Raw Story

The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page on Tuesday whacked President Donald Trump for handing Democrats what it said could be a winning campaign message in the 2026 midterm elections.

In particular, the Journal took aim at Trump for professing indifference to the price increases his tariffs are likely to inflict upon American consumers when he said that "I couldn’t care less" if car manufacturers raise prices in response to his tariffs. He further added, "I hope they raise their prices, because if they do, people are gonna buy American-made cars."

The Journal did not take kindly to this economic analysis on the president's part.

"Mr. Trump also ignores that U.S. car makers are also likely to raise their prices," the editors contended. "If Hyundai raises the price of an export model made in South Korea, then Ford and GM may at first try to capture market share. But over time the U.S firms would be foolish not to raise their prices to increase profits, perhaps by some margin less than the increase on imported cars. That’s what happened after Mr. Trump raised tariffs on washing machines in his first term. Washer prices rose nearly 12%, according to a 2019 study, and it didn’t matter where the machine was made."

ALSO READ: 'It's a bloodbath': Trump admin is now being sued by nearly half of U.S

The Journal then hammered Trump for bungling not just the economics but also the politics of tariffs.

"As a political matter, Mr. Trump’s 'I couldn’t care less' quote about price increases is likely to show up in Democratic campaign ads next year," the editors warned. "Polling shows most voters don’t think Mr. Trump is focusing enough on reducing prices—64% say not enough in the CBS News survey released Sunday. Mr. Trump won’t be on the ballot in 2026, but you can bet TV ads will link Republicans in Congress to Mr. Trump and those comments."

Read the full editorial here.

COLUMBIA — Legislation touted by GOP leaders as making South Carolina’s tax code appear more competitive would require most tax filers to pay more initially, according to an analysis by state fiscal experts.

Collapsing South Carolina’s tax brackets into a single flat tax rate of 3.99% in 2026 would reduce state revenues by $216.6 million overall.

But that’s done by broadening and shifting the tax burden: 19.4% of filers would owe less in spring 2027, while a whopping 59.4% of filers would owe more; 21.2% would experience no change, according to the fiscal impact report by the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office released ahead of Tuesday’s first hearing on the bill.

The analysis cautions against generalizing: “The impact on individual taxpayers varies widely within each range depending on the specific tax situation of each tax filer,” reads the seven-page summary signed by the office’s director, Frank Rainwater.

Still, the report provides hard estimates on how many South Carolina taxpayers will pay more versus less — and the extent of the swings per taxpayers’ income levels after all applicable deductions, exemptions and tax credits are applied to reduce their reported earnings.

Of the nearly 1.7 million tax filers expected to pay more in state income taxes under the plan, their increase for calendar year 2026 will average $560, with hikes ranging from $98 on the low end of income levels to over $10,000 for taxpayers reporting more than $1 million in adjusted income.

That compares to about 550,000 tax filers who would see an average decrease of $2,110.

Thanks to a new personal income deduction for low-income earners, several hundred people at the bottom end of the pay scale would see an average decrease of $3,700, while tens of thousands of people reporting $30,000 to $50,000 of income would see a dip of less than $40.

On the top end of the scale, roughly 9,900 tax filers reporting more than $1 million would see their income tax liability plummet by an average of $31,000.

More people would be contributing to state coffers.

Under the proposal, 23% of tax filers would still pay zero in state income taxes. But that compares to roughly 45% currently, according to the Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office.

“Everybody has to pay something — a little something, at least — to be a part of this great state of South Carolina,” Gov. Henry McMaster said last week when the plan was announced.

The new personal adjustment would provide a $6,000 deduction for single filers making up to $30,000, then provide some relief up to $40,000 of income. Married couples filing jointly could deduct $12,000 for incomes up to $60,000, with the deduction phasing out at $80,000.

Still, looking at South Carolinians reporting an adjusted gross income between zero and $40,000, nearly 714,400 tax filers will owe more, while fewer than 20,000 would pay less.

The plan accomplishes what Republicans have long wanted: a tax structure that looks to be among the nation’s lowest. Collapsing three tax brackets to 3.99% would make South Carolina’s flat tax rate the lowest in the Southeast, except for Florida and Tennessee, which don’t have a state income tax.

In 2022, the Legislature passed a law that phased in a tax cut of more than $1 billion, but it still left the top marginal rate as the highest in the Southeast this year at 6.2%. However, the effective rate — what tax filers actually pay — was among the nation’s lowest even before the 2022 law.

The bill promises to keep cutting the rate as revenue collections increase. For every year income tax projections rise by 5%, the bill would reduce revenue by another $200 million until the tax rate gets to 2.49%.

When and if that happens, then the bill would truly be a tax cut for the overwhelming majority of South Carolinians: More than 77% of tax filers would see a collective decrease in their income taxes of $2.5 billion, compared to tax year 2026; 23% would still see no change whatsoever, but no one would pay more.

How many years it would take to get to 2.49% would depend on the economy and income growth.

Advocates promise to make the Legislature’s ruling Republicans feel the pressure to pass the bill.

The state chapter of Americans for Prosperity announced last week plans to launch a “six figure campaign” urging legislators to approve the plan. The group’s marketing push will include mailings, as well as online and radio ads and an “unmatched grassroots presence” going door to door asking residents to call their legislators.

Nearly half the nation's states are suing U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the agency's sweeping cuts.

The attorneys general for 23 states and Washington, D.C., filed a suit Tuesday seeking a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief to immediately pause cuts to $12 billion in public health funding that they argued was unlawful and harmful, reported CNN.

“Slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos, and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state could lose more than $400 million in public health funding.

Kennedy said last week that 10,000 full-time employees would be cut in addition to thousands who have already left or probationary employees already on leave, saying the department could do more with less, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention imposed cuts Tuesday at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the Office of Smoking and Health, Violence Prevention division and HIV offices.

“It’s a bloodbath,” said one U.S. Food and Drug Administration employee.

The CDC pulled back about $11.4 billion in funding to states and community health departments during the Covid-19 pandemic, the HHS said it expects to recover that money in about 30 days.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago," the agency said in a statement. "HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President Trump’s mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again."

The coalition of attorneys general argued those funds were not limited to the Covid-19 response but was allocated as long-term support for the public health system, and they alleged that the administration undermined constitutional power of Congress by rescinding funds that had already been approved by the legislative branch.

Jason Stanley, a Yale University professor and author known for his expertise on the history of fascism, recently made a bombshell announcement: He is leaving the United States and moving to Canada.

Stanley, author of the 2018 book, "How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them," accepted a job offer at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. And he is being candid about his reasons for leaving the country: Stanley believes the U.S. is moving in an increasingly authoritarian direction during Donald Trump's second presidency.

The Yale scholar told the Daily Nous he wants "to raise my kids in a country that is not tilting towards a fascist dictatorship."

ALSO READ: 'Not much I can do': GOP senator gives up fight against Trump's tariffs

Stanley isn't the only well-known American who is making such a move. Actress Rosie O'Donnell, a liberal Trump critic, is now living in the Republic of Ireland — where she says she is "sleeping better."

Stanley discussed his move to Canada during a Monday morning, March 31 appearance on MSNBC, stressing that leaving the U.S. was not a decision he made lightly.

When MSNBC host Ana Cabrera asked Stanley why he doesn't stay in the U.S. and be part of the "pushback" against Trump policies he opposes, the Yale scholar/author responded, "I will continue to throw punches against fascism and bullies from Canada, don't worry. I have two Black and Jewish kids. I think my kids actually are more important to me than anything else…. And I want to send a political message, as I've been doing with my work."

Stanley added, "This comes at great personal cost…. I'm taking a huge salary cut. I'm not a super wealthy person. I'll still be well- paid, but I'm taking like a 25 percent salary cut and moving myself from my homeland that I love."

Stanley defended Yale during the interview, pointing out that his decision to leave the U.S. has nothing to with the Connecticut university. And he warned that Trump's threat to cut off Columbia's funding is historically dangerous.

"Yale has, to this extent, protected its scholars — unlike Columbia (University), who forced, for example, Katharine Frank, a prominent law professor, into early retirement," Stanley told Cabrera. "So, it has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with my children and my desire to send a warning to Americans that is consonant with the work I've been doing…. Never before has the federal government intervened to put a department into receivership, much less an excellent department like the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia University…. Needless to say, this crackdown, Columbia's capitulation to this, is a grave sign about the future of academic freedom in addition to, say, hauling people off the street and sending them to Louisiana prisons like they did at Tufts University for co-authoring op-eds in the student newspaper."

Stanley added that the Trump Administration will only escalate its tactics in the months ahead.

Stanley told Cabrera, "Right now, they're targeting non-citizens for writing in student newspapers. I suspect they'll start pulling people's passports, targeting U.S. citizens for various reasons, and exploiting Americans' ignorance generally…. They're trying to, and I fear they will succeed, in destroying America's higher education system — which is by far the best in the world.

Watch the full video below.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) laid into President Donald Trump's administration on CNN over the Signalgate scandal — and the broad unwillingness of his Republican colleagues in Congress to enforce accountability for top-level national defense and intelligence officials leaking war plans to a reporter in a group chat.

"Congressman, the White House says the case is closed on the Signal controversy. They clearly want to move on," said Anderson Cooper. "You've called for the ouster of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Is the case closed for you?"

"Absolutely not," said Moulton, a former Marine. "Because they've done nothing to show the American public and most importantly, our troops and intelligence professionals who risk their lives every day. They've done nothing to show that this will not happen again. This is a gross violation of the law, and it put American pilots in danger. It literally opened up where they will be and when over enemy targets, so that those enemies might have shot them down. And the Secretary of Defense needs to make it clear how this will not happen again, because he expects everyone under his command to follow the laws that he grossly violated."

ALSO READ: The new guy in charge of USAID doesn't believe in foreign aid

"The Wall Street Journal's reporting that Mike Waltz, National Security Adviser, has used Signal for other Cabinet-level discussions, according to the journal, including separate threads on how to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, as well as military operations," said Cooper. "I mean, what can you actually do? I mean, congressional investigations. Is that even possible?"

"It's certainly possible if our Republican colleagues weren't total cowards and unafraid ... to confront this administration," said Moulton. "This puts American lives at risk. The troops are in danger because of this behavior. And so it absolutely has to stop. And to be clear, there are two major laws that putting these Signal chats in service violate. The first is classified information. It's obvious that they're discussing classified materials, and this administration does not take government secrets seriously. But the second is these presidential records laws, where they have to maintain records of the decisions that they make."

"This administration just is so lawless, it just disregards those basic laws," he added. "And that's going to continue unless this is put to a stop."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

by Esteban ROJAS

President Donald Trump has revoked the licenses that allowed several transnational oil and gas companies to operate in Venezuela despite the country being under US sanctions.

After US energy giant Chevron, Washington has ordered a handful of other energy firms, including Spain's Repsol and France's Maurel & Prom, to cease operating in Venezuela.

ALSO READ: 'Came as a surprise to me': Senators 'troubled' by one aspect of government funding bill

Trump, who is seeking to force out authoritarian President Nicolas Maduro, has also announced plans for 25 percent tariffs on imports from any country buying Venezuelan oil and gas.

What's next for the struggling Caribbean country, which has the world's largest-known oil reserves but has become increasingly isolated since July 2024 elections that President Nicolas Maduro is accused of stealing?

- Will the oil stop flowing? -

In 2019, during his first term in office, Trump imposed an embargo on Venezuelan oil in response to 2018 elections that were already marred by fraud allegations.

Venezuela's state-owned PDVSA oil giant was in freefall at the time, beset by corruption scandals, mismanagement and a crippling lack of investment.

Oil output buckled under the weight of the sanctions, falling from around three million barrels per day at the start of the 2000s to below 400,000 b/d in 2020.

The sector recovered some ground after former US president Joe Biden in 2022 eased the sanctions in return for a promise by Maduro to allow fair elections.

Biden later reimposed most sanctions when it became clear that Maduro was not keeping his side of the bargain, but allowed Chevron to continue operations.

Today, Venezuela produces around 900,000 barrels per day of which Chevron contributes about 220,000, Repsol about 60,000, and Maurel & Prom between 20,000 and 25,000.

Washington has given Chevron and the other companies until May 27 to wind up their operations.

"PDVSA ...now has some operational capacity, although we don't know how big it is," Gilberto Morillo, PDVSA's former financial manager told AFP.

- Who will buy it? -

Even if PDVSA manages to keep pumping oil, finding a way to monetize it "is another matter," Morillo said, pointing to the threatened 25-percent US tariffs on countries that buy its crude.

In February, Venezuela exported approximately 500,000 barrels per day to China, 240,000 to the United States, and 70,000 to India and Spain.

In the past, sanctions forced PDVSA to discount the oil and to find partners to circumvent the sanctions.

Caracas also attempted to trade crude oil through a cryptocurrency scheme, which ended with then oil minister Tareck El Aissami being jailed for corruption in a case that cost the country more than $15 billion, according to media reports.

- What impact for the economy? -

The situation looks set to pile further misery on an economy already in tatters.

The price of dollars has soared on the black market as Venezuelans fear falling oil revenue will trigger another bout of hyperinflation and a return to the kind of deep recession the country experienced between 2014 and 2021.

The forced pullout of gas producers could also have an impact on the country's crumbling energy infrastructure, leading to more blackouts.

Repsol pointed out that 85 percent of its operations in Venezuela were related to the production of natural gas, which it warned "supports part of the electricity network."

The cancellation of the licenses will prevent PDVSA from using oil to pay the foreign energy companies for gas, as it had been doing, Morillo explained.

"If PDVSA can't pay them, then it generates a debt," he said.

But if the energy firms decide "ok, we'll close down and leave...they would lose their entire investment," he argued.