a new chapter on a much more talented team could benefit him and take some pressure off. He is a great distributing point guard and could help move the ball and get more players involved in Minnesota. Also, he is one of the best point guards in the league on the fast break.
Smith would add more versatility to their frontcourt. His contract is a little more than the Wolves would probably like to take on, but he is another forward that is capable of contributing in the paint.
Overall, this trade helps both teams. It also gives two players in Randle and Ball a fresh start in two very different ways. It’s a transaction that has a high risk, but an even higher reward for both teams.
MORE WOLVES NEWS: Anthony Edwards fines, explained: Why Timberwolves star has been fined over $200,000 in 2024-25 season
The Minnesota Timberwolves and Chicago Bulls are reportedly in talks for a potential blockbuster trade that would see Julius Randle heading to the Windy City in exchange for the Bulls’ $80 million guard.Randle, who is currently playing for the New York Knicks, has been a standout player this season and would bring a strong presence in the frontcourt for the Bulls. On the other hand, the Timberwolves are looking to add some scoring punch to their lineup and the Bulls’ guard fits the bill.
While the deal is still in the negotiation stages, fans of both teams are buzzing with excitement at the prospect of this trade going through. Stay tuned for more updates as the situation develops.
Tags:
- Timberwolves trade news
- Julius Randle trade rumors
- Bulls guard trade rumors
- Proposed NBA trade deals
- Timberwolves blockbuster trade
- NBA trade rumors
- Julius Randle trade analysis
- Bulls $80 million guard trade
- Timberwolves roster shakeup
- NBA trade deadline rumors
#Timberwolves #swap #Julius #Randle #Bulls #million #guard #proposed #blockbuster #trade
