Democrats and Republicans both seized on a new report Monday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) laying out the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage to $15.

The CBO said that increasing the hourly wage from its current rate of $7.25 to $15 by 2025 could lead to the loss of 1.3 million jobs — giving Republicans their main talking point — while also lifting 1.3 million people out of poverty, a point Democrats hammered home.

Democrats also highlighted how an estimated 17 million workers would get an income boost if their Raise the Wage Act becomes law. The House is slated to vote on the measure in the coming days.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Democrats campaigned on a promise to lift wages, and I look forward to bringing the Raise the Wage Act to the Floor next week to make good on that promise,” House Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerDC delegate uses Fourth of July to press call for statehood Trump’s Independence Day salute: Five things to watch Would Alexander Hamilton approve of Trump’s July 4 speech? MORE (D-Md.) said in a statement Monday. “Americans who work hard deserve to afford a middle-class life and deserve opportunities to get ahead and help their children get ahead.”

Republicans instead highlighted the potential job losses.

“Today’s Congressional Budget Office report reaffirms that a $15 minimum wage would kill American jobs and harm Americans struggling to make ends meet,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyAmash criticizes Trump, Pelosi in first Sunday show appearance since leaving GOP Top GOP lawmakers allege House Democrats are less effective House Republicans line up on floor to call for unanimous consent on Senate border bill MORE (R-Calif.) said in a statement. “Today, Americans enjoy a booming economy, historically low unemployment, and notable wage growth. We must not jeopardize those gains through greater government control.”

The Democratic bill, which the GOP-controlled Senate is not expected to take up if it passes the House, would increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2024, eliminate tipped minimum wages, and tie the minimum wage to inflation. It would be the first increase in the federal minimum wage in a decade.

“For most low-wage workers, earnings and family income would increase, which would lift some families out of poverty. But other low-wage workers would become jobless, and their family income would fall—in some cases, below the poverty threshold,” the CBO said in its report.

But some Democrats also have raised concerns about the bill’s effects on jobs. Last year, a group of red-state Democrats led by Rep. Terri SewellTerrycina (Terri) Andrea SewellHow to fight the spread of voter suppression Centrist Democrats raise concerns over minimum wage push On The Money: House to vote on minimum wage this summer | Sanders doubles down on democratic socialism | May deficit surges | Democrat puts hold on Treasury nominees in fight over Trump tax returns MORE (D-Ala.) introduced a competing version of the minimum wage bill that would allow places with lower costs of living to raise minimum wages more slowly, an effort to avoid “shocking” their economies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

“I am concerned about the fact that $15 is an arbitrary number that means a lot more in certain parts of the country than it does another,” Rep. Dean PhillipsDean PhillipsUnglamorous rules change helps a big bill pass GOP hopes dim on reclaiming House The Hill’s 12:30 Report — Presented by MAPRx — Biden, Sanders to share stage at first DNC debate MORE (D-Minn.) told The Hill last month. Phillips won a district in 2018 that had long been held by Republicans.

Neither Sewell nor Phillips responded to requests for comment after the CBO report came out, but most supporters of the competing legislation have said they intend to vote for the Raise the Wage Act.

For other Democrats, though, the potential gains to low-income workers highlighted by the CBO were a rallying cry.

“The Congressional Budget Office’s report comes to a clear conclusion: The benefits of the Raise the Wage Act for America’s workers far outweigh any potential costs,” said Rep. Bobby ScottRobert (Bobby) Cortez ScottReparations bill gains traction in the House Top Trump health official warned against controversial ObamaCare changes in private memo Centrist Democrats raise concerns over minimum wage push MORE (D-Va.), who chairs the House Education and Labor Committee.

The CBO also said the benefits of the legislation could extend to 10 million workers who currently earn just above the minimum.

For proponents of a wage increase, the net effect of 1.3 million fewer people living in poverty is worth the trade-offs.

“At face value, the score proves $15 should be a no-brainer for Congress, with benefits far outweighing speculative job loss,” said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a left-leaning think tank, argued that the job losses in the CBO report are overstated, particularly when considering that some of them would come in the form of fewer hours, not total layoffs. That could mean an employee works fewer hours but still ends up getting paid more, they said.

“The crucial fact is that an employment decline as a result of a minimum wage increase doesn’t necessarily mean any worker is actually worse off,” EPI analyst Heidi Shierholz said.

But while the low end of CBO’s projection for job loss is zero, Republicans focused on the high end of the estimate.

Rep. Steve WomackStephen (Steve) Allen WomackCBO projects ‘unprecedented’ debt of 144 percent of GDP by 2049 Pelosi slated to deliver remarks during panel hearing on poverty Trump throws support behind ‘no brainer’ measure to ban burning of American flag MORE (R-Ark.), the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, said the CBO report “shows that imposing a 107-percent increase on the minimum wage could result in up to 3.7 million lost jobs.”

House Republican Whip Steve ScaliseStephen (Steve) Joseph ScaliseGOP senator presses Instagram, Facebook over alleged bias in content recommendations Democrats crush GOP to win annual baseball game Battle lines drawn for Mueller testimony MORE (R-La.) said the $15 target “was picked out of thin air and is not supported by any reasonable economic analysis.”

CBO said the higher wage also would function to redistribute income. While low-wage workers would benefit, seeing an $8 billion gain to real family income, higher-income families would see real income fall by $16 billion as business income dropped and consumer prices increased.

The conservative Job Creators Network argued it would be better for Congress to focus on increasing skills in the labor force to help fill open positions.

“Instead of pursuing a $15 minimum wage that will reduce employment opportunities and real family income, lawmakers should be fighting for $50,000 careers by addressing the skills gap,” the group said.

Inconvenient for both sides, however, was CBO’s level of uncertainty surrounding the issue.

“Many studies have found little or no effect of minimum wages on employment, but many others have found substantial reductions in employment,” the report said.

Updated at 6:21 p.m.

Marijuana use among teens dropped in states that legalized the substance’s recreational use, according to research published Monday.

Laws that legalized recreational marijuana, which have been passed in 10 states and Washington, D.C., were associated with an 8 percent drop in the number of high schoolers who said they used marijuana in the last 30 days, and a 9 percent drop in the number who said they’d used it at least 10 times in the last 30 days, according to the study published in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers did not find a statistical link between medical marijuana laws and changes in youth usage.

“Just to be clear, we found no effect on teen use following legalization for medical purposes, but evidence of a possible reduction in use following legalization for recreational purposes,” Mark Anderson, an associate professor at Montana State University who worked on the research, told CNN.

“Because our study is based on more policy variation than prior work, we view our estimates as the most credible to date in the literature,” he said.

The researchers analyzed data from 1993 to 2017 on about 1.4 million high school students in the United States from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s annual national Youth Risk Behavior Surveys.

They found an association, not a causal relationship.

“Because many recreational marijuana laws have been passed so recently, we do observe limited post-treatment data for some of these states,” Anderson added to CNN. “In a few years, it would make sense to update our estimates as more data become available.” 

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday asked a federal appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Democratic lawmakers alleging President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe ambassador’s cables and the Tory election Trump to give speech on ‘America’s environmental leadership’ NY governor signs bill allowing Congress to obtain Trump’s state tax returns MORE has violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

In a filing to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Department attorneys asked the higher court to either dismiss the lawsuit or review a district judge’s rulings allowing the lawsuit to advance. They also asked that the appeals court halt lower court proceedings in the lawsuit while it considers this latest request.

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled last month that the lawsuit can advance, rejecting the administration’s request that he allow the appeals court to review his prior orders in favor of the lawsuit.

ADVERTISEMENT

Monday’s filing argues that the Democrats’ lawsuit “rests on a host of novel and flawed constitutional premises” and that it would “entail intrusive discovery into the President’s personal financial affairs on account of his federal office.”

“Despite this remarkable complaint, the district court treated this case as a run-of-the-mill commercial dispute,” the DOJ stated.

The government attorneys further claimed that, by allowing the lawsuit to move forward, “the court ignored the unique separation-of-powers concerns posed by discovery in a case against the President in his official capacity.”

The Democrats suing Trump have argued that discovery in the case would center around his private businesses, and wouldn’t interfere with the president’s ability to carry out his duties — an argument Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, sided with in his order last month.

Sullivan wrote at the time that “the President has failed to meet his burden of establishing ‘that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.’ ”

Trump has frequently sought to stop lawmakers and others from obtaining documents pertaining to his personal finances. He has twice sued, in his personal capacity, House Democrats to try to block congressional subpoenas for his records from private financial institutions.

A pair of district judges have ruled in favor of lawmakers so far, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on Friday in an appeal of a subpoena to the accounting firm Mazars.

The DOJ’s filing to the appeals court on Monday reiterates the lawyers’ past arguments that the lawmakers don’t have the authority to sue the president.

Sullivan has previously ruled that members of Congress could sue over Trump’s alleged violation of the Emoluments Clause.

He wrote in a ruling earlier this year that the lawmakers are alleging ”that they have been deprived of the right to vote to consent to the President’s receipt of foreign Emoluments before he accepts them.”

The Democrats claim that Trump is continuing to profit from his private businesses’ operations in foreign countries while he is in office, in violation of the Constitution, which states that Congress must vote on whether a president can accept gifts from foreign governments.

The DOJ has pushed back, arguing that the president hasn’t violated the Constitution. They say the courts should side with their interpretation of the clause, which they argue doesn’t apply to commercial transactions.

Sen. Marsha BlackburnMarsha BlackburnThe price of privacy on the Potomac Senate GOP raises concerns about White House stopgap plan to avoid shutdown 2020 Democrats accelerate push for action to secure elections MORE (R-Tenn.) on Sunday accused China of building a “spy network” through the use of telecommunications group Huawei around the world and said it would be dangerous to allow Huawei access to U.S. fifth generation (5G) wireless networks. 

“We do not need to let Huawei get into building out these 5G networks, not for us and not for any of our allies because of the dangers there,” Blackburn said while appearing on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”  

ADVERTISEMENT

She added, “China is building a spy network, they want to win the cyber war, and what we have to do is continue to say to them, you cannot empower Huawei, which is state-run, regardless of what they say, we know it is state-run, and it is their mechanism for spying.” 

Huawei has been in the spotlight over the past few months after the Commerce Department added the company to its “entity list” in May, citing national security concerns. U.S. companies are banned from doing business with companies included on that list.

The agency put in place a 90-day extension before Huawei is formally added to the list to allow American companies time to adjust. 

However, that move was thrown into question last week following President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe ambassador’s cables and the Tory election Trump to give speech on ‘America’s environmental leadership’ NY governor signs bill allowing Congress to obtain Trump’s state tax returns MORE’s announcement at the Group of 20 summit in Japan that he would allow U.S. companies to sell equipment to Huawei. Trump added that “we’re talking about equipment where there’s no great national security problem with it.”

This announcement sparked a wave of bipartisan pushback, with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamJuan Williams: GOP discontent with Trump goes public Meet the key Senate player in GOP fight over Saudi Arabia The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden looks to rebound after tough week MORE (R-S.C.) saying that “there will be a lot of pushback” from both sides of the aisle if Huawei is used as a concession in trade talks. 

Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioJuan Williams: GOP discontent with Trump goes public Tim Scott leading effort to recruit minority conservative candidates Five things to know about Iran’s breaches of the nuclear deal MORE (R-Fla.) vowed to introduce legislation to keep Huawei on the entity list if Trump removes it, while Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerSusan Collins says she doesn’t regret Kavanaugh vote ‘in the least’ The national security risk no one is talking about GOP senator presses Instagram, Facebook over alleged bias in content recommendations MORE (D-N.Y.) said Trump’s move in favor of Huawei could “dramatically undercut our ability to change China’s unfair trade practices.”

Blackburn on Sunday added to this chorus, saying American companies that continue to sell to Huawei “need to stop that.”

“Huawei is building out a network that is embedded with spyware, and it doesn’t matter if it is financial data, if it is artificial intelligence or autonomous vehicle networks, why would you give them the ability to shut down those networks?” Blackburn said. “So no, let’s eliminate them from our networks.”

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

British far-right activist Tommy Robinson begged President TrumpDonald John TrumpGraham open to investigating Acosta-Epstein plea deal Sustaining progress with Mexico on migration Government to issue licenses for business with Huawei MORE to grant him political asylum in light of his conviction in a contempt of court case. 

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, made his case for asylum on Monday on the far-right talk show of conspiracy theorist and Infowars founder Alex Jones.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I feel like I’m two days away from being sentenced to death in the U.K. for journalism,” the co-founder of the English Defense League said on “The Alex Jones Show,” according to videos posted online. “Today, I am calling on the help of Donald Trump, his administration and the Republican Party to grant me and my family political asylum in the United States of America.”

“I beg Donald Trump, I beg the American government, to look at my case. I need evacuation from this country because dark forces are at work,” he added. 

Robinson later claimed British prisons are “controlled by jihadi gangs” and that he would be killed if he ended up in jail. 

Robinson was found in contempt of court last week for livestreaming defendants in a 2018 criminal trial. The footage, which was released on social media while the jury was still deliberating, revealed the identities of defendants who had been accused of sexually exploiting young girls. 

Two judges found Robinson, 36, in violation of a reporting ban connected to the case. 

The far-right activist was initially jailed for 13 months after filming the livestreams outside a courthouse in Leeds, England, Reuters reported. He was later released after a successful appeal.

Click Here: bape jacket cheap

However, the appeals court ordered a rehearing, and Attorney General Geoffrey Cox launched contempt proceedings. Sky News noted that Robinson is set to face sentencing on Thursday. The maximum sentence for contempt of court is two years in prison. 

“Posting material online that breaches reporting restrictions or risks prejudicing legal proceedings is a very serious matter and this is reflected in the Court’s decision today,” Cox said in a statement.

Robinson has repeatedly sparked controversy over his conduct. Facebook banned him from its platforms in February over anti-Muslim content the company said “has repeatedly broken” anti-hate speech standards. 

Commerce Secretary Wilbur RossWilbur Louis RossGovernment to issue licenses for business with Huawei Pelosi: House will ‘soon’ vote on contempt for Barr, Ross over census docs Pelosi: Census citizenship question is effort to ‘make America white again’ MORE said Tuesday that his department will issue licenses to U.S. companies to sell products to Chinese telecommunications group Huawei in cases where there is no national security risk.

As first reported by Reuters, Ross said that Huawei, which U.S. experts view with suspicion over its reported ties to the Chinese government, will stay on the Commerce Department’s “entity list.” U.S. companies are banned from selling to companies on that list, to which Huawei was added in May due to national security concerns.

ADVERTISEMENT

Commerce had issued a 90-day extension on the company being formally added to give U.S. companies time to adjust. 

However, President TrumpDonald John TrumpGraham open to investigating Acosta-Epstein plea deal Sustaining progress with Mexico on migration Government to issue licenses for business with Huawei MORE threw the issue into question last month when he announced at the Group of 20 (G-20) summit in Japan that U.S. companies would be allowed to sell equipment to Huawei if there were no national security concerns involved.

Ross confirmed this approach on Tuesday, saying at a Commerce event that “to implement the president’s G-20 summit directive two weeks ago, Commerce will issue licenses where there is no threat to U.S. national security.”

Ross noted that “within those confines, we will try to make sure that we don’t just transfer revenue from the U.S. to foreign firms.”

Click Here: bape jacket cheap

Trump’s comments prompted bipartisan criticism. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGraham open to investigating Acosta-Epstein plea deal Government to issue licenses for business with Huawei Blackburn says China building ‘spy network’ through Huawei technology MORE (R-S.C.) previously said that “there will be a lot of pushback” from both sides of the aisle if Huawei is used as a concession in trade talks with Beijing, while Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioGovernment to issue licenses for business with Huawei Hillicon Valley: Critics push FTC to get tough on YouTube | Analysts expect regulatory trouble for Facebook’s cryptocurrency | Senators to get election security briefing | FBI, ICE reportedly using driver’s license photos for facial recognition Blackburn says China building ‘spy network’ through Huawei technology MORE (R-Fla.) vowed to introduce legislation to keep Huawei on the entity list if Trump removed it.

Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerSenate Democrats launching digital ads against GOP senators on ObamaCare lawsuit Susan Collins says she doesn’t regret Kavanaugh vote ‘in the least’ The national security risk no one is talking about MORE (D-N.Y.) said Trump’s move in favor of Huawei could “dramatically undercut our ability to change China’s unfair trade practices.”

On Sunday, Sen. Marsha BlackburnMarsha BlackburnGovernment to issue licenses for business with Huawei Blackburn says China building ‘spy network’ through Huawei technology The price of privacy on the Potomac MORE (R-Tenn.) railed against the national security concerns involving Huawei, saying on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that “China is building a spy network, they want to win the cyber war, and what we have to do is continue to say to them, you cannot empower Huawei.”

“In good faith, President Trump has indicated that with respect to Huawei, for example, we will allow private sector transactions, wires to Huawei, except under any conditions related to national security,” top White House economic adviser Larry KudlowLawrence (Larry) Alan KudlowMORE said at an CNBC event in Washington Tuesday.

Kudlow said that while Huawei remains on the enemies list and the U.S. government would not purchase Huawei parts or components, the private sector would be more open.

“In respect to the private market, I call it general merchandise, we’ve opened the door and relaxed a bit the licensing requirements for the commerce department, where there are no national security influences or consequences,” he said.

Kudlow also said there was no timeline for securing a promised purchase of U.S. agricultural goods from China, which was part of the deal to reopen trade negotiations and secure the relaxation on Huawei. The Trump administration could reverse course on the Huawei decision if China fails to follow through, or trade talks hit a new road bump.

A spokesperson for Huawei did not immediately respond to request for comment on this story. The spokesperson previously told The Hill following Trump’s G-20 announcement that “we acknowledge President Trump’s comments related to Huawei over the weekend and have nothing further to add at this time.”

Instagram will start notifying users their comments may be offensive before they are posted in an effort to curb cyber bullying.

The company said Monday it started rolling out the artificial intelligence feature in the past few days. 

In an example included in the company release, Instagram shows a user trying to comment “You are so ugly and stupid.” Instagram follows up with a message asking the user “Are you sure you want to post this?” with an “undo” button.

ADVERTISEMENT

“From early tests of this feature, we have found that it encourages some people to undo their comment and share something less hurtful once they have had a chance to reflect,” Instagram said. 

To further help protect users from unwanted interactions, Instagram said it will start testing a new “restrict” feature.

Restricting a user will make it so the user’s comments are only visible to that person; a user will be able to choose whether or not to make that the restricted person’s comments available to others by approving them. 

Restricted users also will not be able to see when an account is active or when a person has read their direct messages. 

The goal is to allow users a mechanism other than blocking or unfollowing accounts, which young users said could escalate situations, according to Instagram. 

Click Here: watford fc shirt

Britain’s trade minister will reportedly apologize to President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe ambassador’s cables and the Tory election Trump to give speech on ‘America’s environmental leadership’ NY governor signs bill allowing Congress to obtain Trump’s state tax returns MORE’s daughter and senior White House adviser Ivanka TrumpIvana (Ivanka) Marie TrumpBritish government searching for source of leaked cables criticizing Trump British trade minister to apologize to Ivanka Trump over leaked cables Here are the top paid White House staffers MORE after leaked memos revealed a British ambassador describing the administration as “dysfunctional” and “inept.”

The memos from British Ambassador to the U.S. Kim Darroch, leaked over the weekend to a British newspaper, showed that he made disparaging remarks about President Trump in a series of official diplomatic cables dating back to 2017.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: highlanders rugby gear world

Reuters reports that British trade minister Liam Fox said he will apologize on behalf of the British government in person to Ivanka Trump during his current visit to Washington.

“I will be apologizing for the fact that either our civil service or elements of our political class have not lived up to the expectations that either we have or the United States has about their behavior, which in this particular case has lapsed in a most extraordinary and unacceptable way,” Fox said on BBC radio.

He added that “malicious leaks” such as the one that exposed Darroch’s remarks “can actually lead to damage to that relationship, which can therefore affect our wider security interest.”

Darroch, in the leaked comments, was highly critical of what he called instability in the Trump administration.

“We don’t really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept,” Darroch wrote in one memo.

It is unclear if the leaked cables mentioned Ivanka Trump specifically.

A spokesperson for the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office defended Darroch on Saturday in a statement.

“Their views are not necessarily the views of ministers or indeed the government. But we pay them to be candid. Just as the U.S. Ambassador here will send back his reading of Westminster politics and personalities,” the statement read.

The president on Sunday responded to the reports of Darroch’s remarks, telling reporters that “we are not big fans of that man and he has not served the U.K. well, so I can understand and I can say things about him but I won’t bother,” according to Reuters.

Happy Monday and welcome back to On The Money, where we are no longer accepting Eric Swalwell puns. I’m Sylvan Lane, and here’s your nightly guide to everything affecting your bills, bank account and bottom line.

See something I missed? Let me know at slane@thehill.com or tweet me @SylvanLane. And if you like your newsletter, you can subscribe to it here: http://bit.ly/1NxxW2N.

Write us with tips, suggestions and news: slane@thehill.com, njagoda@thehill.com and nelis@thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @SylvanLane, @NJagoda and @NivElis.

 

THE BIG DEAL–CBO finds $15 minimum wage would help 17M, but cost over 1M jobs: Raising the minimum wage from its current $7.25 an hour to $15 by 2025 would give 17 million people a raise and lift 1.3 million out of poverty, according to a study released Monday by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

But it could also eliminate jobs for 1.3 million workers in the same period.

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia

“For most low-wage workers, earnings and family income would increase, which would lift some families out of poverty. But other low-wage workers would become jobless, and their family income would fall–in some cases, below the poverty threshold,” the report said.

ADVERTISEMENT

The politics: The study comes a week ahead of a planned House vote on a bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2024, the first such increase in a decade.

The report’s findings also track with partisan arguments. Democrats largely promote the view that a higher minimum will help reduce poverty and boost wages. Republicans generally highlight the findings that higher minimums kill jobs.

But lots of uncertainty: The CBO study noted that a range of outcomes were possible.

“There is considerable uncertainty about the responsiveness of employment to an increase in the minimum wage,” the report noted.

The literature on how minimum wage affects employment varies widely, making it difficult to pinpoint the outcome.

“Many studies have found little or no effect of minimum wages on employment, but many others have found substantial reductions in employment,” the report noted.

The Hill’s Niv Elis breaks down the numbers and what the report means for lawmakers.

 

LEADING THE DAY

Debt ceiling deadline could hit in early September: The U.S. government could default on its debt in early September if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling before then, according to a new study from the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) set to be released Monday.

“We now see a significant risk that the ‘X date’ could arrive in the first half of September,” said Shai Akabas, BPC’s director of economic policy.

• The U.S. officially hit its debt limit earlier this year, but the Treasury Department has been using what are known as “extraordinary measures” that allow it to borrow internally in ways that do not count toward the debt. 

• When those measures run out, the government will no longer be able to pay all its bills and would default, a move that would almost certainly trigger chaos in global financial markets.

Though BPC still projects the deadlines is more likely to land in October, just the possibility of it hitting in September raises considerable political stakes. The Hill’s Niv Elis explains here.  

 

NY governor signs bill allowing Congress to obtain Trump’s state tax returns: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) on Monday signed legislation that would allow Congress to obtain President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe ambassador’s cables and the Tory election Trump to give speech on ‘America’s environmental leadership’ NY governor signs bill allowing Congress to obtain Trump’s state tax returns MORE‘s state tax returns.

“This bill gives Congress the ability to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities, strengthen our democratic system and ensure that no one is above the law,” Cuomo said in a statement.

The bill signing comes after the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Richard NealRichard Edmund NealNY governor signs bill allowing Congress to obtain Trump’s state tax returns Setting the record straight about America’s multiemployer pension crisis Here are the key figures subpoenaed by Democrats in Trump probes MORE (D-Mass.), filed a lawsuit last week in order to obtain Trump’s federal tax returns from 2013 to 2018.

The catch: Neal has indicated that he may not seek Trump’s New York state returns.

The chairman said he wants to examine Trump’s federal tax returns because the House panel is interested in oversight and legislation related to how the IRS audits presidents.

“We don’t have control over state taxes,” he told reporters in May.

• The state tax returns have to be requested in relation to a legitimate task of Congress, and lawmakers can only request them if they’ve requested related federal tax returns from the U.S. Treasury Department. 

• Information in state tax returns that would violate federal or state law if disclosed, and certain personal information such as Social Security numbers would be redacted.

 

Hopes dim for passage of Trump trade deal: House Democrats say there’s little to no chance that Congress will take up President Trump’s replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) before the end of summer. 

With only three more weeks scheduled to be in session before the August recess, House Democrats from across the spectrum are demanding that the trade pact with Mexico and Canada be renegotiated, citing concerns with the implications for labor and environmental standards as well as drug prices. 

But House Democrats say that the idea of getting the trade deal done by the end of the summer session is all but out of reach.

“I don’t see how that happens in three weeks,” said Rep. Earl BlumenauerEarl BlumenauerHopes dim for passage of Trump trade deal Democrats give Trump trade chief high marks On The Money: S&P hits record as stocks rally on Fed cut hopes | Facebook’s new cryptocurrency raises red flags for critics | Internal IRS watchdog rips agency’s taxpayer service | Apple seeks tariff relief MORE (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee. The Hill’s Cristina Marco tells us why.

• Passing the USMCA would be a major legislative accomplishment for Trump as he campaigns for reelection next year. Despite their eagerness to see Trump out of office, Democrats say they want to replace the existing North American trade agreement.

• But the Trump administration, as well as the Canadian and Mexican governments, have been resistant to reopening the negotiations. Mexico became the first country to ratify the agreement last month, while Canada has yet to do so amid the uncertainty in the U.S.

 

GOOD TO KNOW

• Centrist Democrats on Monday warned the Trump administration against attempting to force a congressional vote on an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

• Facebook may reap steady profits from its foray into cryptocurrency, but its ambitions may be curtailed by intense and costly scrutiny from bank and financial market lenders, according to a Fitch Ratings analysis.

• From the weekend: How a sunny June jobs report gives a jolt to Trump’s re-election campaign

 

ODDS AND ENDS

• Congress is cranking up the pressure on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to draft rules to regulate cannabis-based products. 

• Sens. Gary PetersGary Charles PetersHillicon Valley: Harris spikes in Google searches after debate clash with Biden | Second US city blocks facial recognition | Apple said to be moving Mac Pro production from US to China | Bipartisan Senate bill takes aim at ‘deepfake’ videos Senators unveil bipartisan bill to target ‘deepfake’ video threat Democrats leery of Sanders plan to cancel student loan debt MORE (D-Mich.) and Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioJuan Williams: GOP discontent with Trump goes public Tim Scott leading effort to recruit minority conservative candidates Five things to know about Iran’s breaches of the nuclear deal MORE (R-Fla.) introduced legislation Monday designed to protect small businesses from cyber attacks by making it easier for these companies to access the tools to protect themselves. 

A federal judge on Monday sided with a coalition of drug companies and blocked the Trump administration from implementing a policy that would require prescription drug manufacturers to disclose list prices in TV ads.

The pharmaceutical companies — Amgen, Merck, and Eli Lilly — were joined in the lawsuit by the Association of National Advertisers. The rule was scheduled to take effect Tuesday. 

 

U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta in Washington, D.C., agreed with the drug companies that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) does not have the authority to compel drug companies to disclose prices.

ADVERTISEMENT

“To be clear, the court does not question HHS’s motives in adopting the [rule],” Mehta wrote. “Nor does it take any view on the wisdom of requiring drug companies to disclose prices. That policy very well could be an effective tool in halting the rising cost of prescription drugs. But no matter how vexing the problem of spiraling drug costs may be, HHS cannot do more than what Congress has authorized. The responsibility rests with Congress to act in the first instance.”

Under the rule, which was announced by HHS Secretary Alex Azar in May, drug manufacturers would have to state the list price of a 30-day supply of any drug that is covered through Medicare and Medicaid and costs at least $35 a month.

Azar argued that forcing drugmakers to disclose their prices in direct-to-consumer TV advertising could shame companies into lowering their prices. In announcing the rule, Azar said there’s no reason patients should be kept in the dark about the full prices of the products they’re being sold.

“Patients have a right to know, and if you’re ashamed of your drug prices, change your drug prices. It’s that simple,” Azar said in May when the administration announced the final rule.

Drug companies fought the rule from the start, arguing it would confuse consumers because a drug’s list price — which doesn’t reflect the discounts negotiated with insurers or through patient assistance programs — is often higher than what the patient actually pays.

PhRMA, the nation’s top drug lobby, wants its members to disclose pricing on separate websites.

The companies also argued that the rule violates their First Amendment rights. However, Mehta’s ruling noted that because the agency did not have the authority to issue the rule in the first place, the First Amendment claim was not valid.   

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia