Siddaramaiah challenges Sitharaman’s claim on disbursal of recommended grants
In a robust response to the Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s denial of recommended grants for Karnataka, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah reiterated the state's demand for its rightful share as recommended by the 15th Finance Commission (15 FC).
Expressing deep concern over the Finance Ministry's refusal to acknowledge the recommended allocations, Siddaramaiah emphasized the significance of adhering to federal principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Addressing the issue through his social media platform, Siddaramaiah highlighted the interim report of the 15 FC for the fiscal year 2020-21, which sanctioned significant sums for Karnataka, Telangana, and Mizoram. He emphasized that these grants were not bestowed out of favoritism but to ensure equitable distribution among states, safeguarding against a decrease in their share of devolution compared to the previous year.
Siddaramaiah further shed light on the final report of the 15 FC, which recommended substantial funds for Karnataka, including allocations for water body revival and infrastructure projects like the Peripheral Ring Road for Bengaluru. However, he lamented the Ministry of Finance's rejection of these recommendations, thereby depriving Karnataka of its rightful share.
ALSO READ: FM Nirmala Sitharaman rubbishes Karnataka govt's claim of injustice in release of central grants
Stating that the state budget for essential expenditures for the five guarantees of the state government Siddaramaiah asserted that Karnataka's demand for its share was not a plea but a rightful assertion of its constitutional entitlement. He underscored the need for the central government to comprehend the essence of equitable distribution among states and fulfill its obligations accordingly.
“We are not asking for funds to our 5 Guarantees. We have adequate provision for those in our budget, thank you,” he said.
Contrary to Siddaramaiah's claims, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had earlier refuted allegations of withholding recommended grants for Karnataka. Dismissing the notion of any such recommendation by the 15 FC in its final report, Sitharaman maintained that Karnataka's claims of non-release of special grants were baseless. This rebuttal followed Karnataka's filing of a writ petition in the Supreme Court, seeking the immediate release of grants under the National Disaster Response Fund to address the state's severe drought conditions.
Sitharaman asserted that every due penny to Karnataka had been disbursed transparently. She provided statistical evidence, highlighting significant increases in tax devolution and grants-in-aid to Karnataka during the tenure of the current government. Sitharaman also referenced additional financial support extended to states post-COVID-19, including interest-free loans for infrastructure development, which Karnataka had reportedly received.
The Finance Minister had urged the state government to review the factual records and desist from misleading the public regarding fund allocation.
One expects the country’s Finance Minister to speak the truth. Unfortunately, she has been consistently denying the written word.
— Siddaramaiah (@siddaramaiah) March 24, 2024
The interim report of the 15 FC for 2020-21 sanctioned Rs 6764 crores for three states, viz Karnataka (Rs 5495 crores), Telangana (Rs 723 crores) &… pic.twitter.com/8kFhl70oo2
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Trump administration says its war in Iran has been 'terminated' before 60-day deadline
Washington (AP): The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.
The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's position, said for purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb 28 have terminated.” The official said the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.
While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran's oil tankers from getting out to sea.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president's military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorisation or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.
Democrats have pushed the administration for formal approval of the Iran war, and the 60-day mark would likely have been a turning point for a swath of Republican lawmakers who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.
“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said Sen Susan Collins, R-Maine, who voted Thursday in favour of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress hadn't given its approval. She added that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close."
Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said he has recommended to administration officials to simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called “Epic Passage,” a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.
That new mission, he said, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation.”
“That to me solves it all,” added Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.
During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth said it was the administration's “understanding” that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire.
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law.
“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.
Other presidents have argued that the military action they've taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Trump's war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ebright said, adding that lawmakers need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.
